User talk:Vassyana

My internet access is still a bit sporadic at the moment, with an occasionally slow connection (and a sometimes dropped connection). The utility folks are currently repairing the issue, but I may still have some continuing net issues. 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Word of the day
Treeware. noun. /'triwɛər/.
An antediluvian method of publishing information on a portable medium created from processed arboreal macerate, often with decorative covers glossed by petrochemical solids.

"Reginald went to the athenaeum to peruse treeware with the assistance of an informatics professional."

---

Thought of the day: I am seriously and vastly disturbed by the proposals for increased bureaucracy and centralized committees flying about Wikipedia recently. I strongly oppose any such change, and will depart the community if it takes this well-meaning but vastly wrong-headed turn (as it is directly contradictory to the community I joined). It is a solution to a problem that only exacerbates the problem. The problems are being caused by rigid interpretations of the rules and excessive bureaucratic sprawl. Adding more of the same is not a solution, it's masochistic and foolish. 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Help me out.

• Take a look over History of early Christianity and Apostolic Age and provide some feedback on the talk pages. Thanks! 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.

---

• Talk Page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Refs reorganised

Hi Vassyana, I've Harvardised the main refs in Osho. Do you reckon it's good enough now to pass muster? --Jayen466 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it and post to the article talk with anything I think either excels or needs some work. Vassyana (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada FAC nomination

I am sorry about your injury and hope that it is healed enough for you to do what you want to do. :) I hope your are allright to have a peek at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anekantavada. I am trying to assume good faith, but somehow certain objections raised seem to a bit frivolous even after giving proper explanation. I hope you can chip in something. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns about the reliability of the portion of Jain World used. It's part of a collection of stories that lacks any indication of the author or source. If the story is noteworthy to the topic, surely some other clearly reliable source has used it as an example?

On another note, there seems to be an inordinate number of quotations in the article. In general, quotes should be used sparingly to illustrate (for the reader's benefit) what is being said in the article or in the rare case when a quotation would provide greater clarity to the article. Vassyana (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have addressed the concerns. I have removed the Jainworld reference all together. The quotations aspect has been addresed by making the smaller quotations as part of prose. I hope you find the article worthy of featured status--Anish (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still very uncomfortable with the number of quotations used, but I wouldn't oppose the article's promotion. I admire the hard work you've invested. Vassyana (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It now a featured article....the nomination and review process was very rigorous and stressful, but worth it and productive after all the unproductive edits wars over Indian religion page. However, I need your help once again. One anon IP is making edits on Indian religions page and adding some material that all Indian religions are offshoots of Hinduism. This is contrary to the consensus with IAF. The IP is refuisng to have a peek on the talk pages and have a debate. I have reverted him twice, but he is insisting on adding his stuff. Can you check out the page?--Anish (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. I just want to remind you of the mediation case concerning Fatimah. Hopefully, you could help us end the dispute soon. En Ne talk 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading to a university library over this coming weekend to find sources for a few things, including the disputed material in Fatima's article. Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, please be aware of developments on AN/I here, which notes that User:Enforcing Neutrality has been indef blocked. I have withdrawn from mediation on this basis, as nobody other than EN was involved in the dispute: other editors who reviewed the cases were in basic agreement over the inadequacy of the sources. While more sources may be beneficial for the section (although the Encyclopedia of Islam's coverage of the issue is probably sufficient), it isn't something that requires either page protection or formal mediation. Regards, ITAQALLAH 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. Thank you for notifying me of the updated situation. I will still keep the issue on my search for sources list and if I find anything solid or worthwhile, I'll let you know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sirjoh

