User talk:Vashti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Well firstly I intended to find people who were local on the Embracingmystery forum that didn't work out too well, the people didn't seem to welcome the idea. I then skimmed a few glances on to find people local to me, i did find one. Who actually ironically happened to be someone I knew in real life. He had some contacts, some who claimed to be members of covens and so forth. I met them one night in a local park where they introducd me to their circle, of course this wasn't official interviewing. I asked for each of their numbers and wondered if they where interested for a coffee and interview. I asked them a series of questions and wrote them on a notebook in a coffee house on different days or visit their residence. My research isn't published, as it was merely my university professor asking us to do our chosen sociological assignment and to comment on group and individual behaviours. Sorry I can't be of anymore help i am not permitted to send research to third parties. Raddicks 07:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's worthless for Wikipedia purposes, then. That's a shame, we get so many people talking about studies and asking for information, but none of them ever publish. Thanks anyway. :) Vashti 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

otherkin and nor policey potential page[edit]

youre better at wikipedia linkkings then i, would you please providethe requested link from the page section about possibly modifying policey to the otherkin page? i cant figure out how. Gabrielsimon 07:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Already done. I've cross-linked back to Talk:Otherkin as well. Vashti 07:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks! ( gotta learn how to do that) Gabrielsimon 07:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just put the section name after the page name separated by a hash, like so: User_talk:Vashti#otherkin and nor policey potential page. I hope... Vashti 07:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


about the archiving mixup... i guessa i overdid it... Gabrielsimon 10:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Meh, it happens, no worries. Vashti 11:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

spiritual movement[edit]

if im right ( and about these things, i usually am) that spirirutal movement tag will probly go back onthat article sooner or later, whnethe scale does increase. Gabrielsimon 11:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, when everyone agrees that otherkin are a spiritual movement, I'll put it back for you. But until that time comes, and until we stop being small and unknown even for a fringe group, I think "subculture" is much the best way of putting it. Vashti 11:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

i meaent no harm... but the nukbers of awakened ones are growing with each day. Gabrielsimon 11:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your excellent input on Otherkin, by the way. I know we're on opposite sides of the inclusion/deletion fence here, but it's great to have meaningful discussion. This can only lead to a better article all around. A problem may be editors who come along, read the article, and think, "only the fake poseur Otherkin think that. REAL Otherkin are different..." and then go ahead and insert their own original research based on personal experience. Us poor folks with no involvement in otherkin community will have no basis whatever for evaluating such edits, and even those who DO have experience will only be able to evaluate them based on personal experience. And, I strongly feel that personal experience doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.

Also, and this is purely personal bias I admit, but treating forums and sites like as serious sources makes Wikipedia look bad. I'm not saying this is your fault or anything, mind you. You've already found some sources that are better (the Village Voice article is a WAY better source IMO), and that's certainly a step in the right direction. Hope I haven't offended, none of this is intended in any way as a personal attack or a judgement on otherkin. Yes, I've admitted I think it's a bit silly, but I'm trying to keep that bias seperate from concerns of OR and verifiability. Again, thank you for your civilized and informative input. Friday 14:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to admit that I'm reasonably convinced that I would be better placed doing some real original research off Wikipedia, on this topic; I don't think I can write the kind of article I want to here, or that I play nicely enough with others to thrive in a wiki setting. I'd like to think I could leave someone with an eye on policy and NPOV to monitor the Otherkin article; interested? Vashti 20:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I was replying to you on Talk:Otherkin but then I saw this, and thought this should go here instead. You seem to me to be playing nice quite well; I hope you don't stop editing here. However, I must agree with you: it does sound like in order to really delve into the subject matter, another venue would be better. In theory, here we're supposed to rely entirely on decent sources that appeared first elsewhere. There just don't seem to be many of these yet.
I'm certainly willing to continue keeping an eye on it, although as you know, I have no expertise at all on the subject. Certainly I agree that we must be NPOV, so we have to document claims in a neutral and factual fashion, without attemping to judge their validity. Right now it looks to me like the article should shrink, since we can't say too much in detail without including sources that are IMO a step or two past dubious. Anyway, I suppose more specific discussion of the article really belongs on its talk page, so I'll be done here for now. Friday 21:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
PS. I'd like to see you publish elsewhere on this subject, even if it's on your own personal website. If we have to just use people's websites for sources, we should at least use good ones. Based on how you're writing here, I'd much rather use something you wrote than the sources currently being cited. Friday 21:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Errrr.... No original research, right? DreamGuy 01:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Well, we've been advised (on the NOR talk page, again) that decent quality websites can be used as sources, within reason. But you never know, I might go completely mad and write a book. It would certainly make my life a lot easier if someone did. Vashti 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin captions, from my talk page[edit]

