User talk:Vassyana

---

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."

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor

As a previous volunteer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor I though you might like to know there is a new set available for work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor/20100826. Hope to see you there. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediator?

I have filed a mediation request on a policy matter, specifically WP:UNDUE as it relates to the guideline WP:ONEWAY here. I'm almost totally ignorant of the process, but the mediation page suggests that a mediator be solicited to referee. Would you mind taking a look at it and consider filling that role? Or perhaps suggest someone who might? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Geoffrey W. Bromiley Australian Centre for Egyptology The Missing Gospels Hajime Nakamura Everett Fox Kenneth Feder Richard A. Burridge Integrity Toronto Julia E. Smith Parker Translation James I. Hunt Epistles of John Good and necessary consequence Paul Barnett (bishop) Robert W. Funk Craig S. Keener The War for Muslim Minds Amphissa (gastropod) Virginia Ramey Mollenkott New Century Version

Cleanup Christianity Historicity of Jesus An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture Merge Two-source hypothesis Arjuna's Penance End time Add Sources Three Character Classic Neidan Translation unit Wikify Blessed Virgin Mary Jawaharlal Nehru University Views from the Real World Expand The Scriptures '98 Version List of languages by year of first Bible translation Judaism

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We miss you!

Where are you? The project needs you... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs New Century Version Richard A. Burridge The War for Muslim Minds Everett Fox Today's Chinese Version Robert W. Funk Geoffrey W. Bromiley Epistles of John Common English Bible Integrity Toronto James I. Hunt Fan translation Hajime Nakamura Paul Barnett (bishop) Sergius of Reshaina Julia E. Smith Parker Translation Epaphras Good and necessary consequence Phillips New Testament in Modern English

Cleanup Coitus reservatus Christianity Green's Literal Translation Merge Mary (mother of Jesus) Bitext word alignment Arjuna's Penance Add Sources The Scriptures '98 Version Resurrection of Jesus Three Character Classic Wikify Association of Maine Interpreters and Translators Views from the Real World Blessed Virgin Mary Expand Dennis Lewis List of languages by year of first Bible translation East–West Schism

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs New Century Version Phillips New Testament in Modern English Jay P. Green Hajime Nakamura Integrity Toronto Fan translation Everett Fox Epistles of John Sergius of Reshaina Julia E. Smith Parker Translation Paul Barnett (bishop) Lucia Graves Geoffrey W. Bromiley Today's Chinese Version The War for Muslim Minds Richard A. Burridge Epaphras Australian Centre for Egyptology James I. Hunt

Cleanup East–West Schism Bible version debate Resurrection of Jesus Merge Bitext word alignment Gospel of the Hebrews Two-source hypothesis Add Sources The Scriptures '98 Version Christianity Three Character Classic Wikify Ren (Confucianism) Views from the Real World Logos Group Expand Robert E. Van Voorst Queer theology Interlingual machine translation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Very happy to see you back here. I was getting a little worried about you. :) Anyhow, welcome back, and let me know if I can help with anything. Happy editing. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Nice to know that I'm still welcome around the joint. I should be around on and off. If I can help with anything, let me know. Vassyana (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Good to see you! :-) KrakatoaKatie 06:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see your name pop up in my watchlist. :-) Risker (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed :) You were missed! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeedy. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the generous thoughts. If you could use my help for anything, just drop a talk page message. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Template

