User talk:Vassyana

Talk Page archives: /Archive001 /Archive002 /Archive003 /Archive004 /Archive005 /Archive006 /Archive007 /Archive008

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Folk Christianity; Hermeneutics; International Churches of Christ; Philosophy of psychology; Medieval philosophy; Emergent materialism; Analytic philosophy; Critique of Pure Reason; Irrationality; Churchianity; List of timelines; Western Christianity; Creator deity; Pragmatic theory of truth; Rationalism; Tao Yin; Paramatman; Criticisms of socialism; Deontological ethics

Cleanup: Philosophy of physics; Correspondence theory of truth; Prayer Mountain
Merge: Annihilationism; Moral absolutism; Situational ethics
Add Sources: Ethics in the Bible; Religious terminology; Christianity by country
Wikify: Philosophy of education; Prophecy; Edmund Husserl
Expand: Universal reconciliation; Christianity Explained; Bible Baptist

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) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Laozi has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May Pang

I have gone through your points, and I have given the article a really good clean, as per your comments. Could you look at it again? --andreasegde (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Thank you for your offer, but I have to reject it, for the time being, at least. This is my first case, and as User:Raggz pointed out, I´m only fifteen. But I see neither of those as a reason to discredit my ability (well, maybe the first one, a bit). But especially because this is my first case, I want to complete it alone. Besides, I seem to be making some process discussing with Raggz. Anyway, thank you, your offer for help was very appreciated, but I think I can finally manage. --Slartibartfast1992 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, please, I didn´t mean to insinuate you had offended me. It was merely the "he's only fifteen" wording by Raggz that discomforted me. I am confident that you were genuinely offering help in the spirit of WP:AGF. And, if you were only intending on giving me some advice rather than take over the case, I see no problem with accepting some of that advice from somebody with more experience. --Slartibartfast1992 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyway, you have more experience than me. Could you maybe tell me what you think about the proposal I've written in mediator's notes? I'd like the opinion of somebody who's mediated some times already. --Slartibartfast1992 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fine. I'm through for the day anyway. --Slartibartfast1992 02:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I could use some guidance. The discussion's chilled off over this couple of days, but I don't know what to do now. Could you give me a hand? Thanks, --Slartibartfast1992 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Really, I appreciate it. You were right in offering me assistance. --Slartibartfast1992 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silly rabbit has expressed, on Raggz's talk page, that he will not discuss Human rights and the United States with him because "he's had it". Does my role as mediator involve resolving this? --Slartibartfast1992 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation

Thank you for taking over. Many things stole my time until I forgot I was mediating.

Sdirrim (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, thank you for taking over mediator role in the Bosnian Mujahideen informal mediation process. Given the length of time the article has been under protection/mediation, I think at this point in time it would be good if we had a clear process (and preferably also a time plan).Osli73 (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any updated plan?Osli73 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy probation notice

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, you should notify the user who you are proxy-editing for of this probation, and perhaps ban them from all homeopathy articles (as their complaint by proxy for SA states they have no interest in getting involved in the dispute, this should not harm them at all.) PouponOnToast (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding the warning template to user pages indiscriminately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding them to involved users. This adminstrator is complaining about homeopathy by proxy, so I am notifing them of probation. Additionally, here's what I attempt to write on AN/I:

There are a series of shocking misstatements in the above writings. I will attempt to adress as many of them as possible, but I'll start with a standard note - "This is yet another in a series of complaints directed by supporters of pseudoscientific claptrap against SA. Over the past 7 days SA has made a distinct and substantial improvement in his civility, which was the concern expressed (again and again and again and again) by psuedoscientific supporters. It appears now that with his dramatic and continued improvement in civility, said supporters are attempting to find another tune to dance to - in this case it's hard to tell if it's revert warring or just being difficult about sourcing. Whatever, file an RFC for your content disputes like every pro-science editor is told to."