Yep, clearly the same user. He was indef-blocked 19 months ago after waging a rather bizarre campaign on Indigenous Australians, trying to get cannibalism added to the article even though all the sources he had for it were more than 70 years old and most of them have been discredited. He's also been adding information suggesting or promoting the idea that the Aboriginals are a dying race, which has not been mainstream in Australia since the 1950s and is arguably disputed by Census figures. His odd campaigning extends into other trigger issues for the far-right in Australia such as Flag of Australia, Australian flag debate, Republicanism in Australia, Australian republic referendum, 1999, Eureka Flag, Eureka Stockade and anything to do with Aboriginals. Essentially he routinely abuses WP:UNDUE, WP:TALK and WP:NPA, adding reams of stuff to talk pages and highly contentious stuff to articles. We all thought he was gone until some odd stuff on my watchlist revealed some odd activity on the republic articles which then led to discovering the rest. Most of his editing is from IPs, relating either to Bigpond (a very large Australian ISP) or Uni of Newcastle. "Sir Joh", by the way, would relate to Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the right wing Premier of Queensland from 1968 to 1986, who's something of a folk hero for people of that persuasion. Orderinchaos 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GEC Conspiracy theory

Hi, I've submitted this article to AfD, quoting your prod reason. I hope that's ok with you. All the best, Verbal chat 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Co-ordinators

Hi,

I'm wondering what sort of work you do as a MedCab Co-ordinator? cheers   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MedCab is quite informal, and the coordinator position is no exception. There are no defined or specifically expected duties. Generally, I offer advice to volunteers, keep an eye on some cases, ask around for additional volunteers when we need it, and so on. Vassyana (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if...

Hi Vassyana, I wonder if you could take a look at Ronald Reagan, where a dispute between myself and another editor, User:Jimmuldrow, is starting to get out of hand. Here is the page history and three chronological discussions, starting with Talk:Ronald_Reagan#FAR. Here's the general lowdown:

1. On July 30, User:Jimmuldrow inserted a section desribing Reagan's "environmental policies"
2. I reverted, citing the fact that this article is about Ronald Reagan the man, not entirely about Reagan's presidency, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:SS, but I encouraged the user to place a NPOV paragraph related to this subject into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, a subarticle.
3. The user reverted my edit, saying, "Why talk about Reagan's Presidency but not his policies? If I left out more positive environmental stuff, add facts in instead of removing facts with references."
4. User:SandyGeorgia reverted that edit saying, "Discuss on talk, marginally related to Reagan, likely belongs elsewhere"
5. Jimmuldrow then nominated the article for a featured article review, and created a talk page discussion (under his IP address, later signed properly).
6. On July 31, Many discussions took place, including those at the talk page and the FAR. At both, I outlined my reasons for opposing the insertion of this full paragraph and closing the FAR. The FAR was quickly closed by User:Marskell.
7. Following the closure of the FAR, Jimmuldrow inserted a very similar paragraph to the first one.
8. I shortened down the paragraph, placed it in another paragraph (still getting the general idea across to the reader), thanked Jimmuldrow for his attempts to include necessary context but again encouraged him to place the full paragraph in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration per WP:SS.
9. The user began a talk page section and reverted me in article space.
10. I responded on the talk page and proposed re-implementing this per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE. I did not revert in article space.
11. After two days without a response from Jimmuldrow, I implemented my proposal. He reverted just over an hour after I put in, saying, "this is closer to what the cited references say".
12. I did not revert him, but commented at the talk page.
13. The following day, Jimmuldrow responded, asking a question regarding WP:WEIGHT.
14. I responded, answering his question in the hopes that we can reach an understanding.
15. Following my answer, he cut out one sentence but apparently some non-NPOV language that we had previously taken out is back. The new paragraph is about Social Security and the environment, two unrelated ideas as well, which I've expressed in my latest comment at the talk page discussion.

