User talk:Vassyana/Archive005

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



Hello Vassyana,

For some reason the case page at Medcab hasn't refreshed itself for a long time. Is this a specific problem with me? I'd like to mediate some more cases, but I see the case page the same way it was a week ago. Thanks,

The Rhymesmith 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot intended for the purpose seems to have missed the recent updates. I've contacted the bot owner to look into the issues. Cheers! Vassyana 15:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (p.s. Thanks for being so intent on helping out. It is sincerely appreciated.)


It's over! And no edit limitations! Paranormal ArbCom Final Decision. – Dreadstar 03:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What to do?[edit]

I am placing well credited cited references. It's getting removed by well experienced editors. How do I go about?BalanceRestored 06:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This was removed even earlier

I am not writing things now on my own, I am quoting things from the ancient text that's referred at a book that's clearly to the standards. The article is very biased and people instead of taking facts as it is, are wanting to quote things as per their wish.BalanceRestored 06:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The warning note was also removed.

No explanation is being offered why the citation about Arthasastra should be removed. All the current evident study towards the Vedas age etc are taken from other ancient books Arthasastra written in 350-283 BCE is one among them. BalanceRestored 07:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please check the discusson pages of articles before sending such messages. I am perfectly aare of the rules regarding reversions, but edit wars cannot be avoided when consensus is being ignored. Paul B 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That attitude is unacceptable and if followed through on will result in preventative blocks. There is no excuse for edit warring. There are plenty of options available to resolve disagreements. The path you are choosing is not one of them. Vassyana 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana,
Unfortunately the issue here is BR's inability to understand consensus, as he has amply demonstrated on other articles too. Several editors including User:Buddhipriya, User:Dbachmann, User:Paul Barlow, User:Zamkudi and me have explained to him why his sources are unreliable and the POV he is pushing considered fringe. He has responded by repeatedly adding the same stubby section to the well-developed and sourced article ([1], [2] and [3]) even after the content was integrated into the article as a compromise by me ([4]). As the purported explanation of his addition, he explains that the Veda he is talking about is secret and hidden:

The formula for atom bombs are not given in public. They are secrets. Don't you have heard about the Puspak Viman, Things flying, etc etc in the Vedas? The veda is hidden.BalanceRestored 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Look an encyclopedia is a referece book for my knowledge. A researcher can reach here. He needs to find every little details about a topic. False, True everything. Let the future decide what's false and what's true. First even I thought it could be false, after talking to many people and discussing with many and finding real time evidences there should be a reason not to quote the same?BalanceRestored 11:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

and filed a ANI complaint against me (even though I was not the one to revert his edits!). By the way, the user has been informed several times that such arguments fly in the face of WP:V, WP:OR etc, but he has proven to be impervious to any reasoned arguments and has simply continued posting/re-posting/re-re-posting the same messages on the Talk:Vedas page. I agree with you that edit warring is not the solution for dealing with this problematic user, and I haven't done so in the past, nor intend to start now. I also hope that you will recognize BR's violations of his unblock conditions, and act accordingly. Regards.
PS: To appreciate why this is not a content dispute, but rather a user behaviour issue, please see the discussion between User:Sethie and me on the same talk page. Sethie initially reverted to BR's version of the article [5], thinking that sourced content was being deleted, but after the reasoning was explained to him, he was quick to agree with the current version of the article. BR on the other hand, has interpreted such reasoned arguments as a conspiracy to suppress sectarian information. Abecedare 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it is easily confirmed that BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) reverted the article twice in a period of less than 24 hours [6] and [7], I assume he will earn an automatic block under the so called "zero-tolerance" policy, i.e. even if one ignores his continued disruptive editing. Please correct me if I am misreading something here. Abecedare 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The continued disruptive editing by BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) needs to be addressed. This ANI complaint is part of a continuing pattern. I find it difficult to understand the detached attitude that Vassyana expressed in this edit: [8]. This is an example of punishing the victims of this ongoing pattern of disruption that is taking place. Buddhipriya 05:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm being somewhat lenient overall in the circumstances. Several editors involved, including most of those named, have engaged in blockable behaviour in these circumstances. I'm also taking into account the antagonism with which BR has been treated and the baiting of BR by some people. Seek dispute resolution to resolve the conflict if you cannot do it on your own. Vassyana 12:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Your comment that "Several editors involved, including most of those named, have engaged in blockable behaviour" is unclear to me. Can you please provide examples of specific diffs that you consider blockable behavior? Buddhipriya 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer not to name names. However, a generic example would be making exactly three reverts in the span of hours. Remember that more than three reverts do not need to be exceeded in order for a block under WP:3RR, particularly when reverting multiple editors. Also, in some cases people could do a world better to explain why an edit is wrong or how an edit could be better integrated instead of just reverting and saying essentially nothing more than "you're wrong" or "your edit is X bad thing". If you have any additional questions, please ask. Vassyana 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that your concerns seem to be particularly regarding enforcement of WP:3RR. I agree that it should be enforced. I am unclear what you mean when you say "particularly when reverting multiple editors". Does that mean when one editor reverts the work of multiple other editors, or when multiple editors all revert the work of one other editor (such as BR)? The situation involving BR seems to me to be one in which BR consistently inserts WP:OR and WP:FRINGE material into multiple articles, citing religious scriptures or other religious sources as the basis. When multiple other editors object to this, multiple people may be involved with reverting BR. Do you characterize this behavior as "ganging up" on BR? Or do you view it as evidence that BR is adding material which is viewed as unreliable by multiple other editors? Buddhipriya 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)No problem, though that is just an example. What I meant was when reverting other editors. There have been cases of editors restoring BR's edits and being similarly reverted. I agree there are some concerns with BR inserting OR and FRINGE materials, but I think that sometimes people should take more care to explain why they are that and why the edits are wrong, instead of just baldly asserting it is so. If a source he uses is not reliable, explain clearly to him why it is not reliable. He very clearly does respond to such polite explanation and adjusts his behaviour accordingly, in the cases I have seen. As I've mentioned elsewhere, sometimes a little extra care needs to be taken due to an apparent language or communication difficulty. In some cases, I do wonder (but have no clear opinion) if he is being ganged up on and/or wikistalked, as the same editors sometimes appear where they were not before to revert and/or oppose his edits. There is no clear behaviour to assert such a thing, so I will not make that particular accusation. However, it does appear enough that way on occasion to raise suspicion, since you asked. However, what is much more clear is the baiting that occurs with snide comments and the like, which are always unhelpful. As for your current conflict, I can easily understand his confusion and frustration. The idea of a "fifth Veda" is hardly novel or unusual and has been extensively discussed since at least the mid 19th century in English language literature. Whether this "fifth veda" is one or both of the epics, the Puranas, the epics and Puranas, the Pranava Veda, or the Natya Veda is certainly debatable (though the Mahabharata is the thing most commonly called the "fifth Veda"). Regardless, it is not at all disputable that the Panchama Veda exists in theological and pragmatic practice as far as English reliable sources spanning over the past century and a half are concerned. I don't think BR's presentation of this issue is fully balanced or correct. However, neither is the avoidance of actual discussion by claiming it to be FRINGE, which for the concept of a fifth Veda is patently false. Vassyana 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikistalking, the definition of it notes that: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them." Do you feel that editors who notice the insertion of poorly-sourced material by BP on one article have the right to examine edit histories to determine if the same problematic edits are being made by BP on other articles? Regarding comments about "baiting", it would be easier for me to understand what you consider "baiting" if you would provide specific diffs of such behavior. When I asked for specific examples earlier, you felt it best not to provide them, and I can accept your preference for that approach. However your decision not to cite specific diffs makes it difficult for me to tell what behaviors concern you, or which editors may be engaging in those behaviors. Regarding the content issue of the "fifth Veda", I agree that the term exists as an honorific and have made that point on the talk page. The specific claims made by BP, however certainly do fall withing the WP:FRINGE category, and require sourcing as such. If you do not agree with the content issues, I would like to suggest that you consider participating in the content discussion on that matter as an editor. If you have specific sources that you feel should be considered, I hope you will mention them, and assist in working toward a collaborative solution.
And let me ask specfically, do you feel that my behavior in regard to BP is a source of concern to you? If so, please help me understand what your concerns may be. Buddhipriya 23:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I'll respond to certain parts of your comments:
  1. "but I think that sometimes people should take more care to explain why they are that and why the edits are wrong, instead of just baldly asserting it is so. If a source he uses is not reliable, explain clearly to him why it is not reliable." I personally have provided detailed and clear feedback for each and every citation BR has produced. I have even commended him when he has found good citations [9] and have pointed out the the wikipedia articles to which they will be relevant; in fact on many occasions I have myself formatted and added them to the concerned pages. See [10], [11], [12]. And I have told him which citations are inappropriate and why [13], [14], [15]. I can provide more diffs to back up this statement, but it may be easiest to peruse the Talk:Vedas and Talk:Vishwakarmas, Talk:Forward class pages (just search for my user name). And it is only after these patient efforts that I say that BR doesn't understand WP:RS, WP:PSTS, and WP:V as you can see from his re-postings of the same sources. Anyway, you are free to disagree with my opinion of the sources but it is simply incorrect to state that a sincere attempt has not been made to explain to BR why his sources/content are not being included.
  2. "In some cases, I do wonder (but have no clear opinion) if he is being ganged up on and/or wikistalked, as the same editors sometimes appear where they were not before to revert and/or oppose his edits." If you look at the edit history stats. of the Vedas article at [16], you'll see that Buddhipriya, Dbachmann and Paul Barlow are three of the most regular active editors of that page. I edit there much less often but made my first edit on that page some 4 months before the appearance of BR. Also Dab, Buddhipriya, and I along with User:DaGizza, User:GourangaUK, User:Priyanath, User:Ragib, User:Bakasuprman and a few others are currently among the very few active editors on the Hinduism project, so it is not surprising that the same set of editors respond to BR's edits.
Hope that helps clarify the picture somewhat. Abecedare 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, I have found the following tool helpful for analyzing the contribution patterns on specific articles: [17]. Buddhipriya 00:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information. I will take the time and due diligence to look everything over with a keen eye before responding to the information. Please be patient with me, but feel free to poke me in a couple days if I don't respond on it. Thanks again! Vassyana 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana, if you feel "lenient", that is a great thing, and might mean that you can take problem editors by the hand and help them express themselves. But you cannot expect other editors to feel the same about disruptive or confused edits. Your relativist or agnostic stance at Talk:Veda was not particularly helpful. It is perfectly clear that BR was adding unsourced fringe material, and was justly reverted. If you want to help him build a case, that's fine. But if you can't be bothered to do that, you should not ask other editors to do it. Until anything remotely looking like sources is brought forward, BR's edits are justly rolled back. I frankly see no room for admin intervention in this case short of warning BR to cease his fringe additions or face a block. Alternatively, if you want to be involved in this, you could opt for mediator (not admin) action, trying to find out if BR has a case after all (he doesn't, but you don't need to take anyone's word for that, you can dig into the literature yourself: the article is sufficiently referenced to allow you to double-check). dab (𒁳) 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't give a good damn how wrong BR may be, because it provides no excuse for edit warring and other unacceptable behaviour. If he is wrong, people should explain that to him, instead of edit warring and saying "your edits are X" without any real explanation. He generally does seem respond to rationale discussion and explanation. If that doesn't work, there's a rainbow of dispute resolution options. How would you feel if your good faith and sourced edits were being reverted, you were being called nasty names and very often when you expressed your opinion or made a good faith effort people jumped all over you? I'd dare say most people would not be as polite, earnest and interested in learning as BR remains. Not to say all editors have treated him poorly, as some have complimented his good actions and taken some time to explain the problems with others. Just some thoughts. You can take 'em or leave 'em. Vassyana 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: MedCab bot[edit]

