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.

---

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."

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence

Hi: I accidently noticed that you have posted evidence against me for "edit warring" in your unsigned entry on the above-mentioned page. I cannot see how my good faith edits (which contain careful edit summaries mentioning the MOS of the time, and also cleared up some unintentional mistakes made by other editors) in these few instances could in any way fall under the heading of "edit warring". I think you are making a very strong accusation here, which is totally uncalled for (and, as a minor detail, you misspelt my user name :-) ). Regards, --HJensen, talk 10:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)]

I have changed the note to call them mainspace reverts. However, I would note that repeated reverts in the absence of a few exceptions (copyright violations, BLP vios, etc) are considered edit-warring. If you have evidence that this was a limited occurance, or information that provides further context, I would be glad to review it and alter my presentation accordingly. --Vassyana (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I really cannot add further to this—proving something one didn't do is quite difficult. Best, --HJensen, talk 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that you engaged in mainspace reversion in relation to the main focus of case. However, you could explain under what context you engaged in the behavior, in what time period, or so forth. I'm not looking for proof of a negative, but information that would place the evidence in context. Diffs certainly don't say everything. For example, if the reverts were very limited in terms of both the number of articles and time period, it would place the evidence in a very distinct light from reverts that occured across a higher number of articles and/or a longer time period. I hope that helps better clarify my position. If I can answer any questions that help further clarify, I would be glad to help. --Vassyana (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. First, I must admit I do not know precisely that is meant by "mainspace reversion". In any case, the only context I can put my edits into, is that they were good-faith edits in accordance with the MOS at the time (that linking of dates were deceprated). I did not know that making such edits, and correcting another editor's intentional reinsertion of links were considered edit warring. In the instances I removed links to dates I therefore thought I was doing the right thing. I was only reverted by User:Tennis expert, who rarely provided any edit summaries as to why he did so. Also he introduced some mistakes into articles that I corrected. I was under the clear impression that he was breaching policies, so I felt that I did the right thing by revreting his linking. (I have later learned here on Wikipedia, that policies can sometimes be ignored whenever some editors find it appropriaate.) As Tennis expert kept reverting (I see that he did over 700 reverts in short time), I gave up after a while (the two months my two handful of edits occured in), as I usually do when I encounter that editor. I also stopped trying to improve the Mats Wilander and Guillermo Vilas articles, which I put some work into at that time. Edit warring? I thought that it took more than a few reverts backed by a guideline. So I am quite surprised if it is, but my recent experiences with how rules and definitions can be bent as desired, leaves me a bit worried. Cheers, --HJensen, talk 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oneirocritic literature

Tsk tsk, how dare you do such a sensible thing? Seriously, thanks, I'll back you on that one. I notice the article's creator has been active today, we shall see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes this bizarre head tingle overwhelms me and I am compelled to do silly things like that. Maybe I should see a doctor? :) Thank you for your supportive and cheerful note. --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit

Hi Vassyana. I remove a tag that you added to the article Holy Spirit. That was because the tag was very general, and it was not possible to work out which parts of the article the tags referred to. If you want to re-add them, please explain on the talk page what your specific issues with the article are. Thanks DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I felt the tags were quite obvious, given the state of the article. Reagrdless, I have explained on the talk page. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. --Vassyana (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I/P arbcom and User:Vassyana/consensus

You make some good observations here, but in the I/P arbcom case, nothing can be found back about it. Can you explain why this important issue is ignored? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It essentially comes down to arbitration being a rather blunt instrument and pragmatism. Arbitration decisions need to weight the choice of issues based on clarity and prominence, or so I see it. In this specific case, there were a variety of fruitless discussions with people talking over each other. There were a large number of people, with many shades of the opposing views. While I am sure the situation seems obvious to some observers and most participants, it did not seem to me that there were clear cases of stonewalling that could be reasonably communicated and shown in an arbitration decision. If you have any other questions, or any concerns, please feel free to leave me a message. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

email

not at all sure if I got it or not... so re-send. Blueboar (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I am about to start a new job, which unfortunately will mean a lot less time to give to Wikipedia. So I will have to decline your offer to act as a moderator for the project. Still, it is nice to know that your efforts are appreciated by other. 12:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Facilitation

Hi Vassyana, looking at the RFAR about Mattisse, it occurred to me that many such problems, and the culturally engrained adversarial mode of resolving them, could be mitigated if we made a greater effort to moderate or facilitate discussions, at least around key processes such as GA and FAC. I also wondered whether facilitation wasn't generally a better name than "mediation", which immediately conjures up the image of two sides, with a piggy in the middle. Not sure how it would work, but if you think there is merit in discussing something like this, I've started a thread at Village pump (proposals). Best, Jayen466 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE?

Hi Vassyana, thank you for your sensible words here, which encouraged me to take my concern to you. Even though it isn't clear from the final FoF proposal, it appears that the sole quote the proposed WP:BATTLE FoF is based on is this (2.8.2). Several editors have expressed concerns [1][2] that the evidence 1) is by itself too weak to support the FoF (even if read with an assumption of extremely bad faith) and 2) does not support the incriminating "ethnic" part of the FoF at all.

Furthermore, I get the impression that some ArbCom members may have mistakenly assumed that the FoF is based on something totally different in the diff given: my rejection of examples of "X" as proof of the existence of non-X. This is a completely non-controversial thing to do, which nevertheless was painted by Jayjg as "distasteful ethnic discrimination" (because "X" in this case was "Israeli usage of the term Samaria"). This meme, despite having been debunked dozens of times in the talk pages, appears to have taken on a life of its own, and I find it deeply worrying that some of your colleagues may have been under that misconception when they cast their votes. May I ask you to inquire, briefly? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Never say never ;)

On reflection, I can understand your concern with the rollback principle at the Ryulong PD. However, it also seems to dispute the entire point of my revised wording at my own PD, and the later ArbCom PD at workshop. Can you please try to accomodate Newyorkbrad's (and others) comments here in the alternative proposal? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Something that includes a variation of Brad's statement would be appropriate. The wording I opposed was a bit broad and seemed to cast the rollback tool as simply an alternative revert. I must head away from the computer for now, but I will revisit this when I return later. If I do not address your point within the next day or so, please leave me a message to trigger an bright orange reminder. :) --Vassyana (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Vassyana; that would be appreciated. :) It's not been quite a day yet, but as I'm not sure when I'll be online next.... ;) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing it again, I believe that your concern may already be covered by the revised proposal: "Other than to revert vandalism and edits by banned users who are not allowed to make those edits, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually." (emphasis added) Your thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Kirill's comment; The second sentence conflicts with the third in this version; "widely spread edits... by a misguided editor" could very easily be "good-faith content edit[s]". I also think discussing at a relevant talk page, while need not necessarily be compulsory in all cases, should at least be encouraged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)