Please stop adding {{religious text primary}} indiscriminately to all articles on religious topics. An article that describes the contents of a religious work, or narrates the outlines of a religious myth/story, is not automatically using a religious text as a primary source. For one, you can find the same contents described in hundreds of "secondary" works, and for another, it's quite routine for film articles to have plot sections that aren't accused of using the film as a primary source. In any case, definitely don't use the template unless the article is actually citing the text as a source. If the article has no sources, tag it as unreferenced (if you really think tagging improves articles, which I doubt), not with this false tag. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not adding them indiscriminately. I believe that every article I have added it to uses the texts to make a point, goes beyond a simple description, and/or leaves a reader confused about the topic. These are all instances that require secondary sources to clear things up and remove inappropriate editorial commentary. If you feel a tag was mistakenly added to a particular article, please point it out to me. Vassyana (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Nearly every article you've added the tag to seems to be a mistaken use of the tag. I hope you understand that not having a source (and Wikipedia is full of such articles, which need to be improved, sure) is not the same as actually using a religious text as primary source — in fact, it precludes it, by definition. For some particularly absurd (but representative) examples:

• Nighantu — this is a collection of words and meanings: literally, a glossary (useful for interpretation of religious verses, but not a religious text itself). Pray point out what religious work is being used as a primary source?
• Yellow Emperor — what part, exactly, uses a religious text as primary source?
• Matsya Purana, Gajendra Moksha, etc. — The former describes its contents (pretty much as a secondary source does), the latter tells a story. How do you know that it actually uses a religious text as primary source? In fact this is quite unlikely: the religious text that contains the Gajendra Moksha story is in archaic Sanskrit verse; almost surely whoever wrote the article read a secondary source, or just wrote the story with no source at all (and in fact it differs from the "original" story in minor respects).
• Katha Upanishad — there is already a list of sources used, all secondary sources. What basis do you have for your strong claim that a primary source was used? (This is far-fetched; in all probability, no Wikipedia editor actually reads these works. :p)

I reiterate that your actions are not helpful. Of course some articles need improvement, but that doesn't mean your pet tag applies everywhere. If you actually have a particular sentence or section that you feel is unclear, remove or tag just that section or sentence (with whatever tags are appropriate); don't further confuse editors as well as to why your tag is there. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. Maybe you should consider tagging all non-religious articles like Hogwarts staff and List of supporting Harry Potter characters first, for using texts as primary sources. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nighantu (and Yaska's commentary) is as much as a religious text as the Hadith of Islam or the Talmud of Judaism. It is explanatory material and while much of it has a secular purpose, it is also religious material and firmly part of the accompanying religious tradition. However, to avoid any further conflict, I will stick to more blatantly religious sources. As for the Yellow Emperor, take the first two paragraphs of achievements as the examples. The sources cited are a student's picture book of traditional religious history and the Yellow Emperor's Classic itself; that is, the first two paragraphs are entirely sourced from Chinese religion. Katha Upanishad, you are correct. If I've made other errors of that sort, please point them out to me.

On the others, if there is a secondary source being used, it needs to be cited. Otherwise, there is simply the religious text quoted and/or alluded to with no other source indicated. This indicates a need for cited secondary sources. Your argument about the appropriateness of the tag could be said for any other article tag. I'm not applying it "everywhere". I've applied it to a few religious areas and a tiny fraction of articles in any given topic. I really don't see the problem is adding a tag asking for secondary sources for religious articles citing religious sources that need secondary sources to clarify the matter or justify the observations made. Vassyana (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You regularly tag articles {religious text primary} saying they need more secondary sources. Considering you tag Sophia (Wisdom), which has 77 references (plus a bibliography), and, (so far), literature, philosophers, abstract concepts shared by both philosophical and religious taoism, culture heros, mythical deities, numerous dragons, fictional characters, abstract concepts... and in the case of an actual religious text, you tag the classic collected commentaries plus reader's digest version, regardless of it being secondarily sourced to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There's no reason to entertain the notion that you're not tagging indiscriminately. I hope you'll at least switch to a plain {primary} template.

You don't have to explain yourself, but aren't we all hearing: text about religious, esoteric or spiritual subject matter is primary religious text because it's part of the body of literature (text) regarding the subject. Furthermore, each editor should be at liberty to disregard normative categorization of the subject matter (disregard WP category, templates, etc.) as well as the current article text, if it includes any explanation apart from those of the editor's preferred "third" party, at their sole discretion?