Heh, had just disabled it before I read your message - cron is spamming me with errors. The code is broken and I am waiting on a fix from Ideogram as I do not know python or the script well enough to do anything about it myself. Sorry, we can only wait (I don't even know what the bug is). —Sean Whitton / 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I dropped him a message regarding it. Vassyana 11:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello Vassyana. It depends on the bird size. Scarlet Tanagers are in your range and they are bright red with black wings. That could be what you saw. I took my birdfeeder down for the rest of the summer because too many cow-birds and red-winged blackbirds were hording the food. The summer is so lush this year, so there's plenty for birds to eat on their own. Check out this website. It's got great bird references, pix, etc. USGS Patuxent Bird Identification Info Center If you click on "back to list" at the left, it takes you to a decent bird reference list to choose from. We saw a Great Blue Heron that glided onto our backyard pond. They look prehistoric. Gorgeous! Warm regards. Sylviecyn 14:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU page protection[edit]

I would like to appologise for being part of the problem. FYI I am currently working with IPSOS to find the best way forward. Regards Bksimonb 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Mediation[edit]

Were you able to check with your other mediator buddies? Jac roeBlank 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted some requests for assistance and eyes both on MedCab pages and via email. Vassyana 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all of tarot is related to the occult[edit]

The articles French Tarot and French suited tarot should NOT fall under the Project Occult umbrella as there is minimal if any connection with the occult. French tarot has no more connection with the occult than Sheepshead and French suited tarot cards are so very rarely used for divination. I only know of three examples of French suited tarot decks being used for divination See "Tarocchi di Alan" "Tarot de la Nature" and "Les Secrets du Tarot à Jouer" for these three exceptional cases. We should keep in mind that not all of tarot is connected with the occult.Smiloid 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct decision and thank you for pointing out the error. Cheers! Vassyana 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Early Christianity[edit]

With all the flack you admins get can you blame me! I've not been ignoring the article but am decorating at the moment so looking up references has been difficult. I'll try to weigh in over the next few days. Sophia 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the message. I hope the decorating is treating you well. :) Vassyana 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NBAonNBC unblock decline[edit]

What happened with NBAonNBC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? How did you determine his odd changes were disruptive when not a single person complained? I feel like I'm missing a back-office checkuser or something. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at his/her contributions. Additionally, their bizarre editing inserted two live unblock requests into a indef blocked user's archive. Another indef blocked user promised to "carry on" for the user whose archives were edited. Highly suspicious, at the very least. Cheers! Vassyana 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree it was an odd little project the account had embarked on but it seemed quite harmless and, more importantly, very unlike Tecmobowl. I'm not understanding this indefblock. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Just saw your wikibreak message. My condolences and best wishes. Regards. Abecedare 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Vassyana 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Christian Church
Creator deity
Christian republic
Folk Christianity
List of messiah claimants
471 Papagena
Peter Gandy
Western Christianity
418 Alemannia
349 Dembowska
The Jesus Puzzle
Tao Yin
First Vision
Alexander of Constantinople
423 Diotima
British Israelism
Chinese Orthodox Church
Dispensation of the fulness of times
Relics attributed to Jesus
Add Sources
Wu wei
Names of God
List of Christian denominations by number of members
A Slight Ache
Spiritual gift
Moral realism
Whit Monday
Redlands Christian Reformed Church

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 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this[edit]

Dab has persistantly used the following words, when he has no answers for the questions I ask.

  1. "you are doing it again:"
  2. "At best, I take it personally that I should be expected to waste time on this pointless exchange."
  3. "but if you do not choose to do that, pray spare us from your own musings."
  4. "There is no point at all in posting this on talk every day if you cannot pinpoint your text"
  5. "this is getting silly."

These are not a language from a decent editor

I've cited references, even then the editor does what he has to do. Ignores the citations and talks the above.
Check at 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese/Cuban/Israeli Apartheid[edit]

I'm sorry to hear about your loss and extend my condolences. You may recall that we briefly discussed the cult & literature article.

This last week I've tried playing a somewhat facilitating role on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid (see also Talk) and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. Hopefully, I'm learning something from this.

When/if you have a chance, I would greatly appreciate your feedback on the framework, tone and content of my effort at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Exploring the grounds for a consensus. Please reply there or on my Talk, as appropriate. Thanks! HG | Talk 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look over things in a couple days. Thank you for your condolences. Vassyana 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Just want to offer my condolences. Good to see that you're still around a little bit. I sent you a long-overdue email earlier today. Take care. ElinorD (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. *hug* I'm popping in just to offer a comment occasionally and check my messages. However, I'm not leaving. Just taking a bit of a break from most of it while other concerns engross me. Be well. Vassyana 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Any plans to let me loose?[edit]

Hi there, you have put me into these conditions.. let me loose. when do you plan to do the same

Have a look at this BalanceRestored 12:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to check if things where really cited the way it is written, this is what DAB does. The sentences these people are writing are not even cited. There are many things this way... all over... BalanceRestored 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You've been doing the appropriate thing by trying to communicate with the other editors.[18][19] I have not been enforcing the restrictions strictly and I will continue to do the same. I am still a bit concerned about how strongly and repetitively you push issues. Being bold and assured is a good thing, but you need to give a little space and time for discussion. Try taking things a little more slowly and don't be afraid to ask questions. If you do not have access to a reference, politely mention that you do not have the book and want to know what the source says. I see that you've picked up a mentor to help you out, and that's a very good thing. Your approach and attitude is improving. Your understanding of Wikipedia is improving. Keep working at it and I'm sure you'll be fine. :) When I feel that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia rules, I'll "officially" drop the restrictions. If you feel that is unfair, let me know and I'll invite other admins to have a look over things to see if other administrators might feel differently. Be well! Vassyana 07:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I understand that not all editors where really bad. I do realize what mistakes I'd been making so far. You've said "I'll invite other admins to have a look over things to see if other administrators might feel differently.". I think you are well capable to decide if I am really going right. Right now I do feel confused at certain points. I think it should take me some more time. BalanceRestored 07:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for respecting my judgment. Take care! Vassyana 08:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Early Christianity reverts[edit]

I must sleep on your message, since I have read it just before going to bed. Before reading your message, I looked at the reverts and felt obliged to see where the other reverter was from, in case it was thought that I myself who was doing the reversion anonymously. I was happy to see that the person actually doing it was in a country far from where I am.