On the subheads... "Preception of" instead of "alleged"? Well, perception is something actually through senses and not something internal to the brain, so it wouldn't really be accurate as I understand it. "Claims of", "alleged", or some completely other way of putting the subheads there would be better. DreamGuy 01:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

leaving them the way they are , however is like omitting the quote s areoundthe word vampire for every use of it, hes just trying to put in every way he can of " by the way they are wrong" its blatant bad faith. Gabrielsimon 01:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(I do think he may have a point with this one, Gabriel.)
I don't like "alleged" or "claims of" either, but there must be some way of putting it that we can all agree on. How about "Spiritual belief", "Philosophical belief" and "Biological belief"? Vashti 01:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
This place could really use animated smiley icons so I could put up one rolling its eyes. DreamGuy 01:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Is that a yes or a no? Vashti 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
When I entered my comment I did not see your question yet. From the timing it looks like it must have popped right in there bewteen the time I loaded the page and read it and the time I hit edit and responded at the bottom, sorry about that. DreamGuy 02:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I've been having a similar problem this evening. Vashti 02:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

who is he , some sort of undead spriitual expert? there is no such thing as an ALEGED spiritual differencce, because, if we are going that rout, theres no proof that spirits even exist. as for biological differences andthings, its in context, it should be left pristine. Gabrielsimon 01:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hence the allegedly... DreamGuy 02:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

and with the rolly eyes comment its clear hes not taking this seriously, so why should we take him seriously? Gabrielsimon 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the "good faith" rule, for a start. It makes it very hard to edit an article effectively when people are having personal wars over it. Vashti 01:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Can I also repeat Friday's comment, while I'm at it: please keep it off my talk page. Sankyu. Vashti 01:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

im just trying to get the facts trold without constant claims like " but scientists say..." becasue that has nothing to do with it, ya know? Gabrielsimon 01:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(also, i aint trying to fight with anyone, im trying to be as cheerfull and hoopy as possible. Gabrielsimon 01:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

see, now i hadnt thought of the rewording... makes me feel umb... hopefully you do see what i was trying to prevent? Gabrielsimon 01:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You're both as bad as each other, honestly! There are other ways to resolve problems than reverting six times in a row. Vashti 01:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The new subheads go along with what I was getting at. Thanks. DreamGuy 02:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

No problem; hopefully we can sort out any other issues with the article too. Vashti 02:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we can, I don't think what we discuss on the talk page is too far off fom each other. I would recommend though keeping conversation about that article to that article talk page, so it isn't spread out all over and attracting additional comments getting away from the issue, not to mention it gets confusing knowing what to respond to where. DreamGuy 02:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin medical section[edit]

Thanks, Vashti. It's definitely problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Your version of Otherkin[edit]

IMO, User:Vashti/Otherkin is much better than what's currently in Otherkin. Also IMO, it's still original research, but at least it's good original research. At least some of the sources it uses look more reputable, to me. And I could be wrong about OR, I can't claim to be an expert there. I think you should be bold. I also think you should start publishing things on this topic on your own website too where you can do whatever you want. Friday 06:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

