User talk:Vassyana/Archive010

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

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

Help required[edit]

Hi, I am trying to develop Anekantavada as a featured article candidate and require your help for additional contributions and improvements. I have got it peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) and require additional independent opinion. If you have sometime, I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


You accused me of violating WP:NOR here[1]. That is a serious accusation. Could you tell me if you read my sourcing, the Cramer and Olson paper, before you made your accusation? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been fairly clearly explained, but I will provide some additional feedback. However, I would first like to note that regardless of the NOR violation, it was pushing a controversial edit in a long standing dispute for which you and another person were recently blocked. That alone would be sufficient to justify further sanctions for disruption. That being said, this edit did commit original research. You present it as though government documents nigh exclusively discuss military service and that some few other sources provide other uses. The thrust of the paper itself is to argue that the historical roots of a right to bear arms is based in a broad usage of the right, including far more than military service, strongly ingrained in the common law and legal foundations of the United States. Avoiding arguments over the wording being cited, it's clearly an acute misuse of the source (and probably original research) to use it in such a fashion as to make it appear to support an opposite conclusion. To make a comparison, it would not be acceptable to selectively (and/or inaccurately) cite a paper that makes a forceful argument for special relativity to argue against (or using a phrasing implying invalidity of) special relativity. It is no more acceptable on the topic of bearing arms. Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You neglected to actually answer my question. Also, I guess, that determining "the thrust" of the Cramer and Olson paper depends on the reading, but in good faith when I read that paper I reach a different conclusion that you did. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was attempting to avoid being drawn into arguments of minutiae. Regardless, let's address your edit:[2]

The paper does not purport to "confirm" any such claim. On the contrary, the paper puts forward the possibility of selection bias for such claims from previous sources. It does say that it is "unsurprising" that government documents discuss governmental functions and uses. However, the paper also makes it clear that "military service" is not the whole of this discussion. The paper does not say that the scope was simply expanded to non-governmental documents. It states the search was more comprehensive and casting it as does your edit is extremely dishonest. Commentaries on the Laws of England can hardly be cast as distinct from government usage, for example, as it was 'and is considered the authoritative source on the state of Anglo-American common law in the late 18th century. Indeed, it is even cited by the United States Supreme Court for such purposes. Additionally, the paper makes it further clear that the broad interpretation was the standard of common law at the time. One can hardly state that common law considerations are independent from governmental concerns.

These are just a few points that demonstrate the inappropriate use of the source. The edit on a very fundamental level commits original research, cherrypicking and grossly distorting the source to advance a position. If you earnestly cannot distinguish sufficiently between the correct and incorrect use of sources in an area that you hold a strong interest in (which is very common and quite human), then I would strongly recommend editing unrelated topics to take advantage of your strengths unhindered by bias. Vassyana (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking to discuss the meaning of the Cramer paper, and I strongly disagree with your opinion and your accusation of bad faith, but I won't engage that discussion here on your talk page. I am questioning the appearance that you are taking sides in a content dispute. It appears that your criticism of my edit, and your tacit approval of this revert by Yaf has a poor appearance. Taking sides may not be your intent, and that is why I am asking. In any case your conduct has the appearance that you have taken Yaf's side in the content dispute, as Yaf has asserted here. You may want to clear up this appearance of impropriety, as I suspect that you did not actually intend it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This goes beyond a reasonable content disagreement. It's not "taking sides" any more than blocking someone for a personal attack, soapboxing or other issues is "taking sides". You blatantly and obviously misused a source, presenting conclusions in contradiction to the source, to promote your opinion. This isn't a debate about a murky meaning or content selection or anything of the like. If you seriously and honestly do not understand what was wrong with your edit, you really need to walk away from the topic. Vassyana (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Day[edit]