It is obvious that I think there was a good reason for making the additions I did make. As I indicated on Talk, I did think that the article was presenting as facts hypotheses that are far from certain (and in some cases even faintly ridiculous) and that it was completely ignoring other more reasonable interpretations. But I intend to give more thought to the question some time tomorrow. In the meantime, would it not be good to at least begin your promised incorporation, with more learned sources, of the other views that I tried to present? I wonder, however, whether those who might have provided such sources took seriously the curious ideas that the article presents/presented (they are fewer now). Lima 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I already did start incorporating things. Drop some thoughts when you have a chance and we'll continue working on it. I hope you get some good rest! Vassyana 05:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Nice! Saved me a lot of diff-hunting...! Very nice, indeed! – Dreadstar 05:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, it was pretty easy since it was clearly labeled in the Archives. :-P Be well! Vassyana 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I was doing it the hard way...looking through the past article edits to find the first time it appeared in the article, then viewing the talk page discussions right around that same time. Generally, that works....but tonight I was just to danged tired...! – Dreadstar 09:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vedas and User:BalanceRestored[edit]

Vassyana, If and when you have the time, can you see this and this discussion on the Vedas talk page. Please note I am not requesting any block/ban of BR in this instance since he is at least trying to follow wikipedia policy (as these posts show). But a friendly nudge from an editor he trusts to limit his posts, not bring up the same issues repeatedly and to stay on topic, may be useful.
PS: If you really have excess time you can read through past discussions that covered much of the same topics, which are archived here, but that is too much to ask/expect. Cheers. Abecedare 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the same Vassyana, but things look very obvious. There is a huge amount of suspicion here. So I better write a book at wikibooks, instead of arguing. The scope of wiki is limited to current findings. Well, at wikibooks I can always write and intercept the truth and follow more logic. Sorry, I think I will quit. I am happy to have been taught all these from you all. I will surely revert back to you all if I want to find things.BalanceRestored 11:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is bad and everyone is good here. Talking cheap, Thinking ill is not good at all. These keep one away from good deeds. This keep one away from personal growth. My knowledge is to share. Veda is simple. Veda is for everyone, In simpler words Knowledge (Veda) is for everyone. I do not know when religions came in from knowledge. BalanceRestored 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry VS, I've started to understand many of the policies, I can surely understand where and which policy to pickup. I know I write too much, too openly. I will take time, think and write. I've started to cut short my lengthy discussions and write to the point. I have never been into these kind of debates before. So, I've initially made blunders. I think I was stupid writing unnecessary that was creating all the controversies. BalanceRestored 10:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I will take a break from Veda for some time. You are right, I think I am inserting too much into it.BalanceRestored 11:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately user:BalanceRestored has shown no sign of improvement despite many polite (and some not-so-polite) entreaties by a multitude of editors, including yourself. He has been treating Talk:Vedas as his own personal discussion forum to air views he bases upon such non-reliable websites as {petitiononline} - see the current version of the page as well as User:BalanceRestored/Notepad for evidence. What do you think the right course of action would be ? Do you think he still needs to be given a last chance or is it time to take the matter to WP:CSN to obtain a topic ban on this editor ? Abecedare 07:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I second the request for some action to be taken to break the disruptive pattern that has persisted despite many interventions. The editor continues to violate WP:SOAP, turning the talk pages into a personal forum for religious lectures about what GOD SAYS. Buddhipriya 07:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Light of truth, or, An English translation of the Satyarth prakash: The well-known work of Swami Dayanand Saraswati
Dayananda Sarasvati
Language: English
BalanceRestored 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Details at Amazon [20]
The quotes I mentioned are from a very well known personality. No one in India will argue for the knowledge Dayananda Sarasvati possessed I assumed everyone know about Satyarth prakash.
I am persistantly warned false. I have already quoted the same to you before. BalanceRestored 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Dab had doubted Dayananda Sarasvati knowledge on History of Veda. I clarified the same. BalanceRestored 07:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Vassyana/sources[edit]

Thanks for the compliments on my ideas. Please feel free to use anything you like and edit it mercilessly. I would also suggest you also look at the final version of that discussion, where I qualified "out-of-date sources" with discredited after an objection. Taticus's works are good example of a ancient yet still appropriate sources, while publications about the human genome that are less than 20-years old would be a poor choices to use as a source. I don't know that discredited is the best word either. Maybe obsolete.--BirgitteSB 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been putting some thought into that. It would be certain to be the most contentious part of such a proposal, I think. However, there is little difference without the support of a reliable sources to tell us the difference. If that makes sense. Vassyana 08:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually the most contentious thing with the proposal will be that is a Change. If that can be overcome I think there is already consensus on the underlying ideas, and that consensus on their presentation is achievable. However, achieving consensus for any Change will be difficult. I left some thoughts about the draft on the talk page. --BirgitteSB 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your draft note[edit]

Excellent! Thanks for including me, I'll check it out! Dreadstar 08:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know what you think. Feedback is most certainly welcome, as the idea is still being fleshed out. Vassyana 08:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for additions of contents[edit]

I had only requested to add contents those were related to the Vedas. The petition that rudra had quoted about had clear notes where it was taken from too. Satyartha Prakash, this book is well know in India and eminent personalities like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Savarkar have already commented about the greatness about this very book.

I never used the talk:veda as a forum. But, others did can made it look like one. Possibly to get me in to a ban.

I only kept replying DAB and other edits as I though it was necessary to clear their doubts. BalanceRestored 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

He has alleged that I am from Arya Samaj, well all these editors were so far unaware of Satyarth Prakash suddenly know the relation of Arya Samaj and the book.BalanceRestored 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There were instances before where, there were problems with dating. The article was blunt straight forwardly showing that the Vedas were clearly around BC 1,500 to BC 2,000, were as there are clear citation at various shastras telling that the Vedas have existed since BC 10,000. Again the book quoted by DAB has clear citations that the "perfect dating cannot not be arrived", But inspite of showing the quotes DAB resisted a lot of add the text. Now, they have taken me into a long conversation and then suddenly started telling whatever I've been quoting is SPAM. Even though you can see about all of these were initially requests. Asking if things could be added. The reply were not just "No" and directions to the same but they were more than that. This was done to engage me in to a forum like thing. Rest is for you to decide on this. BalanceRestored 12:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Now, finally does wiki pedia tell anywhere in the policies that I should not question, suggest the details at Vedas? I am really very upset. BalanceRestored 12:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me know what wrong I am doing.????? Why do you think it was a forum, Was I not replying to the queries those were raised by other editors. BalanceRestored 12:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the current Vedas article is that it is addressing only the scientific developments, and is not talking about what other important shastras say about the same. Remember scientific details can be obtained only with things those are available and not with those not available. So writing I advised to write probable wording like "according to the author, could be", "likely", instead of using wordings like "it is". The author himself mentioned the same. But editors want to mention those as it is, and included me in to a long debate even before.
Check this [23], Dabs reply for the same [24], [25], [26], he called a sourced edit disruptive [27], So, I again had to quote the same with the line number [28], AB then disparages the message quoting some other line from the book to distract the original quote [29]
And at the last after having a forum like debate, the text was included [30].
Well today the same happened. I was taken for a huge discussion and then, complaints at your page. I thought I should explain. I tried to cheer up dab to keep him always hot mood in control, but nothing seemed to work.BalanceRestored 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Till now, I've been
  • polite
  • giving detailed explanation to problems,
in return this is what I am gettingBalanceRestored 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"In Context" Guidelines[edit]

Dear Vassyana, I hear that you are working on a piece to clarify citations. On thing that would be really useful is to have some sort of guidelines about the representation of topics and quotations in context. What I see happen frequently is that someone will selectively choose topics, and then search a large body of literature for quotations to support those topics.

For example, I loved your example about OR and secondary sources to Sethie where you said: A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources.

It would be nice to have a section in a citation article that specifically addresses this point (i.e., selectively choosing topics and quotations out of a large body of literature to support a POV), that gives concrete examples of how quotations and topics can be misused to misrepresent an entire body of literature, and then advice on what to do (i.e., rely on a scholarly secondary source for their analysis?). Then, we would have some Wiki policy template to point to.