My theory that otherkin descended from the counterculture is entirely original research, and it's largely unsupported to boot, although I think I could justify completing the later sections and adding them in. It might take me a while though; let me think about it. Vashti 06:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I second what Friday had to say, your Otherkin roundup is quite illuminating and interesting, I plan to pass it on to an Elenari friend of mine for her thoughts. I also hope you find some way to put the more concrete parts into the article.Kit 12:31:27, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Vashti 12:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to your question[edit]

Sure, I'm pleased to reply. The reference you provided: "Wikipedia is not censored", although it is on an official policy page, is not itself policy, it is an official caution that people may find things here they may not expect. The next paragraph (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground) states the policy of appropriate conduct, "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation" and to "engage in polite discussion". That is the policy I was attempting to promote. Notice that the changes left it very clear what Simon's feelings were, yet as in any major public forum such as a newspaper, certain degree of decorum is expected. (See also the next paragraph "Wikipedia is not an anarchy") --Blainster 16:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Might the exact text of what he said not be important? Well, I don't think so, because most people should be able to infer what it was, and if they can't, the points of edit were identified and the history is there for them to see. --Blainster 16:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

from another talk page[edit]

suprisingly wise words... ever soncidered teaching Zen? Gabrielsimon 09:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

(also check a section on my talk opage called Problems)

Heh. :) I've never looked at Zen. I like what I've read about Taoism, though. Vashti 09:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

looking over the edit history at Otherkin==

I was looking at this articles edit history and I came across something strange. Why would Robots be included at one point, and why were they removed? Ketrovin 13:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone put it in or pushed for it to be put in, I think, saying that they'd encountered robotkin somewhere. It was later removed as being atypical of the topic and unsubstantiated. (IIRC) Vashti 14:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

i saw, so...[edit]

any hoo, forgive the editing of your user page, i was just inserting link marks for Religion and schizotypy. enjoy Ketrovin 17:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Attn Gavin[edit]

Your talk page is protected, so I'm leaving this here. You reverted the same change twice, making a total of four reverts on the one page within something like an hour. That's a revert war, in my book. I mentioned it to Slimvirgin in the hope that she might be able to have a word with you before you hit 3RR, but I see you've already been blocked for something else. Vashti 09:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Attn Vashti[edit]

Regarding the comment you left on my talk page: Please read the Wikipedia:Civility policy. Wikipedia:Assume good faith might help as well. Just a tip. DreamGuy 20:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteously provided pointers to Wikipedia policy. Can I suggest that you broaden your reading with some comparative religion; perhaps Matthew 7:4 in the New Testament might be a good starting point for you. Vashti 20:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


I have put DreamGuy up for arbitratioon. addevidance at your convieniance, or just repair my formatting if it suits youGavin the Chosen 02:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


I am happy to continue working with you to improve the Otherkin article. Another editor, however, has violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF repeatedly on my talk page. I would appreciate your assistance in keeping the WP:NOR violation "infinitesimal" off of the project page. I look forward to future positive momentum in the article. Hipocrite 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

