User talk:Vassyana

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Real life has been requiring a significant portion of my time. (Oh noes! The horrors! *chuckle*) Sorry for any delays or lack of response. If I forget about something, feel free to leave me another talk page message for a bright orange bar reminder. :)

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 over the past months. 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.

---

Help me out.

• Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.

---

• Talk Page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Jordan Declaration International Churches of Christ First Satanic Church Israel Finkelstein William H. Poole Jesuit Asia missions Duke of Zhou Patriarchs (Bible) Herbert Giles Burton Watson Religious socialism Tao Yin Orant Testaments The Christian Century Folk Christianity Resident Aliens Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia Churchianity

Cleanup Arab Christians Adam Great Fire of Rome Merge Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) Phylogenetics Arch Add Sources Wu wei Orthodoxy Karma in Christianity Wikify Spiritual gift Black Hebrew Israelites Kedar Expand Five Classics Book of Isaiah Sharif University of Technology

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 ForteTuba, 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) 03:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

By the way, while I have your attention, let me give you this canned message.  ;)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pasquale Amato, Tosca, Te Deum.ogg

Could you have a look at this, and see if the distortion could be fixed any better than it is? Sorry, just I really would like to get this one as good as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can do! Vassyana (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation Request

Hi, its about the Macedonia naming dispute article and the presence of the link List of homonymous states and regions under See Also on the page. Few Intro Words: The Macedonia naming dispute is about a naming dispute over a homonymous state and region, the Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (region) so a link to the List of homonymous states and regions where similar cases in the word are quoted is important for the users of Wikipedia. We have a positive opinion on the matter by several editors and an admin, let me quote some:

• "Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever",
• "I am not opposed to the addition provided examples, Crossthets",
• "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also BF"

you can find them here Talk:Macedonia naming dispute n°5 and here User talk:BalkanFever n°85.

There have been several reverts by:

• 21:18, 19 October 2008 User:NikoSilver- "per talkpage (before one creates a "list of states with disambiguation qualifiers"
• 20:09, 27 October 2008 User:Zakronian - "did you bother to check it again yourself ?"
• 13:08, 28 October 2008 User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ - "Consensus? Even BF's against you on this one, and that's saying something." (BF is BalcanFever see above his agreement)
• 13:14, 28 October 2008 User:Tsourkpk - "rm link to POINTish article"

One word about the reverteditors: all are greeks, this is pretty significant. As you can see the excuses for the reverts are pretty lame too:

• "the List of homonymous states and regions page is not complete" ok, than edit the page dont revert the link
• "Consensus?".. BF is BalcanFever see above his agreement, there are several people that support the idea
• "link to POINTish article" even if so, enrich the article dont rv it.

Even if we look at the related talk page debate Talk:Macedonia naming dispute n°5, there are no real arguments supporting the omission of this important reference link. Since im tired of debating versus repetitive lame unresonable counterarguments and "cospiracy" theoriess by the greek editors i ask a third person mediation. Thank you. Alex Makedon (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A question/clarification on NPOV & NOR

On the NOR noticeboard, you stated that "Not only is it original research to debunk claims in a fashion not done by reliable sources, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to do so. NPOV says that we must present a topic as it is presented in the body of reliable sources." (this WAS a while ago). I just read NPOV in its entirety again (always a good thing to do!), and missed where it implied/stated that we "must present a topic as it is presented". If you could point to to which part of WP:NPOV applies, I would find it quite helpful. Thanks in advance, DigitalC (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