Thanks for your work. Renee --Renee 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look over the draft I'm working on. I'm just trying to flesh out the idea at this point and make it a coherent section. If it continues to come together well, I will likely propose it as a replacement for the current sources section over at WP:NOR. Please leave thoughts on the talk page. Feedback is most welcome. Vassyana 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about taking your important time. If you highlight me something it will be great. I was actually accused for quoting scriptures. Currently the 4 Vedas and 20 Puranas are in available in Sanskrit language (ISO 639, international-standard ,Sanskrit) and are openly available since there can be no copyright on the same as these books are nearly 3000-4000 years old. I did no mistake using sentences from those, If you can comment on it, it will be great. I have also discussed this at I was told, it can be done and there's no policy currently over the same. BalanceRestored 07:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You can currently see, all the Vedas and Puranas ISBN codes are as follows.
1. The Rig Veda
  • By Ralph T. H. Griffith
  • Published 2004
  • Kessinger Publishing, LLC
  • ISBN 1419280600
2. Griffith, Ralph T. H. The Sāmaveda Saṃhitā. Text, Translation, Commentary & Notes in English.
  • Translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith.
  • First published 1893; Revised and enlarged edition, enlarged by Nag Sharan Singh and Surendra Pratap, 1991 (Nag Publishers: Delhi, 1991) ISBN 81-7081-244-5. This edition provides the text in Devanagari with full metrical marks needed for chanting.
3. The Hymns of the Atharva-Veda - 2 Vols. ; Translated with a Popular Commentary (Hardcover)
  • ISBN-10: 8186186026
  • Ralph T.H. Griffith
  • Publisher: Low Price Publications (1995)
  • Amazon link [31]
I am sure you understand what I want to say. These decade old books Vedas and Puranas are no more scriptures they are openly available with an International (ISO) accepted language Sanskrit, and are already translated in English. I had only used those.BalanceRestored 08:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've quoted my query at talk:vedas, I will only quote my next question or comment only tomorrow, to, allow everyone quote and wait. BalanceRestored 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren[edit]


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Frank[edit]

Back in March, you said I should contact you if you didn't get back to me on this. I'm still curious if you have research readily at hand. THF 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Folk Christianity
Peter Gandy
Formal principle
Tao Yin
The Tao of Physics
Bentley Layton
Creator deity
American Unitarian Association
The Jesus Puzzle
First Vision
Religious terminology
Stephen Morris
List of messiah claimants
Christian Church
Jesus is Lord
Bernard Sumner
The Fall of Man
Spiritual desertion
Relics attributed to Jesus
Add Sources
Names of God
Wu wei
Martin Hannett
Spiritual gift
John Ankerberg
Christianity Explained
Whit Monday

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 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


With all due respect, I think the only way to deal with COGDEN or any other editor who is fundamentally opposed to NOR (or who in effect wants it to be a fundamentally different policy) is this: create a page called "Policy Proposal to replace NOR" and simply remove to that page's talk page any discussion that argues against NOR itself. Such discussion does not belong on a page which, being dedicated to improving the text of the policy, is predicated on an acceptance of the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to be so polite about it. :) You're quite right. Vassyana 20:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but even I am getting sucked into a substantive discussion with Minasdede about the policy ... you presented your account of the different disputes; someone on my talk-page reduced it to these two: " (a) what constitutes a primary, secondary, or tertiary source, (b) to what extent Wikipedia policy should discourage use of (or reliance upon) the different kinds of sources" - I really think the only way progress will be made is if all current discussion is archived and the discussion refactored to work through those points of dispute among editors who support the policy ... before there is any further discussion. You have been fighting a good fight but it is obvious to me that with some people you (and now I, and others) are just spinning wheels.... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to not get sucked in. It is hard to strike a balance between not feeding trolls and allowing others to poison the well, particularly when some rely on significant distortions to justify their points. I've been putting some serious though into those issue, looking at the history of NOR and the other content policies and guidelines. I have a thought brewing, but it's incomplete at the moment. Vassyana 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Initial comment ...[edit]

... on your sources proposal. I will hold off on substantive comment for now but have an immediate reaction: when you introduce the idea of reliable sources, you link to the veriufiability article. Now, I am not thrilled about the semantics (I think the choice of words like verifiable and reliable are somewhat arbitrary) but they refer to two different things and one is a policy and one is a guideline. I think RS sets a higher threshold for inclusion in WP - a threshold that is debatable and raises NPOV issues, which is why it is a guideline and not a policy. In the NOR policy, we can give full weight to verifiable sources as verifiability is another policy, but we cannot give equal weight to reliabilkity, which is a guideline and not a policy. And we have to be careful not to mix the two up. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I avoided Wikipedia:Reliable sources for that reason. The section in question relies on the discussion of reliability found in the verifiability policy (WP:V#Sources). I hope that helps clarify why I'm discussing reliability but refer to verifiability. Vassyana 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point would be to use the word verifiability exclusively and not use the word reliability, if this is meant for the NOR policy. If you look at Minasdeede's talk page I left a message explaining in more detail my understanding of the historical relationship (or lack thereof) between NOR and RS that more fully explains my position.

Also, I have now slept on it and feel even more strongly than before that the NOR policy must make a distinction between primary and secondary sources. I think Slim Virgin is right (and I do not always agree with her and long questioned her on this). NOR needs to explain what "original research" is, and what it isn't and I do not think there is any way to do this without discussing primary and secondary sources. Some people do not understand the distinction or think it opens up a can of worms but i now believe that is because they think too literally. What I mean is, some people think that things are what they are. I do not mean to go into a long philosophical debate but Wittgenstien and Pierce and Dewey - generally acknowledged to be among the most important philosophers ever in the US and Europe - argued that the meaning of things including words depended on how they are used. To a large degree, what makes something a primary or secondary source is, how it is used. Primary sources can be used to establish facts without violating NOR, but they cannot be used to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or explanatory or evaluative claims without violating NOR. Secondary sources by contrast are the only sources we can use to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims (as long as they are the claims explicitly made by the source itself).

We can, did, and I think still should provide examples of primary and secondary sources, but they are just examples. The essence is in how they can or cannot be used.

This by the way means it is conceivable for a text to be either a primary or secondary source - depending on how it is used. Let's take On the Origin of Species for example. In it Darwin makes all sorts of analytic, synthetic, and explanatory claims about natural history. As a document concerning natural history, it is a secondary source. But in it he also expresses his own beliefs and judgements. As a document about Darwin, it is a primary source. In the article on Evolution we can use it freely as a secondary source. In the article on Charles Darwin it is a primary source and while we can use it for facts, if we want to mke arguments about what Darwin was like or what he meant, we should draw on appropriate secondary sources by historians of science, intellectual historians, and biographers of Darwin. I do not see this as a can of worms. I jus see this as a more sophisticated way of thinking that understand things in terms of the ways they are used, and understands that appropriate uses depend on the context.

A final comment: NOR is only about prohibiting original research. It is not bout "good" research. I think it is risky to discuss good research in a policy because what makes something good or bad is much more subjective and risks violating NPOV. That is why I think that any discussion of what constitutes good research (beyond our three core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR - which still leave a great deal of room for play) should be in essays or at most guidelines. For example, I think that a peer-reviewed journal article is far superior to website or newspaper article when writing on any academic topic. But I don't think this kind of view belongs in any policy. It should go in a guideline. Maybe that is what RS ought to be. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've come to the point where I believe that continuing the primary/secondary distinction is counterproductive, however well-thought and well-intentioned. It is constantly misunderstood, no matter how well it is explained. People adhere to one dictionary definition or another, or towards the interpretation of a particular field. The variability of the definitions and contextual application of the distinction is boggling. For example, in my schooling Origin of the Species is a historical source, making it distinctly a primary source. In the field of science, it may be called a secondary source in some circles, but it is also considered obsolete. It is not a reliable source on Evolution, except purely as a historical reference (whose prominence should be noted in secondary sources, making the need for primary or obsolete sources minimal). Reliability is an essential part of policy. NPOV, V and NOR rely upon the principle of seeking out the most reliable and accurate materials. Without reliability, the three core policies are meaningless and empty. Reliability is the glue that holds those policies together. It is my understanding that RS grew out of V, as an elaboration not a separate principle. While I believe a detailed elaboration of reliability is best suited for a guideline (an appropriate place for an extrapolation of policy), I do not believe that principle of reliability can be divorced from the three core content policies without significantly weakening and occluding the underlying principles. Just some thoughts. Share yours in return. :) Vassyana 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we just disagree about primary and secondary sources. As to my example - if you can come up with a better one to illustrate the point, please do so. If you can't, then you must have an even clearer distinction between the two kinds of sources in your mind than I do, and you should present that.