its not a violation, there is a very small number, very very small, of delusional people in any group of peoole, thus, the number odf delusional people is in cat infantesmal. whres the lack of logic seen there? also, hipocrite has been very very rude, so i called him or her rude. OOO scarey... if he or she doesnt want me to call them rude, then they should not comport themselves in a rude manner. simple logic, no?Gavin the Chosen 03:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin, I think it would be by far the best thing for the article if you didn't make personal attacks and behave so aggressively towards people you have disagreements with. Have another look at the messages you've been leaving, like the one above - how would you feel if someone else was taking this tone with you? The reason such approaches are against Wikipedia policy is that it alienates other editors, sets editors against each other and generally doesn't produce an atmosphere where constructive work can happen.
As for the use of "infinitesimal", I think it has to stay gone, and I'm going to tell you why. You recently made an edit that I had serious disagreements with, on the following grounds: firstly, that it has been my observation that people who believe they are biologically nonhuman are an extremely small - infinitesimal, you might say - section of the community, and simply saying "Otherkin may describe themselves..." indicates that the belief is a commonplace one. Secondly, that it is harder to argue the case (which I still believe to be valid) against the lycanthropy link being OR when the article itself claims that beliefs in physical nonhumanity are commonplace.
The reason I didn't immediately revert this change is that there are no numbers to support either case - therefore, giving any approximation of how many people hold the belief is original research. I have come around to thinking that the entire article needs to be rewritten, with only the claims that can be taken from published sources used. This will mean the article is small, but hopefully it will be able to grow in time.
Here's an example of how "infinitesimal" is not a neutral word:
An infinitesimal section of the population hold otherkin beliefs.
Have a look at that sentence. Do you think it's neutral? If not, why not? It certainly isn't a sentence that strikes me as neutral, even though it's factually correct. Vashti 09:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Testy, testy[edit]

You've made a personal attack on yourself here. I hope you're not offended by it. ;-) Friday (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I deserve a few personal attacks for making a daft edit like that. If I get too offended, I'll just have to file an RfC against myself. ;) Vashti 16:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Do let me know if you need a hand. I'd hate to see a good editor like you get chased off by a jerk like that Vashti character. Friday (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's shocking she's been allowed to get away with it as long as she has. DOOM, I say. Vashti 17:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good Job[edit]

Award You're a good Wikipedian: levelheaded, polite, helpful, and funny. Here, have a barnstar. Friday (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Gosh. Thank you. My very own barnstar, wow. :) Vashti 09:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


Hi. The RfAr for DreamGuy has begun; are you still interested? ᓛᖁ♀ 03:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm so enjoying my vacation ... so much peace and quiet, nobody yelling at me... I'll have a look. :) Vashti 11:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Adrian Mole[edit]

You're right that the series as a whole is not a series of children's books any longer. The first two (arguably three) books were certainly marketed to and heavily read by children, though, wherever the series has gone since. I've added Category:Children's book to the stub for the first book (there is no stub for the second), which I think is accurate. Deborah-jl Talk 17:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


After checking this users contribns, their appears to be a systematic pattern of non-NPOV edits to a number of prominent Welsh articles, including Prince of Wales and Saint David's Day. This pattern includes this user, plus some anonymnous edits. This includes removing the Welsh-born princes from the list of princes on Prince of Wales.

Any thoughts on dealing with this, beyond simple reverts? I think this merits taking further steps.Econrad 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A pattern of POV edits like this is usually considered vandalism, I think. I'll have a look at reporting it. Vashti 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. An NPOV dispute is not vandalism, but we can't resolve this edit war when he won't discuss anything, and he's at it again. If you haven't already done it :) I'll revert him, and I've listed Cardiff for protection. Vashti 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


I was just reverting the information that was removed during the dispute on the talk page that wasnt fully reverted. Betacommand 20:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

no problem thats what the sport Vandal Fighting is for. :) Betacommand 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comepletely Irrelevant Question...[edit]

...but does your username refer to Vashti Bunyan? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's from the Bible. :) Vashti 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Slightly more important, haha. Had to ask. See you around. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I've put one of her CDs on hold at the local library, if that helps. :) Vashti 13:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Iain Smith
ProLife Alliance
Keith Raffan
Inverurie Loco Works F.C.
Trowbridge, Cardiff
The Discworld Mapp
Traci Bingham
Jodie Marsh
David Laws
St Mellons
Son Goku
List of Valencian monarchs
Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories
Intact dilation and extraction
List of common misspellings in English
Add Sources
Auberon Herbert
Nolan Chart
Gaunt's Ghosts
Sime - Gen Universe
Leckwith Stadium
Christine Maggiore
Russell Brand
Brecon Beacons National Park