An editor can thus announce a WP article is "religious text" in a big box right at the top of the page, both cautioning the reader to expect an article based on a single source, and encouraging third, (or maybe fourth, fifth etc.) party sourcing.

I'm sure that in no way describes your intentions... it's just that lacuna between someone asking you to stop, when you don't even have to explain yourself.

There are still quite a few I haven't had time to review yet. Where appropriate, I've included a generic {primary} tag (below the "fold", where the references are).

I've found three articles where your use of the tag was not implausible at first blush, however, with a little more research, either the "religious" or the "primary" part, (or both), just weren't applicable... (which I attempted to clarify in my edit summaries).

The vast majority of the articles you've tagged were not at all plausible. Your edit summaries were very terse, sometime referring to an unspecified source problem, and generally either ignoring secondary sources or just saying that more were needed. A few of your remarks on neopagan articles were less generic... I'll try my best to keep the faith and encourage you, in the future, to use a plain {primary} template, or better still, to post your analysis and suggestions for improving an article on its talk page.

We're all biased to edit the articles in which we're interested, but is narrowing in on the prolific tagging of "religious text" the way to go? Anyway, everyone's help and advice is much appreciated.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Answering your comment at the AE

Hi,

I have tried to better explain my request at the AE (it was not about a violation of the topic ban sanction but other issues included in that sanction. Also, I have realized that Justin/Monster had fought in Gibraltar articles a couple of edit wars where I had not been involved, so I've added the diffs to the request. Finally, I tried to provide some section links (not too good, I'm afraid, it's been a very long and heavy discussion...) You can check all of this if you want[1]. Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre

If a source said "the terrorists cut his head off" and the WP writer said "the terrorists decapitated him" you wouldn't go change it because the source didn't use the word "decapitated". If you would in fact change that, you don't understand WP:OR. Exorcism is along the same lines. The words used in the sources are the exact definition of exorcism. It's a synonym. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're back!

:-D :-D :-D

--Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC) :-D

Hey, welcome back! --JN466 03:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

AE

So, ArbCom says I am allowed to out your personal information, and now apparantly I can question your competence with impugnity. I will be sure to take advantage of this next time I wish to win an editing argument. You wonder why I have no major mainspace edits lately? Because the lunatics are running the asylum. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The person in question had their account renamed. Their entire editing history with the previous name remains intact. Requests were not made regarding identity until well after the fact. The history under that identity is not secret and was relevant to the matter at hand. One cannot describe the justification for the arbitration case and the editor's history without mentioning that public, prior username. How is that the nefarious outing of personal information?

I am aware of the competence questioning. See my responses to WCM and Richard. Vassyana (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, the outing comment is in reference to an event back during the original ArbCom in relation to GibNews where one editor repeatedly outed another (or tried), including at the ArbCom evidence and ArbCom neglected any sanction. I think there is no better evidence for what I feared allowing Imal and Richard to get away with it while punising Justin would achieve, they move to tighten things further. Their purpose is to block him from contribution, not to work collectively and your ruling unwittingly promotes this harmful approach. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you meant about outing.

I worked with recent history. I looked a bit back and a bit over the long term history. I'm aware of who's who. Sanctions are supposed to be preventative. That is, there should be a pressing reason *now* to impose a sanction. Should Richard, Imulbornoz, or other editors rekindle edit wars, act with disruptive hostility, or so on, then I will step in again or ask another administrator to look at the matter.

If you really want to help the situation, help WCM stay productively focused and help him work with the dispute resolution process. If a new problem or recurrence of disruption occurs, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

New proposal regarding WMC

Hi,

Could you explain a little more the new sanction proposal? I am ready to accept softer sanctions on WCM than the ones in your earlier proposal, but I'm not sure what you are exactly proposing and how it would work (e.g. what is 0RR?).