Admin mop.PNG
Wishing Vassyana/Archive010 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Idontknow610TM 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Upon consideration, it would be best to let this issue drop. While some information may be available or even public, it doesn't mean that it should be raised here on Wikipedia. Unless it is pertinent to the purposes of Wikipedia, it should not be raised here. While it is certainly not "outing" (and shouldn't be called such), raising it against the person's wishes with no obvious purpose for the encyclopedia could easily be construed as harassment and/or simply being disruptive to prove a point. I would encourage people to avoid hyperbolic and inaccurate language such a "outing" to describe raising the public information. However, I would also strongly encourage people to not raise the information, as I cannot fathom the purpose of raising it on Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree. Even what is already in the ArbCom should only be raised with a reason. My original mention of his site was misjudged (or rather unjudged). To me it was only a passing reference, the first thing that came to mind when I cast around for a specific example of editors on that article (well, second). Nor did I know anything about any wishes of [user], as I had not had contact with him for many months (I didn't even know that the evidence page of the ArbCom had been blanked). People mention my ArbCom stuff all the time, it doesn't bother me. QuackGuru also emailed me for mentioning [user]'s site on your talk page, threatening to go to AN/I. I think that my original mention may have been a little off, but all this fuss has outed [user] much more than anything I would ever have done or thought of doing. It also caused me to do a lot of research on [user], which I'd never have done otherwise. I see you archived all that, so I'll blank his name. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It could have been approached better by all involved, myself included. I was just dropping a line to everyone who commented in the section to note its archival and my thoughts after due consideration. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Yes, "outing" may not be the best term, but harassment and violations of WP:TALK and WP:POINT are probably more accurate. Unnecessary or irrelevant use of outside information regarding Wikipedians, especially when used to attack them, isn't constructive or conducive to a collaborative environment. Regardless of our differing POV, we all need to avoid personal attacks. I wish that policy included something about this. The closest I have found is the condemnation of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Using people's POV against them is also unfair, since that makes it seem illegitimate to have a POV. We should stick to commenting on the edits, sources, etc., instead of impugning each other's motives. -- Fyslee / talk 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim[edit]


Regarding working on this page, I am wondering about the appropriateness of soliciting outside help in sourcing the information found in the current version of the article. I'm assuming it would not be OK to have uninvolved partied editing the Trim page itself, but would it be appropriate for others to post source information and discuss things on the Trim talk page? I myself am only marginally familiar with the subject of Kender, and can conclude that the other involved parties are either in the same boat, or don't have the time to put in to getting the work done. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine that soliciting assistance for finding good references should ever be considered inappropriate. I would ask that you try to keep any observational or opinion-based comments from outside parties to a minimum, as that can easily degenerate into the general argument about the area (part 233 of a continuing series of disagreements *chuckle*). However, there should be no problem at all with people providing sources, offering suggestions about good places to find references, etc. Vassyana (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Coolness. :) I'll ask around at EN World this week; people there seem to know more about what they're doing than anywhere else when it comes to RPG stuff. But yes, I know exactly what you mean - I know good and well that any amount of mediation will never stop all arguments, but we can always hope to come to some kind of understanding... and that won't happen if a dozen folks butt in with their own arguments. I will encourage people to post somewhere other than the Trim talk page. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As it is, it doesn't take much to get just the principles arguing.  :) We work together so well! BOZ (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

Possible edit warring by logged-out editor[edit]