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 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work![edit]

Thanks for going through that List of English words of Welsh origin and pruning it. It looked a little optimistic to me when I saw it, but I couldn't be certain. A full OED makes all the difference. I've added a couple more to the talk page, but don't feel required to do anything with them; they're just for the next person to stumble across them, really. Telsa (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm on a wikibreak again at the moment (just here to quickly look something up), but I get the free access through Cardiff library's online catalogue. Maybe yours has something similar? Vashti 10:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for voting on the Article Improvement Drive. I noticed you added the image Example.jpg to the article. What was the reason for doing this? For now, I've removed it, because it didn't seem relevant to the vote (plus, it made the maintenance bot unhappy). Pruneau 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken, I didn't add any images to the article. ... except the diff says I did. That's very strange indeed. Sorry about that, I can't think what could have happened. Vashti 12:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Go away. Don't use my userpage again for any reason. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzajf (talkcontribs)

As you wish. You've had your warning. Vashti 16:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More gratitude[edit]

Thanks for looking after my user page while I was away. Looks like the message got through in the end… --Stemonitis 07:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he just got fed up after being blocked for 24 hours. Same net effect, though. :) Vashti 08:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting suppositions, I was merely away on a weekend break, it was a bank holiday here in Ireland and the weather's great, the ban could not of been timed better, thanks guys. Bazzajf 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And more gratitude[edit]

Vashti, you've done a terrific job in updating and researching the Doris Stokes article. You've managed to keep it neutral without resorting to the outright dismissal. Well done for an edit that is both balanced and fair. Yallery Brown 12:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Recycling was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Leeroy Jenkins Edit[edit]

Hello Vashti, thanks for your question. I removed the sections by user for a number of reasons. I feel that they were not contributing any information to the article that couldn't be gained from watching the original video, also, Leeroy has been through a lot of edits in the last year and that particular paragraph is the final result of lots of wrangling, arguement and compromise. Finally, the Leeroy quote in that paragraph was incorrect and I changed it back to the accepted form. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask --Crais459 07:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please feel free to replace the entry, but might I suggest the following compromise?

"The video clip is a computer recording of the game World of Warcraft. The clip begins with a dozen players, including Leeroy, planning a raid on The Rookery: a part of the instance dungeon Upper Blackrock Spire. The leader of the group questions whether this daring encounter is really necessary, and is answered by a guild member informing him that Leeroy needs the an item from the rookery to improve his healing abilities. Reluctantly, the players converse over Ventrilo before entering combat. Leeroy, apparently away from his computer during these planning stages, remains quiet as they are discussing tactics (which players of the game will recognize to be comically poor). Just as they are calculating the possible rate of survival for the attack, he suddenly springs to life shouting his battle cry: "All right chums, I'm (back), let's do this! LEEROOOOOOOY!!! JENKIIIIIINSSSSSS!!!". He then charges fearlessly into The Rookery, to the complete and utter incredulity of his teammates. Attempting to save him, they follow him in and are quickly overwhelmed by the whelplings, unable to stick to the plan."--Crais459 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

British and British isles[edit]

Hi, quick explanation of the "British" bit. It has been discussed alot on the discussion pages, but they are practically unusable because of the general chit chat. According to the OED "British" has had two meanings: the first and older refers to the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain, the second to the modern (after 1600) political entity. In other circumstances the careful wording would be pedantry, and in modern English the second definition is dominant (though the first one is still used). However in this case it is the nub of the conflict: "British Isles" owes its name to the first definition (hence it is uncontroversial in the UK); the objecting editors cannot see past the second definition and put everything in terms of modern politics- hence the unhelpful sparring. The use of can got some acceptance in the past. Hope that makes a little sense. As with all these controversial namings, the story behind the controversy is actually much more interesteing than the sterile ranting that takes place. I must confess that I am beginning to give up with this page- it all too often seems to be a dialogue of the deaf, though perhaps the new people like yourself will be able to encourage people to concentrate on content rather than warring. MAG1 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian Jihad[edit]

Thought you might like to know this article has been nominated for deletion. If you like it (you liked it well enough to comment on the Talk page...), you might want to click over to the link and suggest reasons why it should not be deleted.
Septegram 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


dydd da!