One of my main worries is that I don't think WCM did get the message the last time (other than avoiding extremely uncivil behavior), and the editors closer to him don't see much wrong in his behavior either. Also, he has shown several cases of very temporary redemption in the past. So I think this time the sanction should be able to really be able to drive the message home, even if we are considering softer sanctions. Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

0RR is mainspace editing permitted with no reverts. I would expect any further disruption to be handled with escalating sanctions. Vassyana (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will support any sanction you propose to help improve WMC's behavior (that's my main worry). Hopefully, if you are able to drive the message home and -at the same time- I and Richard Keatinge accept softer sanctions on WMC, he will change his ways, view us in a better light and reduce the tension in the article... I really hope so. Thank you very much for your intervention! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Would you be prepared to mentor my interaction on Gibraltar?

May I request a modification of your remedy, a general 1RR restriction on the article. I have a problem with 0RR. During my topic ban I frequently noted vandalism on the article from the banned user Gibraltarian. I would normally have simply reverted such vandalism, however, from June till my return no one took an interest in the article and it often remained there for days. 1RR would allow me to revert vandalism. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection can I ask for one more thing to be considered. That there shouldn't be any further references to past events for which I have sincerely apologised for. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I will not be a mentor. However, you are encouraged to ask for advice and quite welcome on my talk page. I'm going to keep my eye on the Gibraltar articles and try to keep things on track. As far as older behavior, if you are staying clear of problems, I would consider bringing it up to be obvious baiting. As for the RR restriction, it's easy enough to explicitly state the exception for clear vandalism and obvious sockpuppets, as those are not usually considered under revert restriction rules. Thank you for the polite response and questions. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could I be slightly persistent and ask that there is a more explicit outcome. A 1RR would allow some leeway and I probably wouldn't be asking if there wasn't the history where a revert of a persistent vandal wasn't used to make a 3RR report. See Talk:ARA General Belgrano#Great Wrongs and Advocacy.

In addition, I would accept that past conduct should be brought up if there is a re-occurence. However, if there isn't, bringing it up is contrary to WP:CIVIL, given that other paries are aware of this, then clearly some sort of sanction would be warranted as it is clearly disruptive. It would help my peace of mind were a line to be metaphorically drawn in the sand. Again here I'm being persistent as the point was made in the past and this conduct has re-occurrred at WP:AE. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions

Sorry? I have been mostly absent of Gibraltar-related articles in the last months (especially those considered controversial). Am I done anything wrong? I wasn't topic-banned in the arbitration case, but anyway I haven't been too active. In fact, my last edicion in Gibraltar-related articles was here to include the information about the death of the emeritous Gibraltar Catholic bishop. Was it controversial? Who's Wee Curry Monster? Many thanks for your understanding (but it's me the one that does not understand anything) --Ecemaml (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've read the links you're provided and it seems it's Justin A. Kuntz again :-(

With regard to me, I don't think that my edition in Bernard Patrick Devlin including information about his death is actually related to the articles Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar and their associated talk pages. I haven't been active in such articles (or discussion pages in the past 30 days). Of course that I won't take advantage of it to edit in those articles, but I'd like to have sort of clarification. Best regards and, again, thank you for your time and effort. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

She is just making a blanket routine reminding to all editors that could remotely be covered by those conditions. Un aviso de rutina a todo lo que respire y que esté vagamente cerca del lugar de los hechos, vaya. It doesn't look like it's directed towards you. No parece que vaya dirigido a ti. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I sent the message to everyone who edited or joined discussions in the past month or so. It does not mean that you did anything wrong. It is a general notice. Vassyana (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Noticed :-) —Ecemaml (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your closure of the AE thread

Vassayana, I don't think it was appropriate for you to close the AE thread yet. You closed it under the assumption that three uninvolved admins had declined my appeal, but MastCell was commenting in the wrong section of the thread. MastCell was not an uninvolved admin; he was one of the involved editors whom you contacted yourself in their user talk. [2] I asked MastCell in his user talk to move his comment to the apppropriate section, but he hasn't responded yet. I was about to move his comment myself when you closed the thread.