Vassyana, this may be a little bit of a long shot, but the pattern of behavior is just too familiar. Since you are familiar with the editor (I hesitate to actually name him/her without proof, but I think who it is may be obvious, please let me know if you want me to ID the suspected editor here or privately via email) that may be trying to dodge accountability for this anonymous/IP revert, do you think you could look into it if you have the opportunity? I'm not sure yet if the information deleted in this edit appears elsewhere in the article (taking a quick look does not reveal the Cooke, or any other, source for that information), but I feel that controversial edits should be hashed out in the talk page, like the one that immediately preceded this revert. This type of behavior is really quite disruptive, since, if that information really does appear elsewhere in the article, this citation should have been added there to improve the reliability of the article per WP:RS. All we have now is a vague POV-based revert, the loss of an academic source, and no discussion on the talk page to learn if this citation was appropriately removed. Please accept my apologies if Wikipedia does not log the IP address of logged-in users and there's no way to track this situation. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely it is him. This anon IP uses Cox in Atlanta as their ISP. Yaf (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you review the IP's edits, including two made to the article at the end of May, the user seems to be attempting to edit in line with NPOV and related principles. It does not appear that they are supporting one view or another, or otherwise attempting to unbalance the article. Vassyana (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. --tc2011 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
Christian worship
Gideons International
Transformative economics
Chancellor (ecclesiastical)
Economic materialism
Robert Jungk
Jesuit Asia missions
International Churches of Christ
Folk Christianity
Pundit (India)
First Satanic Church
Ruben Bolling
First Church of Satan
Tao Yin
List of Muslim Christianity scholars
Jim Torbett
Status of religious freedom in Sri Lanka
Demographics of New Zealand
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian)
Spiritual desertion
Add Sources
Karma in Christianity
The Christian Century
Giles Corey
John Naisbitt
Sports injuries
Five Classics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I need help on chiropractic. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What's the current issue? Can you provide some section links and diffs? Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the brevity, but thanks. This type of conversation with QuackGuru has been going on for weeks now and is getting very wearysome. We can't get anything done and it is very disruptive, especially with all the reverts and claims of consensus. He talks in circles and when we finally agree on something, he starts over at the beginning. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will adjust my way of doing things accordingly. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going have one of our solid volunteers from WP:MEDCAB swing by to see if it's just a miscommunication issue, personality conflict, et cetera. This may well be a situation that can reach a peaceful solution and I'd like to give that a shot. If even with assistance there's still problems with the attitudes or actions of some people, I can step in to mitigate any disruptive editors. Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
More than one editor disagrees with Dematt's version. For example, the WHO quotes are boring and are only suggestions. I explained this to Dematt.[3] I want the education section to be fully referenced and accurate. Accuracy is a good thing. NPOV is to be respected. QuackGuru 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bring this to your talk page, there's more on my talk page, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I appreciate more information. I understand the current situation and I think some help in reaching consensus might be just what the article needs. Let's see if some volunteer assistance can help get things on track, OK? If not, there are always other options to minimize disruption. Vassyana (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Some help reching consensus would be great. So far we have multiple editors in support of draft #3, Eubulides supporting "either 3 or 7", and QuackGuru supporting draft #7 (and stating that he refuses to consider draft 3). It seems that OM has once again come by to edit war in QuackGuru's version. DigitalC (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. Read what Eubulides wrote about draft 7. Draft 7 has been improved and is far better than draft 3. This is easy to understand. Please read my comments. QuackGuru 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I must be simpled minded then, as I don't see how draft 7 is better than draft 3, but that can discussed on the talk page of Chiropractic, rather than wasting space here. However, for the record, Eubulides stated here "I support either education 3 or education 7 as improvements over what's in Chiropractic now." While he is free to change his mind, I don't believe there have been any major changes to either drafts since then. What perhaps should be brought up here are the multiple instances of QuackGuru's disruptive editing on the respective talk page, mostly violations of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT guideline, which I have reminded him of severalmultiple times([4], [5], [6]). DigitalC (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with either POV on this matter, one thing is clear - QG is once again pounding his edits through and around the objections of multiple editors. That's not collaborative and it's very disruptive and disrespectful of other editors. He needs to learn to back off, quit harassing other editors like Dematt, and actually just get lost. He's been an embarassment to skeptics for a long time and is the direct cause of much disruption whereever he edits. His wikilawyering is very tiresome. -- Fyslee / talk 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This was the previous version reverted to: 17:28, 27 May 2008 1st revert: 03:44, 12 June 2008 2nd revert: 18:38, 12 June 2008 3rd revert: 20:27, 12 June 2008 4th revert: 21:26, 12 June 2008 Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 12 June 2008 Please note: The block of WHO quotes were previously removed but Dematt readded them four times in under 24 hours. Despite the strong objections to the WHO quotes Dematt continued to readd them. QuackGuru 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the two drafts, and some of the discussion, and it seemed the differences are minor and do not involve POV. QG has obviously not been helping the situation much. I reverted him once to stop him from edit warring, and he went right to my talk page and started in on me. But he's not the only problem, and really I think it needs to go through the process. From what I can see, there is nothing much positive that can happen before then. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Overly promoting guidelines/suggestions using a long end run of WHO quotes is POV. Fyslee claims I am a skeptic. I never was a skeptic and I disagree with most skeptics on a list of issues. QuackGuru 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not POV, it's just bad writing. That's a mainstream source. If you guys just explained the disputes more openly and fully, you wouldn't have to worry about such details so much. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It is irrelevant whether it is a mainstream source or not. Wikipedia should not be used to overly promote a guideline to become a world wide standard. QuackGuru 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if we agree it isn't a POV issue, then we agree the quotes should be left out because you are right that they are boring. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
They are boring to us but some editors like the quotes. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. QuackGuru 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to talk[edit]

Heya, we need to talk sometime soon, I figure. Will you have time? (Please reply per e-mail). --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I leave a message?[edit]

Just to say howdy? :)

Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How dare you say howdy and spread some wikilove!! And with a cookie???? What if I'm diabetic!? What if I'm gluten intolerant? Did you even think to get me a rice flour cookie made with sugar substitute you insensitive brute!? :D Thanks for the cheerful thought! How're things with you? Vassyana (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, its a poison cookie, stuffed full of electrically charged bits of glass, tinfoil and oil lobbyists. It wasn't meant for you to eat, but to fling at some miserable bastard who truly deserves the very life crushed out of them. ;)
I am doing pretty well, thank you. Been trying to fight the good fight, with varying success. You? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
YAY! *covets his newfound Ultimate Cookie of Smiting* This is the best gift ever! :)
I'm doing pretty well. Real life is a bit hectic, and wiki is somewhat frustrating at the moment, but really my life is good so I cannot complain. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(laughing at the Cookie of Smiting moniker). I do believe it is +3 vs. Ass-Clowns and POV-driven Feltch Monkeys. But yes, wiki is proving somewhat frustrating at the moment. Projects insisting that the rules don't apply to them and whatnot and some wacky crap regarding NFC#8. Someone should really knuckle that definition down, as it is pretty darn vague. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What's vague about it? What problems are arising from it? Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A user you have dealt with previously[edit]

Moved to AN/I here.

I am banned[edit]

Moved to AN/I here

Your comment on WT:NOTOR[edit]

I enjoyed your comment on Wikipedia_talk:These_are_not_original_research#Neologisms. Your comment seems relevant in the context of current issues over neutrality in the titling of circumcision and female genital cutting. I believe that contradictory criteria are in fact used in determining the titles for these two articles. If you're interested, one comment of mine addressing this is here. In any case, very interesting stuff. Blackworm (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I want the page blanked[edit]

If we can courtesy blank the page, I'd be appreciative and would not object to closing the MfD. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I will blank the page immediately. Please hit up WP:RFO to request removal from the history of the diffs you feel libelous. Vassyana (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Directing your attention...[edit]

A comment has been requested of you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim#Undue pressure - is mediation working?.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am considering how to best respond and help you all reach an agreeable point. I will be responding within a few hours. Vassyana (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - there seems to be a lot of tension particularly between Sam and Gavin (and others with Gavin, outside the mediation), most likely stemming from past and ongoing disputes; this is the difficult stumbling block we are trying so hard to overcome. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not an uncommon situation in long running disputes. The trick is finding a way forward where everyone can focus on the content instead of each other. ;) Every case is a bit individual, so I am trying to make sure I approach this in a thoughtful manner. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel you've done the best you can so far, given the inherent difficulties involved - I have faith that you will continue to do so. :) BOZ (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have some family matters that need attending and so I will be heading out for a few hours in a short bit. When I return this evening (it's midafternoon here), I will post in the discussion. Just wanted you to know I'm still on top of this. :) Vassyana (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's mid-afternoon here as well. I'm sure tempers won't flare enough to encite murder while you're gone. ;) Thanks for your attentiveness! BOZ (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope everything's OK!  :) Things have quieted down at the trim thread, but I fear what's bubbling beneath the calm exterior.  ;) BOZ (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavin has suggested a different approach, which sounds like it will be a lot easier to work with: [7]. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems perfectly fine. WebWarlock's motivation and interest in finding sources will probably be very helpful and a net positive to mediation. Vassyana (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do my best and focus only on the sources, leaving the rest of the discussion to the active parties. Web Warlock (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'd like to thank you for your work on this rather horrendous case. I feel confident you acted with good faith, and appropriately in every way, and given the circumstances with remarkable patience.(olive (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

It's very difficult since nearly any action is going to make most of the involved users unhappy. But I try, even if I fail on occasion (silly human fallibility). Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
and you will see on my talk page & on the Mfd the way a fair decision is treated: both sides complain. DGG (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If people are each side are convinced it's unfair to their side, it's probably fair to both sides. Vassyana (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I replied to Martinphi on the page, if both sides complain it's probably a damn good proposal. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks really go to you on that, by the by. I just ran with a slightly modified and expanded version of your proposed fix. It was a very insightful recommendation and very well-targeted to the problem. Vassyana (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for providing evidence about SA. That's all I really wanted. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I tried to just provide a few quick examples that clearly illustrate the problem for each of them. I am glad that they work well to that end. Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

War on UFO article, its talk page[edit]

I'm just a IP and have noted that a nasty situation has developed on the article, a nasty situation has definately developed on its talk page. According to Wikipedia policies, I have got some Admins enroute to the affected article and the talk page to put a end to this war before it gets out of hand. I am not trying to disrupt, etc. anything at all, just trying to put a end to this war, no more, no less, so that editing can resume without someone backbiting someone else, worse. I hope I have done the right thing. (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You ought to see what is going on there, especially on the UFO article's talk pages. (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No, what you've got over there is Kwamikagami striking out comments from Davkal (a banned user and sworn enemy of ScienceApologist), a few editors wondering who struck them and why, and running around stirring up trouble against ScienceApologist. In other words, = Davkal = ignore. If not Davkal, then = wrong + personal attacks = ignore. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And they're at it again[edit]

  • sigh* It's another one of those Martinphi/ScienceApologist things.