Hello! I responded just now on the Wales talk page, but to answer your question basically the Assembly of Wales public affairs person stated that "Wales is a Principality...", so I understand this to be so. I am uncertn as to why it should be so ambigous to others. I suppose I can resubmit a question to further qualify this, but is it really necessary? I mean, in what way is Wales not known as a principality? sincerly, Drachenfyre 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


TV Vandal[edit]

Hi, and thanks for bringing this mess to light. I hope by blocking the IP adress indefinite, it will be quiet(er?). I just blocked a whole range of socks indefinite, too. Let me know of he pops up again somewhere, and I will block him, again. best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him. :) Hopefully now I can go back to quietly pottering around my watchlist - I'll certainly let you know if he comes back again. Vashti 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was going through WP:RFI and am trying to familiarize myself with this case. The latest bunch of edits include this edit to The Koala Brothers where adds "owned by Cosgrove Hall Films. When I look in IMDB, I find this page where Cosgrove is indeed listed as a production company for that show. Is there a problem with that edit? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

tirelessly following vandals[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
After reading your post to AN/I and checking out your contribs in the past couple of weeks regarding the TV vandal, I suddenly wanted to bake you a cake. But, maybe this is almost as good? Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick question...[edit]

If I were to offer to hand you a mop, would you accept it? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Doris Stokes[edit]

Hi. Regarding your revert of my edit on the Doris Stokes article, how is "self-proclaimed" and "theatrics" not consistant with NPOV? Psychics, as far as I'm aware, is still an unproven science, therefor the claim "self-proclaimed" would apply since that's the only thing we can go by. By claiming to be able to communicate with the dead, Stokes falls into the category of theatrics since she's giving people a show. I'd appreciate an explaination, thanks. - Throw 06:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sully Link[edit]

Yes, I'd noticed that it is Wikipedia derived. I did think of excluding it on that basis but concluded that Wikipedia should 'return the compliment' and, over the years, Wikipedia and the site may well diverge.

OTOH I won't cry if you delete it. Best WishesSaga City 12:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Healthy multiplicity[edit]

It's like you said about Raddicks up there -- who was doing research on covens, or otherkin, or something for school -- there's no independently verifiable published scientific report, so until there is the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Any multiplicity (MPD/DID or non) is a subjective experience, and until there is some kind of objective proof either that it exists or that someone other than people who have experienced it have even noticed it, it's going to be considered a non-article, or at least non-notable. As far as I know there was only one article ever written, in a British magazine, about a group that had decided not to integrate and were living in a cooperative arrangement. I know you may have heard talk about "brainwave studies" but it was not a study and was not conducted with a control group in empirical format. What I hope for the future is that people would contact writers of such articles (not just on multiplicity but any subjective experience) directly and give ideas how to make the articles more NPOV, more Wikipedia-suitable, etc. (aside from just loading them with "criticism" sections), instead of just deleting them. Thanks, --Bluejay Young 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You might take a look at this. Really I think there is nothing that can be done at this point and we'll have to wait until we have some big shots -- singlet big shots, not people who themselves claim to be multiple, no matter where they're presenting their academic papers -- it will not count until it's considered notable by people outside the community. I've said for years we need singlet doctors or other scientists to weigh in on this as other than a "these people are obviously delusional" or "some adults keep their imaginary friends" perspective, and this is why. --Bluejay Young 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I have responded to your comment, which I believe to be incorrect, on the Briton talk page. All the best. Alun 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think I offended you on the Briton article. I am very sorry for this. My comments may have been prompted by your post, but they were not directed at you. Concepts like identity are complex and very personal and I know I crossed the line into not assuming good faith, I was also very much not sticking to the point. I was also frustrated for various other reasons at the time, much hard work I had put into Wikipedia had been removed from certain articles (totally unrelated to the Briton article). I'm sorry for having upset you and hope we can put it behind us. I have stopped editing ethnic group articles for the time being, I think everyone has different ideas about identity and belonging and many of these ideas are mutually exclusive. I know you are an excellent and dilligent editor and respect your work a great deal. All the best. Alun 07:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lyle123 et al[edit]