As to reliable sources, I think the problem is that good or bad are judgements and Wikipedia cannot make definitive claims about what constitutes a good or bad source without violating NOR which is why discussion of quality of sources should be a guideline, not a policy. That said, guidelines are important and RS is an important guideline. But just as I would tell COGDEn and Jacob H. to take their criticisms of NOR off the NOR talk page and onto their own new proposal page to abolish NOR, I would say that your concern with quality sources should be voiced and developed on the talk page of RS. I do not mean to drive you away from NOR, but the discussion at NOF must be simplified or there will be no progress. ALL of our policies are related but we shouldn't discuss NPOV on the NOR talk page. RS is related to NOR and VE, but shouldn't be discussed there. I urge you to archive talk on the RS talk page and lay out your concerns and organize a discussion for improving the RS guideline. If you in addition want to continue improving NOR please continue to be active on the NOR talk page, but not to discuss the quality of source,s only to discuss how to recognize original research and how to avoid doing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a large mistake to avoid the principle of reliable sourcing. NOR has long included such a requirement. In November 2006 (a version you prefer if I recall), the lede explicitly states "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article".[32] Indeed, by that point it was a well-established and settled issue, as it is found in the policy exactly six months previous (period of time chosen arbitrarily).[33] The current version retains the same phrasing and requirement as part of the central introduction to NOR. Both the topical and reliable sourcing requirements are expressed as a defining feature of no original research. WP:V#Sources very directly addresses reliable sourcing in the policy. Instead of avoiding the topic, we very directly need to address how it relates to the policy in any discussion of sources in the policy. I also disagree that NPOV and V shouldn't be discussed on WT:NOR, provided that the discussion is those policies in relation to, or in light of, NOR. The three policies are explicitly interdependent. I hope that helps clarify where I'm coming from on that count. Vassyana 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet as you yourself pointed out, you refer to the verifiability policy, but not the rs guideline. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think you misunderstsand me. I never said reliable sources is not important. I said it is important but that discussion of what we mean by it should go on the talk page for the RS guideline.

Also, I never said NOR NPOV and V are independent. I said they are very much connected, but I think it is better to discuss each one on its own talk page. I am trying to be practical: if we try to discuss the entire set of policies and guidelines on one talk page (e.g. NOR) we will never make progress and never resolve disputes. That is the bottom line: we need to resolve some disputes. this does not mean that I oppose any mention or reference of other policies on the NOR talk page. You know I do not mean this,k because you know I myself have refered to NPOV on the NOR talk page. I am not saying we cannot refer to other policies, obviously NOR has to fit in with NPOV and V which means some reference to those policies in our NOR talk. What I meant was, we should not debate what NPOV means, or changes to that policy, on the NOR page. To do so would muddle everything. Now, I am not directing the following sentence at you so do not take it personally and please do not take offense, but: it is a common tactic of trolls to bring up a different, however related, topic on a talk page as a way of diffusing discussion and preventing progress in settling conflicts - even the most capable, experienced, and well-intentioned editors can easily get sucked into going off on a tangent and wasting hours writing coments that are thoughtful, important, and correct - but that really just feed the trolls by encouraging the tangent. My ONLY intention in what I wrote about keeping talk on its propoer page is to combat those people. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding what you're saying. You're saying that each principle should be mainly represented on its own page, that questions/discussion regarding the meaning of those principles should be restricted to their pages, and changes or novel interpretations of those principles should be discussed in the appropriate talk page. The discussion of reliability in the policy and talk page should be limited to how it's directly related to NOR, based on what's been established in the other two main content policies. Is that correct? If I'm correct about what you're trying to explain, then we're probably very much on the same page in that regard. Cheers! Vassyana 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! We agree! My main motive at the moment is to keep things at NOR talk from getting too messy again, and so complicated that we can't resolve disputes. Obviously, if someone does not also understand NPOV and V they won't understand NOR. But in general, if we are going to use the words reliable sources in the NOR policy, we should do so in a way consistent with WP:RS and if there is a problem with the way WP:RS is written, we should address that on the talk page of WP:RS first, and then return to NOR to discuss how the two fit together. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you found my advice reasonable and constructive. There is no team of people who police policies, and people work on them a varying levels of intensity - in 2004 for example I put a lot of work into NOR. I am passionate about NPOV but never worked on it. When people first started working on RS I was appreciative but didn't follow their work ... my point being only that it is natural I think that our various policies and guidelines often be out of sync. Maybe this is a good time to review them all at least with regards to the sources issue - I am glad you are taking the time to pursue it. I don't know when I will have time to look at RS but I trust there are capable people working with you there so the burden is spread out a bit. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey page needs mediation, please consider helping[edit]


As you are both a member of the Occult project and an experienced mediator, you seem like a good person to whom to apply for help. The Alice Bailey page has been the scene of an ongoing edit war for two months.

Rather than try to explain it all to you -- which might embroil me in presenting a biased point of view favouring my side of the conflict, it is my hope that you will take the time to first read the page itself and then to read the archived and current talk pages and to check out some of the edit history (the reversion-war edit history is too extensive for a thorough analysis, but you willl soon get the picture). The talk pages can be skimmed, because 99.99% of the conflict centers around only one short section -- what was once called the "Criticism" section and is now called the "Controversies" section.

I am very frustrated by what has gone on and is continuing to go on at the Alice Bailey page. You will understand my role in the events best by reading, so, again, there is no need for me to plead my side of the case here. I am currently known as Nameless Date Stamp. I am a professional in the field of ocultism and folk magic and edit in that field often, as well as in my many hobby fields. (You may read a bit more about me at the talk page of the user AnonEMouse, who has been counseling me to resume my old user name despite the problems that it caused. I may be doing so soon, as his points are good and it was never my intention to remain under s pseudonym.)

Thank you for any help you can give, any time you can spare, and any hope you can bring to what seems to me to be a pretty grim situation.

Nameless Date Stamp 03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of your 1976 Tehran UFO Incident article review...[edit]

...being the height of rationality, I'm going to begin appealing to you for additional reviews of WP:PARA oriented articles, beginning here with the Battle of Los Angeles page. Thank you in advance. --Chr.K. 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert editors for a content dispute in history[edit]

Hi, Since you are on the mediation cabal, I thought I'd ask for your opinion. I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one there will help.

Could you please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. If you think an RfC is not a good idea, could you suggest some other options. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, I do hope this won't be taken as stalking, but since Fowler has asked for opinion, I was hoping I could explain my position too.

You will see from my statements that my issue was with what the wordings said, which I felt gave a factually wrong opinion and ascribed a lot of importance on only one movement, one person and his philosophy, without describing key events that fell partly or wholly outside that movement. I made a referenced edit which attempted to give a more comprehensive view on the notable events of the Indian independence movement in as little words as possible. Fowler&fowler revereted this edit repeatedly first by saying that I am not allowed to make long edits with even longer footnotes as references(I thought this was a WP:OWN issue). Subsequently he cited space constriction for an FA article for the history section not to be expanded. Then he accused me of having a Hindu Far-right PoV (you can judge by my edit history). His own comments (found on the India talk page) before I was forced to bring in the RfC suggested that he had a PoV issue with my version (to which I provided references from published opionions of respectable Historians). He then attempted to show in the RfC that my edits disagree with what Indian history experts find notable in the movement by showing the number of pages devoted to each (The point he makes above). I have pointed out that the results agree with the timeline and durations of each movement, but also that some of his searches are wrong. Also, my repeated requests to cite the authors' opinion on the critical events has not been answered by Fowler, while I felt I have shown more than adequately that what I was including in my edits are indeed critical events as adjudged by many historians. Fowler insists that the topic of Indian independence movement should be a statement and not a note or summary of notable events, and argues this in a very inflammatory and moreover ill-behaved way. He has so far cited tertiary sources from authors whose published works, I have pointed out, disagreed with what Fowler suggests their opinion may be, suggesting he is cherry-Picking his sources. There is no doubt Fowler has a point that most authors cover the period between 1918-1938 in great detail, whic Fowler insists (I believe) should be the only period included to say this was the major movement. But I have also shown that the independence movement is broken up by historians into sections preceding that and following that. I have suggested that RfC be held in Wikiprojest India, because I felt this would be the best forum to address some of Fowler's views about notable events and leaders in the Indian movement, and the opinions on the decisiveness of different movements. I feel I have satisfied WP:SOURCE quite thoroughly and it was extrememly unfair of Fowler to have reverted to start with, including using the edit summary that he did. Having done this, he repeatedly tried to promote a PoV point in extremely agitated manner instead of having a constructive dialogue that I tried to establish with him, and later suggested this was because I was trying to distort history. He has tried o talk me down, and also twice threatened me to stop editing in talk page, in the last instance suggestin what I felt was that he would call an arbitration on me if I didn't stop editing the talk page (make your own conclusion).

I believe I have cited more than one referenced opinion to each and every one of Fowler's points. Lastly, it was my belief that wikipedia does not recognise any of its editors as experts on a topic. They may be good editors, but the ultimate relabillity was to be the verifiable sources. I am not only disappointed, but also bitter at the way Fowler has approached this, and essentially feel his whole aim was, and still is, to prevent anything similar to my edits appearing.He threw my last attempt to calm things right on my face. I think he has a PoV, and he is prepared to interpret the sources to reflect this.Sorry if this seems like a wrant, but it is me who is nearing the end of my patience.Rueben lys 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User Lima NOR[edit]

Could you look at user:Lima's recent contributions at Eucharist. He appears to be arguing points of viewe and doing original research as described in your recent note to him, particularly in the last two sections which discuss points of view he disapproves of on religious grounds. Thanks in advance.Eschoir 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat articles[edit]

Do you have any thoughts on how/where progress can be made ? Removal of the teachings section from an article about a supposed teacher is bizzare, if perhaps unavoidable. My own position is that there should be a Beliefs, Teachings and Meditation Techniques section, perhas you could look at and let me know what you think.