I have spoon bending on my watchlist – along with a large number of other magic-related articles – because there is a tendency for the articles to be vandalized or redacted by amateur magicians attempting to stuff the cat back in the bag.

I saw a little while ago that Martinphi had edited spoon bending to remove references to Uri Geller: [8]. ScienceApologist partially reverted the changes about twelve hours later: [9].

Neither has edited the article before, and neither used the talk page. I can't see any obvious route to the article for SA other than through following Martinphi's contributions. From a purely editorial point of view, SA has probably struck a reasonable compromise — Uri Geller is arguably the most famous of the spoon-benders, and deserves mention in the article. The portion not restored probably went into too much detail, may have been an unreliable source, was mostly redundant with what followed, and didn't read well anyway.

I don't know enough context to censure either editor here, but I'm pretty sure that someone ought to call shenanigans. (Unfortunately, I'm short on time at the moment and can't get up to speed.) Since you took charge at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi, I'm hoping that youI know which wrists ought to be slapped here. It looks like SA was stalking Martinphi, but I also don't know what other restrictions Martinphi may be operating under with regard to magic/pseudoscience topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Neither has edited the article before." Well, I haven't either, yet I have it on my watchlist: ("You have 2,812 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)."). A bit of good faith would be appropriate here. OTOH, since Martinphi is an editor to watch, it is perfectly legitimate to correct any tendentious editing he may be engaged in, and watchlists are designed to track articles and editors. Now if he had made a legitimate edit and SA showed signs of reverting them for no good reason, apparently only because they were made by Martin, then wikistalking would be the proper charge, and it should be addressed, but that's not the case here, is it? -- Fyslee / talk 05:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
They were really both across the line on this one. I left a reminder for SA about the disengagement restrictions and left a reminder for Martin about his ArbCom restriction. I logged this and surrounding circumstances at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. Thanks for letting me know about this. Vassyana (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I made a note at both ANI and AE. I have both psychic and spoon bending on my watchlist and I don't care who makes a bad edit: I simply try to change to better edits. I make no distinction as to who is editing what article. I simply change violations of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT when I see them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have filtered Wikipedia diff-view so that I no longer see who has made the previous edit. This way it is impossible for me to know whether I'm reverting Martinphi or someone else (unless they indicate it on the talk page or I look at the history of the page). I believe that this safeguard makes your editing restriction of me irrelevant and a bit absurd. I'm noting this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Martin removes a great deal of content without discussion here, again here, again here. Don't worry, though! As he branches from article to article you will dilligently follow and stop him from inserting his POV, right? It's not like your remidy provided him with a first-mover advantage given the total unwillingness of most to deal with his disruption. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[10] Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll believe it when I see it. Ban him from those three articles. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I missed this one. The others could be construed as legitimate style edits or removal of unsourced claims. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, I want no complaints that the problem was not made clear, as people involved on both sides of this broader dispute have used that tactic. Therefore, I making it very clear what edits are a problem and why they are a problem, so that any further action cannot be discounted on the basis of a lack of clarity. Vassyana (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
To be fully clear then, you are announcing your intention to ban Martin from any article in which he changes a "weight" word (believes, claims, states, alleged, is, apparent and so on) without first discussing it on the talk page and getting a clear consensus for that change? You are announcing your intention to ban Martin from any article in which he makes changes to "improve" NPOV without first discussing on the talk page and getting a clear consensus for his change? Just for perfect and complete clarity. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, removing sourced information based on claims of bias without discussion or explanation is specifically the current issue as I see it. Vassyana (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you also add my prohibition about changing "weight" words without discussion. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me as it has been a red thread throughout his career here. He loves to play with those words and has made big waves based only on them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide me with a good example? I'd like to see how he goes about it and how he had dealt with responses to those actions in the past. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask a question? Red thread? Whose career here? Who loves to play with those words? POT? SA? Martin? I'm confoozed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I may be mistaken entirely, but I believe Fyslee is referring to Martinphi altering words and phrasings such as "claims", "alleged" and "apparent". Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana is quite correct. -- Fyslee / talk 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not interested in MartinPhi's field of expertise, but I have seen one instance in the past where he was accused of altering a weight word, and there is one on the table right now. The current one has been described as "Martin's worst edit" and as the only recent edit among a list that could not be "construed as legitimate style edits or removal of unsourced claims". But replacing the "weight" word was absolutely necessary to turn nonsense into a reasonable definition, and if I remember correctly the previous one was exactly the same kind of situation. I already explained why in the ANI thread, but it was ignored. Here it is again.