Thus far, only two uninvolved admins have commented, and the second (Xavexgoem) expressed the opinion that it was problematic how Mathsci and I were being treated unequally. If further discussion among uninvolved admins eventually decides to decline my appeal, I'll accept that, but it's too early to close the thread when only two uninvolved admins have commented and they don't entirely agree with one another. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I’ve just noticed your comment about this in MastCell’s user talk, saying that you don’t consider him involved. MastCell was one of the admins who originally sanctioned me and Ferahgo. Isn’t the whole purpose of an appeal that sanctions can be reviewed by a group of admins other than the admins who implemented them originally? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will do two things to cover your concerns here.

1. I will post an ANI thread, neutrally worded, asking other administrators to add their two cents.
2. I will post in the Arbitration thread asking for clarification regarding the concerns about MathSci.

I hope that helps rectify your concerns. Vassyana (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but for the reason stated above, I still think the AE thread was closed prematurely. I think it would have been more helpful if you’d re-opened the thread so that uninvolved admins could continue offering their opinions there, rather than posting a new thread requesting their opinions at AN/I. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

What exactly is the question you're asking? I have no idea what you mean. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of this set of "hypothetical" questions? User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_question_about_arbitration Mathsci (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Under what conditions will you involve yourself in related discussions and conduct enforcement? Vassyana (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you an email which might clarify some particular circumstances. You might want to ask the question in a different form once you've read the email. I hope this helps. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Geoffrey W. Bromiley Tai Wu Zhao (surname) Richard A. Burridge Paul Barnett (bishop) Australian Centre for Egyptology Muzha (deity) Brahma Purana Aitareya Upanishad Anāgāmi Today's Chinese Version Xiao Shuxian James I. Hunt Vayu Purana Amphissa (gastropod) Hajime Nakamura Skanda Purana Xu Zhonglin (Ming Dynasty) Chinese New Version

Cleanup Association of Maine Interpreters and Translators Brahma Vaivarta Purana Xin Yi Dao Merge Religious text Jewish-Christian Gospels Gospel of the Hebrews Add Sources Three Character Classic Neidan Buddhism in France Wikify Ancestor veneration in China Ren (Confucianism) Logos Group Expand The Scriptures '98 Version Muhammad in Islam Six Arts

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping in...

Hi, I hope all is well. It was very nice of you to stop by my talk page the other day. I didn't know if you saw I responded to you or not so here I am to let you know I did see you there. ;)

I also want to wish you the best for the holiday season. Have a wonderful Happy, Healthy Holiday! I hope you have a great New Year that makes all your wishes come true. I hope to see you around, the bionic woman :), --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Gibraltar

Thank you very much for your help. I am looking for secondary sources that summarize the issue in a couple of paragraphs, but it's taking some time. Most of the sources I have seen don't have short summaries or are primary sources.

I keep searching. I hope to post a response tonight or tomorrow. Again, thanks for dedicating your time to help us out. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope that my intervention helps get things on track. I'm not going to let the matter go around in the same circles over and over again. I appreciate that this is a complex matter, but I do not believe it is the complexity of the topic that is causing the bulk of the problems. I sincerely hope that my active presence will help resolve those problems. If you have any feedback, concerns, or questions, please always feel welcome on my talk page. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and...

Thank you for the warning. However, I feel like someone needs to deal with vandalism somehow. For instance, please advice on how to deal with this change made today in spite of warning. I am not saying I will continue to edit war, all I'm asking for is some advice as to how you would deal with an issue like this if you were in my shoes. Thanks again. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 14:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned on the incidents page, I would like to ask for a sockpuppetry investigation regarding User:Voiceofplanet, User:NebY and User:Alexandrian10, and their possible link to users such as User:Nableezy. I was wondering if you could help me file a request like this. Thank you. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 15:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)