So it seems we have made a little progress, but still appear to be engaged in a stalemate. Sorry about the long list, but as a member of MedCab, any comments would be appreciated. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to some personal preconceptions, it would be better if I did not personally become involved. However, with your permission, I will gladly open a MedCab request for you. It might be wise to request a third opinion first, to see if an uninvolved view might help resolve the dispute (I could also file the request for you there if you would like). Just let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Well I think things are going better, but if they turn around I may go for that MedCab. I don't think it is necessary at this time, though. But thank you :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Vassyana, would you we willing to take a look at this article? El C has just protected it, which I think justified. The subject of the article admittedly represents a minority view, but it has been subject to treatment to make it appear it is a fringe theory; and it has been taken to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard and there has been an AfD too. Perhaps I am misjudging the situation. I would appreciate it if you could review the article, and the editing situation, because I think an outside view would help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I owe another religious article a review, but after I complete that, I would be happy to look over it and offer some advice/help as I can. Vassyana (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance to look at this article, perhaps you can evaluate statements of Malcolm's such as [1]. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I asked for Vassyana's opinion because I think he is fair. If he thinks I am in the wrong I will stop editing that article. The COI, in the sense I used it, could apply to anyone, including me. It was not intended as an insult. Also, I think that if everyone was just a little less sure about being right, it would be easier to edit the article. Sorry if I offended you though....that was not my intention. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I will comment later this evening. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: original research in Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi

Vassyana, I know you opined on this a few weeks back, but I just learned of this thread a few hours ago. Would you mind revisiting this discussion in WP:NOR/N? I have added some more information, which includes Casteau's decision to completely delete the passage in question. (You can take your time over this: I'll be offline tomorrow & Wednesday due to personal business.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but inasmuch that no one has responded to my latest comment at WP:NOR/N (except Yom, who might be considered biased), should I consider the matter closed & despite everything I wrote C. is in the right about this matter? -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No bother at all! Yom's response seems fairly appropriate and more or less approximates my own opinion. The matter is closed IMO, as the original concern was addressed and there seems to be a clear way forward. Vassyana (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations

Hi,

Waaaaayyy back in March you removed info about the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria allegations. They were replaced a couple weeks later. I've no familiarity with the case, but I wonder if they're appropriate to be included. References were added at the same time as the replacement, but I don't know if they're appropriate and reliable. Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a case that makes no assertion to being an SRA case. I removed it and another that similarly lacks SRA elements. Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. WLU (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3O at Talk:Toyota Prius

Hi Vassyana, thanks for your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Toyota Prius#Third opinion. I have replied to it there, and I wondered if you would like to make any further comments. Best regards, -- de Facto (talk). 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 History of the Jews in Poland

Hi,

This case is starting to get out of hand, what makes it worse is the other mediator has effectivly bailed out due to ISP issues. I would like someone with experiance, perhaps a member of the mediation commitie to sit in on this one because this is proving a real headache. Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC) (I have put this notice on the other co-ordinators page also)

I'm asking around to see what assistance I can find. Do you think that a formal RfM may be in order? Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

You previously helped with some editing disputes at Patrick T. McHenry. I've tried the BLP noticeboard, requesting a third opinion--and so far no response. I know admins are busy though. Here are the links where I've tried to work out the dispute: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_T._McHenry
Talk:Patrick_T._McHenry#Neutrality
User_talk:Ziegfest
User_talk:Ystava
Thanks!! Ystava (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of providing a third opinion. :D If you have any questions or further concerns, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Toby Keith

Hi there,

You provided a helpful response and solution to the dispute regarding an unsourced edit that an editor insists on adding to the article. Well, the editor is back to adding in the information with no regard to the comments that have been made on the talk page. Do you have any advice on how to further resolve this issue? Thank you.--Startstop123 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you fixed my Twinkle revert (which didn't restore the correct version). I have also left a message on the user's talk page about the matter.[2] Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!--Startstop123 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I've tried everything I can to work with an editor, and they just continue to feet-drag, are disruptive, and talk right past me. The relevant conversation is here. You may note that this person seems to subsist only with reverts to Atropa belladonna. I'm at my wits end. This guy just cannot be worked with. I need some administrator intervention. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This can't be right....