Yep, looks like the same vandal. Thanks. —tregoweth (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


I don't know how it ha--Mostargue 00:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)ppened??--Mostargue 00:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I think I have just about finished building the Sully article from its original stub. What do you think?...and can you have a general tidy up and edit to finish it off for me, with your longer experience and expertise? Also have a quick butchers at the Sully Island effort, which I think is also nearing completion. Ta 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Can you do me a huge favour Vashti? I have just about finished editing Lavernock although I still have to labouriously go through it and insert all the references to sources. However I have only just tripped over the separate article called Lavernock Point and my feeling is this stub is now redundant. Sadly I don't have the first clue how to delete the article and insert a redirect from Lavernock Point to the main Lavernock article. Any chance you could tidy that up for me? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Discworld mud drum.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Discworld mud drum.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


You did it right! But you didn't rate it. It would be quite useful if you did, especialy if it's an obvious stub like this. You write this:


Thanks and happy editing, bsrboy (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Next time I'll know. :) Vashti (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Barracks v Bendricks[edit]

You asked where the misnomer came from. It came from here, the Sully Guide I take it you have an issue with it? LOL 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Back in Sully we always called that area and beach the Bendricks. Never heard it called the Barracks, and I had a relative who lived there. :) Until the page got renamed recently I had no idea where it was meant to be. There is a military barracks there, though! I wonder if that's confused someone. Vashti (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Vashti/Otherkin[edit]

User:Vashti/Otherkin, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vashti/Otherkin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Vashti/Otherkin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Vashti/Otherkin/Medical perspectives[edit]

User:Vashti/Otherkin/Medical perspectives, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vashti/Otherkin/Medical perspectives and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Vashti/Otherkin/Medical perspectives during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if I came across all antagonistic and such about deleting the subpages; it's just that you didn't seem active on here so it was easier to take the issues straight to MfD. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the deletions (it's legacy cruft I probably should have deleted myself long ago), but I am a bit concerned at the suggestion that I put up fake articles in my userspace. Vashti (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Light Yagami may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | title=コミック史上最強キャラのひとり――主人公・夜神月(やがみライト)役に、藤原竜也が挑む! (The strongest comic character ever, protagonist Light Yagami - Tatsuya Fujiwara takes it on! <!--

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Light Yagami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VAP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Death Note (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Wired
Death Note (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Wired

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

L (Death Note)[edit]

Hi Vashti. I got to ask you something. When I said "putting "super detective" back to where it was before", I didn't mean to put it right next to genius. Do you know what I mean? Batman194 (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using "genius" as an adjective, and it works perfectly well in that context. Vashti (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying. Could you explain more please? Batman194 (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Simply that I think it would be more constructive if you didn't make these sorts of edits relating to use of English. If another editor agrees that it's clumsy and wants to remove it, then of course that will be fine. Vashti (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it is clumsy and "genius" should be removed permanently. "Super detectives", even though there was no definition for it, are detectives whose intelligence and methods of observation and deduction are beyond extraordinary. That's why I don't want "genius" to be in there. Does it make any sense to you? Batman194 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You're right. My apologies. How's the new edit? I've removed "super detective" altogether, since it's clearly obscure (it means different things to different people), and elaborated on what L actually does. Vashti (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The new edit is amazing. I love it. It is much better. At least you and I can agree that there will be no more problems from then on. Batman194 (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure there will be problems, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. :) Vashti (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stonelaughter (RE: Leprosy)[edit]

Thanks very much for your message; I didn't know that each article had a talk page (nor users either!). I'm also not sure of the etiquette or process in this thing so please forgive me if I got it wrong.