Andries has made a start on a Teachings article - to which Momento has given the following response: I think the way forward might be to tell the story as we see it and then find the quotes that support the story.Momento 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Retrieved from ""

It is precisely this bankrupt approach of selecting quotes to fit the "story" that has produced such a corrupted set of articles in the first place. However even if we can produce an article based on evidence I'm not clear whether this will replace the Techniques of Knowledge article (a misnomer as nothing can actually be said about what they are because no scholar has actually ever written about them)- or whether we are to have yet another detached Rawat article.

As far as I can see this is going to need some hands on administration - perhaps you could make some suggestions about where we go from here.

--Nik Wright2 11:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines[edit]

There is an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines about clarifying the definitions of essay, guidelines, and policy. --Kevin Murray 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview[edit]

I've noticed your proposal at Notability. I'm not sure whether you are aware of my efforts in February toward a similar goal. You might look at Wikipedia talk:Notability/overview, which was assessed after several mergers to reduce the bulk, with the biggest success being the merger and pruning of CORP and ORG. You might also look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc which is the deletion discussion about a template which was placed in all of the notability subsections to standardize the "primary notability criterion" (PNC). Another discussion that might be interesting is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films) where I proposed the deletion of a proposal that was not broadly supported, but that had a very aggressive and vocal team of supporters that kept overturning the rejection tag. The effort failed and eventually the battle to reject was not worth the fight. --Kevin Murray 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the solution is getting rid of all of the sub-pages. I don't think that we need them, but too many people seem to disagree. If people really could understand the simplicity of WP:N then there would be no need. Unfortunately people are over complicating the whole thing in a collective effort at simplification. Consider the analogy of the Tragedy of the commons, where aggressive pursuit of individual success can result in overall failure. --Kevin Murray 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and thoughts! Vassyana 10:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research[edit]

Hi, this RfM made me think. I was under the impression that policy decisions were out of bounds for RfM's. Wikipedia:Mediation#What_is_mediation.3F Am I missing something? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposed issues for mediation? - But|seriously|folks  08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The locus of the dispute is covered by current policy. The broader community has been solicited on multiple occasions. The page been protected multiple times due to edit warring. I felt formal mediation was an appropriate recourse to help us reach consensus. Of course, any consensus or compromise we reach will still have to be presented to the community for review and approval. I hope this helps clarify the situation. Vassyana 10:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Heya, you asked for some ideas on IRC, but you don't seem to be responding to pings. Basically traditional-style Mediation Cabal *might* be able to help. I'm not sure any traditional-stylers still exit, but nowadays we do have editor assistence, 3rd opinion, etc.
The basic idea is to get someone to give direction to the conversations, and solve one point at a time.
Hmm, this kind of situation is not unique. More in general, what we might need is to actually set up some kind of chairperson role for pages where there's a lot going on at once. Such a role might reduce a lot of noise and nastiness at the same time. --Kim Bruning 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Wild Arms 2 characters[edit]

The issue at List of Wild Arms 2 characters needs to be addressed and discussed specifically and nuancefully instead of how it's been dismissed without it. Please see my comments in its edit history and my complaint at User talk:Betacommand. Let us please continue the discussion at Talk:List of Wild Arms 2 characters. - Gilgamesh 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Copyrights (IRC)[edit]

Thanks a lot, good to know I wasn't wrong declining the couple G12's that got reported from that source ;). -- lucasbfr talk 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I presented a very plain view. I think many today are not aware that there is a very strict mode in Indian Vedic Schools about who's views are to be primarily presented, and when one can start teaching and advising Vedas. From my personal understanding, few important people with the title Shankaracharya are highly regarded. If you think I cannot discuss the same, kindly advice. If you think I presented something wrong, Kindly let me know. I was not surely in a mood to soapbox etc. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are many published books from the Shankaracharya's and not a single is being quoted at the vedas. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend that you raise the issue of cultural bias with a very polite and short note on the Veda talk page. Simply point out that there is a lack of Indian sources and ask people which kinds of Indian sources that would feel are acceptable and would help provide a better balance to the article. You may also wish to raise the issue at the Hinduism WikiProject, where the members may be able to help you determine which sources are considered reliable for Wikipedia and give you some responses to the issue as a whole. I hope this helps. Be well!!! Vassyana 07:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I softened the query a bit. I think it should be fine with everyone now I've also presented a citation that the Shankaracharya for Hinduism are as good as Popes for Christianity and their comments on Vedas be taken more seriously. BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:IB logo.png[edit]

Hi there,

You removed the link from the IB template to this logo. I'm not exactly sure why - which of the 10 points did it fail to meet? Is there a way you could suggest for its inclusion?

Ewen 11:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC criteria #9. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions is also relevant as it strongly emphasizes such images should not be used in templates. I hope that helps clarify the situation. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Explanation of policy and guidelines may help clarify why the situation is the way it is. Cheers! Vassyana 12:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha! Sorry, I missed that bit - I guess I should read more carefully. Thanks for rectifying my SNAFU. Ewen 13:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for understanding. Vassyana 13:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari[edit]

Hi Vassyana - I wanted to thank you for coming over to the Johann Hari page and monitoring it.

If you read through the history of the page, you'll find that one user, Felix-Felix, has a history of persistently inserting false information about Hari: that he went to Harrow School, that he "fabricated" a news story, etc. He obviously loathes Hari, as you can see from his description of him as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that." Hasn't he already gone so far, as the history of the discussion page shows, that he should be blocked? This guy is waging a vendetta.

- DavidR81.129.156.202 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I will be watching the article closely and enforcing a zero-tolerance approach to repeated BLP violations both in the article proper and in the talk page, as per my talk page note. Vassyana 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana. If you check out the discussion on the Johann hari page, the wiki administrator David Gerard has said that Private Eye, a satiricial magazine which made a series of libellous accusations against Hari, shouldn't be used as a source since it doesn't fit BLP regulations. But the user Felix-Felix is still insisting on his right to quote it as a source, and willfully misrepresenting what Dasvid said. If you could come along and clarfiy that these libellous claims would breach BLP and be deleted it would be really helpful. This user is, as I said before, motivated by malice, has described Hari as "a self publicising careerist and an especially unpleasant one at that," etc.

Thanks, DavidR81.129.156.202 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at the discussion. Currently, Felix-felix is blocked for making a false edit to the article. Thank you for the heads up. Vassyana 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Vassyana, I've been blocked for a BLP vio on the Johann Hari page, which is from a misunderstanding, I think. You blocked me for the edit-"Hari pointed out the violence of the Raj" "The Raj" is a term for British colonial India, and not a person's name, which is how I presume that you interpreted it. If you glance back at the discussion pages on this article, you can see that I've been editing it for over a year, and have been in dispute with dave r for most of it. My edits have always been good faith ones, and dave r (he no longer uses his account) and I have even been in (Cabal) mediation. Thus, as I`ve made no BLP vio, and my edit acyually increased the accuracy of the passage (take a look at the 4 citations), can you remove my block please? Thanks, Felix-felix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into Felix-felix's unblock request as an uninvolved admin. Could you identify the edit in which he adds material contravening WP:BLP? As a general principle, adding a controversial claim which violates WP:BLP once is not, I would have thought, blockable; readding something after it has been removed and its problems pointed out would be. Sam Blacketer 10:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The block is a bit strong, and is intended to be, in order to make a clear message and protect the article. The user has a long history on that page, including repeated incidents of misrepresentation and falsehoods. The particular edit is relatively "harmless".[34] However, it is part of a broader pattern of behaviour that has lead to (legitimate) complaints from the subject of the article. If you feel my block was excessive, please by all means reduce or lift the block. I am prone to errors in judgment, as much as anyone else. :) Vassyana 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't agree with you that that edit constitutes a WP:BLP violation. In order to breach WP:BLP it would have to be controversial material. A claim that someone viewed the British Raj in India as violent, is not a particularly controversial claim: the Raj ended sixty years ago, and included plenty of violent incidents; argument about who was responsible is a legitimate matter of debate and one which has in fact been widely debated with people taking divergent views without particular personal controversy entering into it. For another, in order to breach WP:BLP the material would have to be unsourced or poorly sourced. The source cited here is a piece on the subject's own website which leads off with the assertion that "But far from building up India to make it capable of self-rule, in reality the British destroyed it". I think the term 'violence' is probably a mischaracterisation as it is economic exploitation and deliberate starvation which is the thrust of Hari's argument, but that is a matter for editing and correction and not a WP:BLP removal.
I note your comment on User talk:Felix-felix that there have been OTRS complaints, but that does not mean that we have accepted them as justified, nor to accept that this user in particular is responsible if they are. I don't think his editing here has been disruptive. I'm therefore removing the block. Sam Blacketer 10:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite understandable. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me and explain your rationale. It is sincerely appreciated. I will handle the article and involved users a bit less aggressively in light of your feedback. Vassyana 11:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your fair-minded reply. I appreciate the concerns this article has been giving; delving into the page history it seems that the Private Eye columns having a go at Johann Hari have spurred some of the malicious editing. Newspaper columnists largely derive their fame (and income) from writing controversial pieces with which other people are likely to disagree, with complicates the matter. The concern here must be to try to summarise the subject's views as accurately as possible, and keep out the questionable material about his personal life and background. I suspect most readers will be interested in learning where exactly Johann Hari stands on the issues of the day, not where he went to school. Sam Blacketer 11:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not infallible. :) Vassyana 11:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, I've left this note for Sam explaining why you reacted as you did. I'd appreciate your advice too:

Hi Sam. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann hari page, which I know you've taken an interest in.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced (and seriously libellous) claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR 12:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My first suggestion would be to file a request for comment. More eyes and opinions can often be helpful. An another option in that same vein would be to ask for an outside opinion. You could also ask for assistance in keeping the article BLP compliant by asking, in a neutral fashion, for some extra eyes from the biography WikiProject. The BLP noticeboard can also be helpful in getting some outside opinions and raising specific issues. I hope that helps! Vassyana 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the above. Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelix talk 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely a violation of WP:CANVASS. I noted one message and left him a message regarding it. I did not realize he was going all out. I have to leave the house at the moment, but please raise this issue on WP:AN/I, so an administrator can review the situation. Please update me if something new comes up and either way, I will check on the situation when I return. (Also, thank you for still regarding me with good faith, despite our disagreement/conflict regarding your edit and block. It is sincerely appreciated and noted.) Vassyana 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana - I wasn't aware of the Cnavass rule, I was just concerned about seeing wikipedia abused by soembody with a hateful agenda and trying to rally other wikipedians to stop it. Sorry about that.

I am concerned that at the moment Felix-Felix is insisting that when the page is unfrozen he will continue to link to allegations that every wiki administrator who has posted on the page says does not meet BLP regulations. He claims that by simply linking to the allegations, rather than describing them in the entry, he is not infringing BLP regulations. I find this totally unaccepotable, and think it is clearly a way of trying to draw readers towards false allegations and give them wikipedia credibility. Could you come over to the page and clarify the issue one way or another? -DavidR 12:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Since you enquired after this user yesterday, you may want to take a look at his activities at Talk:Ganesha and Ganesha in the past few hours:

  1. He started by asking a question at article talk page, which has already been addressed in the article itself. (I wouldn't even bring this up if it did not represent a pattern of behavior)
  2. I politely told him where to look in the article for the answers.
  3. He replied simply that the cited sources were irrelevant to him and there were "1000s of other sources", without of course citing even one. Again a pattern of behavior he has demonstrated before. Incidentally, in case you are unfamiliar with the topic, H.H. Wilson was the first scholar to translate Rig Veda into English and the edition cited is the most up-to-date of all translations; and you can read Ludo Rocher's short CV here. Also BR ignored references to Nagar, Shanti Lal (1992) and Ramachandra Rao, S. K. (1992) who are cited in the same passage - I'll leave it up to you to surmise what distinguishes these two scholars from the other two he did object to.
  4. Finally and worst of all, he simply deleted two well written (copyedited by two editors from WP:LOCE!) and extensively referenced passages from the article itself with edit summary "kindly create a seperate article for these Ganesha allegory, Hindu allegory". I dare say he does not understand the meaning of the word allegory which makes no sense in this context, but is repeating it only because User:Dbachman used it in a discussion with him a day back. (see this discussion).

I have given him another civil last warning, but I'm afraid he has grown immune to all the empty "last warnings". What, if anything, would you recommend ? (I'm placing this comment on your talk page instead of ANI or CSN only because I'm loath to take the time to catalog BR's multiple transgressions, and you are already intimately familiar with the background) Cheers. Abecedare 10:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm around and looking into it immediately. Vassyana 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked the user with a clear warning and appeal.[44] Vassyana 10:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope (in spite of past experience!) that this is not simply a 31 hour respite, but has an actual impact on his future editing. Thanks for your quick response in either case.
By the way, we are planning to nominate Ganesha, which is perhaps the single best article of the Hinduism project, for FAC soon. If you have the time, your comments will be very helpful. Cheers. Abecedare 10:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have tried very strongly to assume good faith and give him time to acclimate. However, at this point, if the behaviour continues longer blocked will be issued, up and including a restoration of his indef. Vassyana 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I too hate to see enthusiastic editors being prevented from editing, unless (as seemingly in BR's case) their editing is to the detriment to the content of the encyclopedia and the community building it. As for acclimatization: BR has been editing on wikipedia with a (legitimate) alternate account since 2004, so I am not sure if inexperience is/was ever an excuse. Anyway, I do hope that he comes back a reformed and more prudent editor and we all can spend more time improving articles. Abecedare 11:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been cases of "long term" editors simply never being properly introduced to the concepts here. Like I said, I assumed good faith, saw he was working with a mentor and seemed responsive, so I tried extending the benefit of the doubt. I hope he returns with a more prudent approach as well, since I believe his energetic nature could be of great potential benefit to Wikipedia. However, if the disruptive behaviour and exhausting of community patience continues, I will be left with little choice to block him indefinitely again. Vassyana 11:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is uncommon on Wikipedia[edit]

"Common sense tells us that verification will require a minimum amount of effort. We should not use less reliable sources to appeal to the laziness of those unwilling to invest the time and/or money necessary to verify reliable sources. In cases of equal reliability, no reason not to cite both unless the article is already overcited. Vassyana 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)"

Rather nicely said. I'm going to quote you on my talk page. Don't be offended at being in amongst the crap on it, there is occassionally something worthwhile going on there. KP Botany 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind compliment. :) I'm glad you appreciate the sentiment. Vassyana 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Alice Bailey[edit]

Hi Vassyana, I noticed you commented on Talk: Alice Bailey a bit recently, and I'd like to comment briefly. One editor in particular seems to be constantly attempting to create the chance to repeatedly defend himself with florid displays of pseudo-erudition and name-dropping; I recommend non-engagement, instead. The few times I write him directly, my arguments are mostly terminal instead of open-ended, and written for others' sake, with no hope of convincing him. Notice in the section "BS Excuse" that he does not respond to my actual semi-scholarly analysis of channeling vis-a-vis Bailey -- no real interest in the article, merely in himself, I believe. Anyways, this sort of personal opinionizing about other editors is very rare for me, so I'll stop it already. I do want to say thanks for your input, so "thanks for your input". :) Eaglizard 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I hope you can explain me this. [45] BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

online book for ref

BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your addition is very out-of-place. The section is discussing hymns to other gods that were later adopted to the worship of Ganesha, while your edit was an aside about a title of Ganesha. Vassyana 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a confusion about that term. I attempted to explain it. It was not out of the place, I gave the reason on what popular faith said. If you can help me with this, I will feel good.BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I'd gladly help with the subject. I suspect the worst-case scenarios are where an article uses an existing term incorrectly, instead of using a neologism, or uses a neologism which describes too narrow or too wide a category. I'd suggest that people be careful to:

  • Check whether the description is already in use.
  • Put it up on the talk page, looking for alternatives. Jacob Haller 23:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten[edit]

Could you undelete Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and, assuming it was tagged for speedy deletion, place it up on WP:AFD? I disagree with the deletion of this article (and the reasoning given, specifically, that the article discusses a non-notable subject). Thank you. —Locke Coletc 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pheh, take it to DRV. The AfDs were useless and only proved that the community has no idea what they are doing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not really your call to make, that's why we have a community, afterall. —Locke Coletc 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article made no assertion of notability. You are welcome to raise the issue at WP:DRV. Vassyana 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
After some minor research, I see this was up on AfD less than two weeks ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten (3rd nomination)). As you can see, the result was keep. There's no basis for speedily deleting something the community just decided to keep after going through the AfD process. I again request that you undelete the page (I will not be going through DRV as I view your deletion as improper and I'm giving you this chance to correct your mistake). —Locke Coletc 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA[edit]

Daytona beach sunrise.jpg

Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! You are a fantastic editor..I learn from you every day.. Dreadstar 07:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Every time I what, I kill a WHAT? ...what the...? Spooky thought..) Dreadstar 07:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Html form validation[edit]

Yes, please, I'd like to see both. ←BenB4 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding RfM John Howard[edit]

Hello Vassyana. I had submitted the John Howard article for mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard, which was rejected. I noticed your signature at the bottom of the page, but there was no comment or recommendation on what to do next. I haven't been through a mediation process before, nor do I know what to do next.

There's disputed information in the article. Those who favor inclusion seem to be more willing to mediate. Those who want the information omitted seem to me to be less willing to mediate. There doesn't seem to be much room to compromise. Discussions are heated and personal. Edit wars are common. People get blocked routinely. It would have been nice to resolve it one way or the other just to put such a hot issue to rest.