In terms of information, not tone. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV implicitly throughout, and explicitly in portions, refers to article topics. The policy itself is a horrid mess as written IMO, but "Undue weight" and "Impartial tone" both provide key arguments to this end. Essentially if the clear majority of published literature takes positions A & B about the Foogleganplex Theory of Whatever, then the article about the Foogleganplex Theory of Whatever should mainly cover positions A & B. If a position C is not written about the Foogleganplex Theory of Whatever, then we should not include position C in its article. If positions D & E each composes a small but significant minority of the literature about the theory, then we should include a paragraph or two about each in the article. If the available literature notes that facts X & Y are relevent to the theory, then we should include cited statements that X & Y are relevent and how they are applicable according to the reliable sources. If fact Z seems relevent to an editor, but is not mentioned in reliable sources about the theory, then we shouldn't include such facts (as they use our own determination and facts/views even noted by a tiny minority of sources should be excluded from the article). I hope that helps clarify my position and policy interpretation. If I can help clarify my view further, or you have further questions, please let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a topic that I think you have looked at before, and probably don't want to look at again. Chiropractic uses a large number of sources on the topic of Spinal manipulation, which don't mention Chiropractic at all. RfCs have been performed about the OR issue, and no clear consensus exists (in my opinion, admins have now stated that we aren't even allowed to discuss the OR problem because they feel that they consensus that exists [that Spinal manipulation is related to Chiropractic] removes the possibility of OR). I just don't know how to move forward from here, because I know that it is a policy violation, and I know that I'm not the only one that thinks so. We've been trying to follow dispute resolution, and it doesn't seem to be working - as no clear consensus has emerged. DigitalC (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You have an email from me on this subject, Vassyana. It's amazing what seems to be going on: one of the worst abuses on an article I've ever seen. Something really amazing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Those concerns were resolved by examining how other reliable sources treated these general reviews, see Is your back in safe hands?, Chiropractors are offering 'worthless' form of treatment, Back treatment 'has few benefits' and Junk medicine: spinal manipulation. Also PMID 17224347, a review of the evidence base for chiropracty written by a chiropractor, stated Innovative ways to select studies and perform regression for meta-analyses are even appearing to cast manipulation (and thus by association chiropractors) in a less favorable light., chose a general review of spinal manipulation from 2006 as a citation to support this statement. The talk page shows a lot of general and convoluted argument on this topic, but Wikipedia seems to treat these sources in the same way as other reliable sources treat them. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

An invite for you

The 36th and final NotTheWikipediaWeekly Come for the final episode under this name on Sunday, November 2. The whole episode will be about recapping and discussing previous episodes. I am hosting this and look forward to as many of the more experienced NTWW's come to this episode. Plus, we may get a new guest, but we'll see. Anyway, its tomorrow @ 20:00 UTC. Please come! Mitch32(UP) 12:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sounds

Vassyana, I'm going to be away from about the 27th of November to the 5th, for a family holiday. Is there any chance I could get you to prepare some FSCs for around that time? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Life is becoming a bit less crazy for me now, so I will have more time to devote to Wikipedia and FS. Vassyana (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hey, I know it has been stalling for a few months now. To tell the truth, I felt like I had been doing a primary amount of work on that more and more, and I really wanted others to get involved so I backed off and got involved in other projects. If others will pick back up on it, I will as well. Since I don't have multiple personalities I therefore don't need to mediate with myself, so I was starting to feel silly. :) BOZ (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Such as what I've done so far with Wizards of the Coast (and already did at Gary Gygax). :) BOZ (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert - I'd be lying if I said I hadn't expected it to go that way eventually. Gavin has been busy with other things since early in the mediation so hasn't really interacted with anyone outside the policy and guideline talk pages, so there's nothing really left to work on there at the moment. I suppose that if things go back to their previous status quo I will likely be in touch with you regarding further dispute resolution. So, with that, happy editing to you, thanks for everything you've done so far, and wish me luck in pursuit of better quality on D&D and comics articles. :) BOZ (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I speak too soon? :) I don't know if the full conflict regarding tags is starting again already, but there is already some strife regarding the notability template on the Dan Willis article and its talk page, and followed to Gavin's talk page. I am not involved, but you might want to keep an eye on it. Thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Things seem to be getting more hostile on the Dan Willis talk page and Gavin's talk page. BOZ (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on things for now and try to help out as I can. Vassyana (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not getting any better... :( BOZ (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that that is the only D&D-related article that's been having a major dispute right now. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC

Just so you know, the last of your (major) concerns has been addressed--in a fair amount of depth, I'd say--so when you have a moment, please feel free to check the nomination and see if it has been dealt with to your satisfaction. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Have your concerns been addressed to a point at which you'd be willing to support the FAC? If so, please don't forget to note this on the nomination. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the existential/humanistic section, by the way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi, Vassyana. Two things: are all of your concerns addressed at the MDD FAC yet? Perhaps you can cap anything that is addressed: some declarations there have strayed way off topic, without editors striking completed items, and the page has grown very long. More importantly, I want to understand your concern about the citation style at Major depressive disorder, since it's a style that is so commonly used (particularly on medical articles, but also on others). I'm afraid I'm not yet seeing your concern, so I could be misunderstanding something important. The current style has direct citation links for all journal and websources, and Harvnb-style links (using a citeref method) to shortened citations for book sources with repeat links to different page numbers, with the longer citation on the book information in the Cited texts section. One of the things I like about this method is that the only extra code clunking up the text in edit mode is to the book sources. I guess I'm not really understanding 1) why you don't like that style, and 2) how you would want to change it? It's not so much an issue for me on that article, except to the extent that it's a style that I (and other editors) often use, so I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a mix of the harvnb/cited text style and "staight footnotes" style. This lead to a bit of confusion for me, as it is my understanding that mixing citation styles for the same type of material is bad form. If straight cite style is being used, shouldn't the first ref to a book be a full citation and following cites to the same reference use "op. cit." (in the style of Author, op. cit., p xx)? I've posted on the article talk page about this and asked if there are objections to standardizing the references. Vassyana (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On "op cit.", no, that is never used on Wiki because Wiki text is dynamic, text changes, and op cits can get wiped out (that's mentioned at either WP:FN or WP:CITE, can't remember which). Yes, the mixture of shortened and long footnotes is a particular hybrid that's used on Wiki, reflecting the online, dynamic environment and ability to hyperlink to the longer reference. Full citations for book sources could be used each time they occur, but that would repeat a lot of information, clunking up the text and cluttering the citations, only to add a different page number. It actually makes the citations harder to read, the article harder to edit, the repeat book sources harder to see, and adds bulk to the text and the citations (which also makes the article harder to load). So this method is a hybrid that shortens only the repeat book sources. I hope that clears it up ... I haven't been to the article talk page, because it's become a Dog's Dinner of issues tangential to the article or the FAC, but I wanted to understand your objection to that citation style in general terms, since it's such a common style (and one I also use and like). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes plenty of sense. Thank you for the explanation! Vassyana (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad it makes sense :-) If not, I'm losing touch ! It's really an adjustment to the unique, dynamic environment of a Wiki. The missing page numbers and ISBNs etc. are another issue ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Recorded debates and discussions

Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review}

arbcom

I've noticed you're trying to make your way into the arbitration committee. I have to say, we haven't always seen eye to eye, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for your thoughtful arguments. I always got the sense that you were respectful of policy but not bound to its every word -- you understood its purpose and its limits. And that you aren't stuck to straight inclusionism or deletionism -- you're guided by something more nuanced and reasoned. And that you were able to see both sides of a debate without devolving into demagoguery. At any rate, if there's anything I can do to help (I don't even know if it's appropriate for me to offer), do let me know. But if not, then let me stop at offering you the best of luck. You'll make a great arbitrator. Talk to you later, Randomran (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words. I hold you in high esteem, so your respect and support are deeply appreciated and encouraging. I can only hope that, regardless of whether or not I am elected, my particular intellectual approach will continue to earn your respect. Vassyana (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles

As you are a member of the mediation committee, I thought you might be interested in contributing to the podcast about controversial articles that Scartol and I are putting together. It is part of our series on how to improve content on Wikipedia (the first one was on copyediting). If you are interested in joining us, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would next weekend work for you? Scheduling these things is always difficult. See here for additional time options. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, next weekend does not work for me. I have a number of personal obligations to attend to at that time. I look forward to listening to the podcast, even if I am unable to attend. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I would so have liked to have you on! Awadewit (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Template

Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the template. Thanks and best of luck to you as well! Vassyana (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Please see the MEDCAB front page discussion for this article. We would love your questions and decision. inigmatus (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB coordinator

I would be glad to accept your offer. I would like to thank you for the work, time and effort you put in as coordinator :) Hopefully I be able to attempt to keep it up. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Three's a party :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Willis

Thank you for your help with Dan Willis, but Gavin's back again and insists that six of the reliable secondary sources are self-published. Could you maybe comment on it? We really need more people in the conversation. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted to two appropriate noticeboards, neutrally soliciting outside views to help resolve the dispute.[1][2] Vassyana (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Hello. You have shown to be rather helpful in the past and you are familiar with the user in question. So I am turning to you to ask for guidance on how to deal with this rather difficult and disruptive editor. He seems incapable of compromise, working collaboratively or even assuming that there is an area of expertise here that he seemly lacks and therefore dismisses as trivial. While there are salient examples of all the above, including a year+ edit history that supports the same, what I am asking here rather is what are my (and the project community) options in dealing with a disruptive and counter-productive influence on the improvement of this work? Personally I rather edit articles and improve them one at a time than have to deal with an editor that shows no intention of actually working on the articles other than to explain why others who have done the work are all doing it wrong. If there is a way to log a formal complaint then please consider it logged. Web Warlock (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(I don't mean to interrupt, but I saw the post and felt I should add something). You can file formal complaints through WP:AC, although that is a last resort and I think that we should wait a little while longer before taking that step. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Chiming in as well) Agreed that we should give it more time - maybe end of the month if he keeps it up? Also, I wanted to say that Jeske Couriano suggested taking him to AN/I if he continues his disruption. Vassyana, I wanted to mention that we have really been making progress on our project over the last few weeks, and Gavin returned to his earlier behavior within a few days of the close of the mediation case. BOZ (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Avoid any snarky or aggressive tones and discourage others from taking such a tack with Gavin. It will only serve to aggravate the situation further and turn the exchages into more of an adversarial process. One approach would be pointing a positive example of how he could express his views. For example, pointing to how Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs) detailed concerns about individual sources on Dan Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be a very good example to hold up. Point out that the user effectively took an even stronger stand, but that due to his well-reasoned, polite and complete explanation that Metropolitan90's statements were much better received. Be as clear as possible that it is not the tagging per se that leads to objections, but rather the objections arise out of a desire for better communication. If that fails, see if he would be willing to engage in informal mediation with the sole purpose of hashing out a set of voluntary guidelines for adding and removing tags in the disputed area. If reaching out with a positive example of how he may achieve his goals and inviting him to peacefully hash out some road rules both fail, then it may be appropriate to ask the community to review his behavior and provide feedback. If edit-warring, incivility, or other seriously disruptive problems get out of hand, it would be wise to ask for an uninvolved administrator to have a polite word with him or raise the issue on AN/I if he fails to be responsive to such feedback. If I can provide further advice, direction action is needed, or I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Vassyana. I'll see when there is an appropriate time to point those things out to him. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		You have been awarded a "What A Brilliant Idea!" barnstar for your assistance in the Gavin.collins situation. Drilnoth (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I know there was already an RFC/U on him over a year ago (and little seems to have changed since then, except that he hasn't nominated anything for AFD in some time or as often), so I don't know what good another RFC/U would do. BOZ (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is why I sought you out on this issue. Web Warlock (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If the problems continue after reaching out and attempting a mediated agreement, an RfC/U focused on tag usage and communication issues would be appropriate. The previous RfC/U ended up principally focusing on the AfDs, even though other issues were raised. Another RfC would serve the purpose of focusing on the continuing issues and generating clear community feedback. (The last RfC got very hung up on the AfD issue and the remaining issues were effectively side notes in the RfC.) Vassyana (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)