Stonelaughter (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dwellers in the Crucible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King Edward VII Welsh National Memorial Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Benedict Cumberbatch from list of Method Actors[edit]

You removed my insertion stating "bad source. that website isn't cumberbatch's blog." I'd like to know how you know that. Olinga (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Primarily, because the Twitter account that that blog links to is entitled "Not Benedict Cumberbatch". It's a fan spoof. Vashti (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, also, if you read the Postscript to the blog, it says "An Actor’s Guide was intended with utmost respect to Mr. Cumberbatch, whose abilities are held in high regard, and was not meant to offend.". Please be more careful with your sourcing. Vashti (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You're violating the "don't be a dick" principle that you state you need to keep in mind. It's kinda hard to see a message on a private service behind a login like Twitter when you don't have an account there. Your were also fortunate in catching the postscript. If you delete something perhaps you should provide a more courteous message explaining your actions rather than obnoxiousness. Olinga (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You've clearly taken this personally, so I'm sorry if I've in any way given you offence. However:
  • Twitter profiles are not private. Anyone can view them. When I wanted to verify the credentials of the Cumberblog site, I made a point of viewing the Twitter profile that it linked to.
  • Blogs usually carry descriptive information. From this, you can tell if a blog is official. Parody blogs, especially, make a point of carrying disclaimers. I made a point of checking the postscript for a disclaimer.
  • I checked two obvious locations for information about the site, and I found it. I did not just get lucky and stumble across it. In the same way, I am careful to verify the credentials of any website according to WP:RS before using it as a reference on Wikipedia.
  • "bad source" is not obnoxious. Compare "bad data". If I'd immediately reverted you, I would have gone into more detail - however, I made my edit either weeks or months after you made your edit which depended on a parody reference. If I'd wanted to insult you, I would likewise have gone into a lot more detail. Vashti (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • When I click on the twitter icon it takes me to a login page rather than the post. I still can't see the Twitter feed.
  • It is obnoxious to both state "bad source" and not say WHY its a bad source and the time gone by is irrelevant.
  • It is also obnoxious to chide someone for "Please be more careful with your sourcing." It's not your place to do that on a community edited site that asks participants to "be bold". It was a good-faith edit and you've been obnoxious about it.
  • At the time I used the article as a source I believe it was linked to from a major site IIRC. I had questions about the credibility of the site as well.
  • The behavior of people like yourself are among the reasons why Wikipedia is losing editors like this article discusses. Wikipedia is losing editors because outsiders attempting to contribute get slammed. Olinga (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the link is down right now so I can't check it, but I think you need to click on the name of the blog rather than the Twitter icon. I did say why it was a bad source - I said that it was bad because it wasn't actually linked to Cumberbatch. It wasn't his blog. I'm not going to get into which of us is being obnoxious (I don't believe that I was), but can I point out that you are seriously violating WP:AGF right now by assuming that I am attacking you personally. I welcome outsiders, and I often see them do very good work, but when they make edits that are factually inaccurate those edits have to be corrected. I've gone to the trouble of trying to educate you about why your edit was mistaken and how you could have handled it differently because I believe that you can do better. Vashti (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Vashti. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a proxy but a VPN[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vashti (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host - it's actually a VPN and my limited understanding is that WP:PROXY doesn't apply to those? Vashti (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

An anonymizing VPN is functionally the same thing as an anonymizing proxy. That being said, you could check WP:IPEC to see if the requirements for IP Block Exemption apply to you - and follow the directions to apply if they do. SQLQuery me! 03:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.