What do you suggest to resolve an issue like this? --Lester2 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. This message is factually incorrect and contains more misinformation and forum shopping. Sarah 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll rephrase it. I submitted the content dispute to RfM, hoping that it would allow involved parties to discuss it in a less volatile environment. It failed, for reasons I don't need to explain. When RfM cannot proceed for these kind of reasons, what commonly happens? The case has many involved parties, so acceptance for RfM seems remote. What have past cases done in a similar situation? Thanks, --Lester2 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Nice little essay ... I left a comment, and will keep an eye on it as it developes. Blueboar 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, I will try to later today. Have you read my essay here? sounds like it is on a related topic Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

dissent vs. consensus[edit]

With respect, I'd like to comment on "Jossi, you know I strongly favour a distinction between primary and secondary sources. However, it's fairly clear there is a lack of policy-level consensus for such a section, at least in this policy." I disagree with your assessment that there is no consensus. The fact is, the vast majority , the overwhelming majority, of Wikipedians are simply not invovled in this discussion. It is true that 3-6 editors are vigorously opposed to the disinction and they have dominated the talk page for over a month, but that is not the same as consensus. In fact, it is not uncommon for people who resist policies to be more active on their talk pages, than people who support them. Policies do and should have tremendous inertia and most people, I think understand NOR and abide by it and do not get involved in debates on the talk page because they know that they will not lead to a change in the policy. So what appears to you as a lack of consensus for the current wording I see as the opposite. If thee was a real lack of consensus for the policy in its current form (sources and all) a hundred or more editors would be involved in this debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Archifile Sockpuppet[edit]

Hi, Could this ip be blocked as it is being used by Archifile, The edits are the same see [46] & [47] and also cause of personal attacks [48] Thanks ExtraDry 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because Ian Lambert is in both edits doesn't make them the same or prove sockpuppetry. I also believe Ian Lambert should be listed as does Loopla. If the comment on madness is seen as a personal attack I would be very suprised - it seems to be in good fun and is just part of the argy bargy between ExtraDry and anyone with an interest in Newington. I would suggest all have a bex, a good lie down and a laugh. Waterdanks 00:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The above user is also a newington sockpuppet. ExtraDry 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Essence (magazine)
The Tao of Physics
Western Christianity
Creator deity
Formal principle
Flavia Maximiana Theodora
Hitler's Pope
Brandon Toropov
Folk Christianity
American Unitarian Association
Christian Church
Pope Victor I
Erwin Rohde
Bentley Layton
Spiritual desertion
Cruising for sex
Jewish eschatology
Sunday Christian
Add Sources
Witch of Endor
The Christian Century
Spiritual gift
John Ankerberg
Christianity Explained
Homosexuality and psychology
Stir of Echoes

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 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian religions[edit]

Hi, Vassyana…….IAF is wreaking a havoc on the pages of Indian religions. I suggest that you have a look at his edits and discussion. He has violated the 3RR rule many times. Its high time some administrator intervened here.--Anish Shah 09:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IAF is once again back to his old tricks by using IP -

He has started edit warring once again -

I suggest that this page be semi protected. Thanks--Anish Shah 08:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

your essay[edit]

I basically like it. I suggest that you say more about the relevance of policies in relation to controversy ... if you agree with me, it is most important to comply with policies when there is conflict and contention; if there is little or no conflict at an article, there is little or no need to appeal to policies (to put it another way, they have value in the context of conflict, not consensus).

What do you think of my proposed revision of the second section of NOR (section 1 on the talk page)? My intention is to provide the historical context, and do so in a way that explains how the other core content policies - their intentions and limitations - provided a context for NOR. Given your own appreciation of context I hope you understand what i am trying to do here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it and I'm pretty sure I noted my support under the proposal. :) If I didn't, let me know. Vassyana 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't think you did (rather, I thin when i first made it you registered a comment. Since then material was archived, and someone, i think Wbfergus, set up a poll - so could you vote? Also, Wikidemos registered some criticisms and if you think s/he is right, or if you see any way to edit what I wrote for clarity and consision, I would welcome that. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for inviting my comments. Vassyana 19:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lost material[edit]

Hi, you have redirected the page Lenina Huxley to Demolition Man (film), fine with me, but where is the material that was supposed to be merged?? Necessary Evil 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I closed the debate as delete and redirect. None of the article were referenced, even a couple of the merge supporters expressed concern about that problem and the associated original research. Therefore, I did not perform a merge of the material. Vassyana 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of the material had the DVD as a source, where is that material now? Normally it's possible to find it in the History section [alt-h]. Necessary Evil 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No sources were listed. The material has been deleted, as the debate was closed "delete and redirect". Vassyana 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Haven't you read the article, you've deleted? Perhaps the DVD source wasn't placed under a <references/>, but the DVD was a reference! Necessary Evil 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I just double-checked the deleted article. It has no sources, none at all. Regardless, we shouldn't be citing the movie itself. We should be citing what reliable third-party references have to say about the film. Vassyana 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's strange to discuss with a person who apparently have access to deleted material. I can't prove anything and you can go on with:"none, nada, zip, zero". I have a feeling that you only accept <ref>Demolition Man DVD, 1993</ref> as a source, and not "according to the 'Demolition Man' DVD" or something like that. Anyway, I don't know if someone else removed the "according to the 'Demolition Man' DVD" or something like that, prior to the last version you read before deleting the page. If you go back, you'll see an "according to the 'Demolition Man' DVD" or something like that.
The DVD and the movie wasn't the subject of the article and could therefore be a source.
It's also funny that it was so important to suppress the content. Necessary Evil 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm done discussing this issue. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. However, I'm not going to engage in a debate over a completely unsourced article that was deleted per AfD discussion. Vassyana 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just remembered that google is caching deleted web sites - and guess what I found:
<<Lines from the DVD "Demolition Man", 1993>>, that is a source IMHO, an informal one, but still a source. You could have saved us both time by admitting it - even if you disliked the DVD as a source. Your arrogant "no sources, none, nada, zip, zero" made me consider issuing a motion of no confidence against your administrator status. Necessary Evil 23:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Admin mop.PNG My RFA
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriosu concerns at the Johann Hari page[edit]

Hi Vassyana - I am very concerned about a new addition to the Johann Hari page, and I'd appreciate your help.

Felix-Felix is currently arguing that he can insert a new section, designed by his own admission to suggest Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously impugned. He does not have BLP or NOTE standard sources for these claims, as three wiki administrators have said.

There are four 'sources' felix claims to have.

(1) Private Eye. This is a British scandal magazine, which Hari was attacked by literally a week after he criticised its editor in print. One wiki administrator has said on this page it should be viewed with "a very jaundiced eye", another has said it is "at best 50 percent accurate", yet Felix is insisting on using it as a source. This fails both BLP and NOTE, since Private Eye attacks virtually all prominent journalists sooner or later.

(2) A website called Counterpunch,. which meets BLP standards, but has an extraordinarily trivial charge against Hari. They complain that he repeated in an op-ed column a story that had been reported in hundreds of newspapers. Even they concede that once it became clear the story was fake, he published a correction. This fails NOTE.

(3) A journalist called Nick Cohen, who was responding to a very critical review of his book by Hari. This is (rightly) included in the entry already, since it passes both BLP and NOTE.

(4) An obscure pro-war website, which is written by friends of Cohen, who simply repeated his charge. This fails NOTE.

I believe this is an inadequate basis on which to build a section suggesting Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously questioned by wiki-standard sources.

I am very concerned about this and would appreciate your help. I have removed it but suspect Felix-Felix will try to reinsert it. -DavidR86.157.118.58 10:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana, your intervention is much appreciated. It can be a bit wearying arguing with this guy so I am really grateful for you upholding the wiki rules.David r from meth productions 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Passive smoking mediation[edit]


You're currently mediating a dispute on the passive smoking article (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Passive_smoking). Is it too late for me to become an involved party? I was heavily involved in the initial discussions which led to this (as on the article's talk page), and as it's ongoing now I'm back in circulation I'd appreciate the chance to contribute. That said, my viewpoints are more or less represented by MastCell, Yilloslime, John Quiggin, and Dessources. Thanks. Nmg20 15:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NPA and un-admin-like conduct on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Sternberg (2nd nomination)[edit]

This edit [49], part of which you later struck through but left intact, was a violation of WP:NPA. You have crossed the line with several other edits on the AFD page in question as well.

You're a Wikipedia administrator. No Personal Attacks and the civility policy are key parts of how we have to behave for the project to work as a community project, bringing together widely varying volunteers from around the world.

Please calm down on this AFD and edit in a civil manner. Georgewilliamherbert 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to your general characterization of my actions, which I find to be grossly inaccurate. I struck through the comments because they were rude, and I was asked. It's generally considered dubious to remove comments. Many people react to that as though you're "hiding" something. However, I'll gladly completely remove the comments. As a response though, it was not a personal attack, but I do apologize if you were offended by my blunt comments. Vassyana 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP tags[edit]

Could you please put an explanation for your BLP concern tags on the Joel Furr and Gharlane article talk pages?

Was there more to those tags than disagreeing that the net.legends FAQ is a reliable source? Please explain.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I had to hurry out of the house, or else I would have left a note on the talk pages. My apologies. Vassyana 23:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I need to hurry out again. I have self-reverted until I have the time to justify the tags. Vassyana 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)