SA was reverse-informing Jerico of the article probation, which is a requirement for probation-related bans. While he could have changed the phrasing of the note, the technical requirement that such note be delivered excuses his copy-pasting of the notice. The warning was not for reverting. A message on a talk page is not disruptive - as such, it cannot violate WP:POINT (state your point, don't prove it).
The third revert was not technicaly or actually a revert. In additon, they were both edit warring, but only one of them was calling non-vandalistic edits vandalism. Calling non-vandalistic edits vandalism is an attempt to anger editors by stating their motive is to disrupt the encyclopedia. This not a possible violation of civility, it is a directly stated violation of it.
Calling SA "dishonest in some of his dismissals" is a violation of good faith. There is the possiblity that there is a failure to communicate, or that he is ignoring what his opposition, who are frequently complaining about him through the various adminstrative pages. Dishonesty requires intent.
SA's stating that his understanding of policy is careful is perfectly appropriate. If his opponents do not like his understanding, they can file content RFCs to get further input from uninvolved experienced editors.
WP:POINT requres disruption. Redirects, in addition to being cheap, are not disruptive.
SA has asked numerous times for his opponents to state clearly and sucinctly that the sources they provide demonstrate the prominence of homeopathy to the plant - they do not do this. He is dismissive of their further evidence that the plant is used by a homeopath, because they aren't willing to show the prominence of homeopathy to the plant.
Finally, SA is not creating disruptive sockpuppets to harass his opponents, he is not soliciting editors from outside of wikipedia to come to his aid and he has improved dramatically on his civility. His opponents have not taken any substantial steps to improve their behavior. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The probation is designed to move on from the pro/anti barrage of disruption. Please stop, you are not helping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the model of modern major general with respect to not getting into such back and forths. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R-O-F-L ! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

Please do not revert my archiving of that discussion again. All such discussions thus far have shed moire heat than light, and this is already being debated in sight of the arbitrators. Discussion belongs there. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi Vassyana, I reverted because as I had an edit conflict trying to post notification of my own for something else, I saw he specifically requested all work related posts to post at this subpage, out of respect for the ongoing discussion on his talk page regarding the loss of his father. He already reverted you himself, so he's obviously aware of your notification. Give the guy a break, he's just lost his father. --MPerel 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

~~I would hope that you would review the comment you about me, RE:"advocates for the subject of discussion", and when you realize you were mistaken about that, apologize.~~ I closed it for the very good reason that this was forum shopping and was properly being dealt with through other networks, and bringing yet another complaint to ANI was not going to advance anything toward dispute resolution. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

If the Arbs are leaning towards rejecting the request anyway, then the probation board would certainly be a better idea. Failing which, I would strongly recommend that you wait a bit. Let the Arbs actually refuse the request and then go to AN, where "discussions of this remedy" are directed, with the same question you've asked me. Relata refero (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happens every now and then. Remember when letters used to cross in the mail? SirFozzie's solution seems sensible. Relata refero (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail

Did you receive it? If you did, do you plan on responding to it? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it again. Let me know if you get it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema

Hello, you seem to be the only active member of WikiProject Thelema. I thought you might want to know that the Thelema article has been nominated for Good Article status... 61.135.253.185 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bosnian_Mujahideen#RfC:_Renaming_the_article

Please rejoin the discussions and add references and citations here: Talk:Bosnian_Mujahideen#Evidence_and_notes

Cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got your e-mail

Still digesting it. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14-M

Hi Vassyana. Would you mind taking a look at this discussion regarding the 14 March terrorist attack in Madrid? It has become almost quite impossible for users participating in Spain and Catalonia-related topics to reach a peaceful consensus, and things tend to get very dirty. Before this turns out to be an unpleasant discussion (it is still in pleasant terms) I would appreciate very much your input in this matter as an administrator. --the Dúnadan 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to be progressing on its own. I'll keep an eye on things though, in case things reach a deadlock or get out of hand. Vassyana (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat pro/anti bias in the spotlight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revera

Hey, Vassyana!

re. your yellow card from last year. It put me off contributing for quite a while. But that's not your motive, is it?

I see the Prem Rawat article is in the spotlight again. As a consequence I'd like to take the liberty of bringing the following reminder to the fore (following Jossi's welcome to me at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revera)

All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.

It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

… when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence.

… we do not try to decide or claim that an opinion is "true" or "false". We state instead, neutrally and factually, which people hold what views, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Remember, Facts are never subject to consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revera (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]