MartinPhi has just returned to editing but he has met with this:[3], [4]

and this was added: [5]

I'd like him to stay around but this doesn't encourage in anyway. How can this be fair? (olive (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks this has been taken care of.(olive (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

RE: Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I don't think the mediation call is valid any longer. The user that started everything has since disappeared from the scene (at least as far as related pages goes) so there has since not been anything 'provocative' happening, as the log will illustrate. Since that time, the regular contributors - of all backgrounds - have continued to work together to build a NPOV article based on consensus. Thanks for your offer of assistance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask people if mediation was actually still needed. *chuckle* Thanks for the heads up. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. All the best, A Sniper (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Togo

Hi,

You have helped me out before and I was wondering if you can help me again or give me advice on how to go about resolving a situation. An editor keeps adding in unsourced information. The information is already within the article (written better and with a better flow) and I do not want to enter into an edit war. Do you have any suggestions?--Startstop123 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I reread the edits and I think if I just fix some grammer, it will be fine. Sorry to bother you. Thanks.--Startstop123 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI double post

Don't worry about the double post. One thing to remember, however, is to remember to sign your posts. At first, I thought it was Red4tribe forum shopping in a third location, which is a bad thing to do at ANI ;) Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was something that minor. It's all good. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi violating the terms of the editing restrictions

In this edit, Martinphi removes a reliable source by an extremely respected scientist (Sean Carroll) that was added by me. I believe that this is a violation of the restrictions you imposed. Can you act? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho

Hi Vassyana, the implementation of one or two of the suggestions arising from your informal review is being discussed; I would be grateful for your input. Cheers, Jayen466 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia is Serbia and Montenegro

We have the People's Republic of China and (officialy) the Republic of China (in fact Taiwan) but when we say China we mean the PRC and not ROC. Also when a two or even several women, men, chilidren have the same name (even the same date of birth) we know that it is the case of two or even several different people. Why do you insist on claiming that the EBU database (probably made by a meere IT specialist) is correct. Do you know that "Yugoslavia" in the ESC 1992 appeared under the flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and not under the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I think that your opinion did not help us because you haven't noticed that in the EBU database this appearance of "Yugoslavia" has been listed under the flag of SFRY and it did NOT appear under that flag but under the flag of FR Yugoslavia.

Also I would like to mention the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. They are two different states. The list could go on and on.

Please consider looking at the database and this message more closely (even if you do not agree).

Imbris (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While the points you raise are certainly valid concerns, Wikipedia isn't the place to raise them. Those facts may seem of importance, but we shouldn't include them unless they are prominent in the body of reliable sources. Eurovision's official website recognizes the 1992 entry as representative of SFRY.[6] The authoritative source on the contest lists it as an entry for SFRY. It probably be fine to note in Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest that while the entry was accepted for SFRY that Eurovision itself notes that "Yugoslavia was ... de facto dissolved in 1991 with no leaders representing it". Vassyana (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Binary prefixes

Regarding Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-13 Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and whether it is still needed: That was started by Thunderbird2 because, IMO, he was still unwilling to accept the consensus view. He was looking for some way to get his way. There recently was a spat where he and another editor were “revising history” through a series of edits to Binary prefix. It took only a modest amount of effort for three or four editors (and a 24-hour block on T-bird for editwarring) to put an end to that. So… From my point of view, things seem stable and there is no need for the cabal. However…

It wouldn’t surprise me if T-bird finds this post by me and states a contrary opinion. My fear is that this issue of the binary prefixes with him will be like having a herpes infection: you think it’s all over and then there’s yet another outbreak and this dispute never goes away. Just in case, I’ve copied all the code to make responding to his claims a little easier. Greg L (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Vassyana, there was this exchange between T-bird and the other fellow behind the cabal, Tom94022, that indicates that the cabal can be considered as abandoned. Thanks for checking into this. Like I said about herpes infections periodically raging up (no, I don’t have herpes), I see that T-bird is still maintaining his “list of damaged articles” on another user’s page (an edit T-bird made quite recently, at 09:53, 19 July 2008). So we’ll see whether this issue ever goes away. Greg L (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)