Martinphi changed "Retrocognition […] is the alleged transfer of information […]" to "Retrocognition […] is the apparent transfer of information […]". Does it really take a mathematician (or an occultist) to see that if we define retrocognition as "alleged" nonsense we can no longer deny that it exists? ScienceApologist is one of a group of editors who are 1. pushing disparaging language into articles on controversial science related topics, and 2. doing it in a sloppy way that degrades the articles. I don't have a big problem with 1 other than that it undermines the articles' credibility, but I don't understand how anyone can think that 2 contributes to building an encyclopedia and reverting instances of 2 is an offence. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the edit you mention (just like so many other edits of this type that Martin has made during his career here) is that it tends to suggest to the reader that it is an "apparent" reality, when there is no evidence that it is. Without RS and research that conclusively proves it to be reality, we need to make sure that readers don't get the wrong impression, and we can do that by going where the RS lead us. We can no doubt find many RS that indicate that believers consider it to be reality (IOW they "purport" and "allege" it to be fact), but those beliefs should be stated as beliefs. This is just another attempt by him to subtly insert the believers' POV as fact, since there is nothing "apparent" about it to anyone other t han believers. His edit has been fixed in a very neutral manner. -- Fyslee / talk 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Now it's getting into an area where I am at a disadvantage as a non-native speaker, but I am not convinced that replacing "alleged" by "purported" solves the problem. Does it really make more sense to deny that there is "purported" hocus pocus than to deny that there is "alleged" hocus pocus? It sounds to me as if "retrocognition is the allegation of [something very unlikely]" has been replaced by "retrocognition is the report of [something very unlikely]". To prove the existence of retrocognition in this sense it's still enough to find someone who claims it exists. I can see only two reasons for giving such an incorrect definition: Because you want the article to sound negative but you are not interested in getting any details right, or because you want to push an occultist POV using semantical games:
"While scientists and even skeptics generally agree that retrocognition as defined above exists [citation of several articles from ethnological journals and the Skeptical Inquirer, which all agree that people make such claims], they generally deny that this is due to any paranormal phenomena." --Hans Adler (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have a pointer to a previous list of MartinPhi's POV "weight word" edits I would be happy to go through it and correct my opinion as appropriate. Unfortunately I could find no such thing in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Purported isn't much better. All of those are weaseling or peacocking. A NPOV wording would attribute it to those who purport it; Retro-cognition as defined by "parapsychologists" (or whatever) is the paranormal transfer of information... but that is just one editor's opinion. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Note about future warnings[edit]

Hi Vassyana...

In the spirit of WP:DTTR and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Note_about_technology, I will be reverting all future warnings you make on my talkpage. I would ask you kindly to refrain from making them as they are insulting.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you have already been warned and reminded, further warnings will not be necessary. Vassyana (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you're taking for patience, can you send me some?  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're all over it, right?[edit]

You must have noticed Martin's most recent edits. I thought I'd bring some to your attention:

  1. Spoon Bending. Accidentally (?) removed the first sentence, innacurate edit summary (the JR paranormal challenge was date capped in 2010, and still exists.) Discussed after the fact on the talk page.
  2. James Van Praagh. More weight word changes. Neglects to remove unsourced possibly defamatory information about a living person (JVP states/asserts that he is vague, and often misses his own meaning?). No talk page discussion.
  3. Psychokinesis did you know that "Anecdotal evidence ... is usually considered to be insufficient evidence to firmly establish ... scientific validity" "usually" was added in by Martin in this edit, which was not discussed on the talk page. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Martin continues to edit Spoon Bending, but has not discussed his changes on the talk page of the article. You're ALL OVER THIS, right? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This uncivil badgering is not helping anything. If you continue in the polemical fashion in which you have here and on ANI, it will be dealt with in whatever fashion is needed to make it stop. Please reconsider your approach and tone. Regardless, addressing your specific concern, the situation seems to have worked itself out just fine. Martin was not removing sourced text and only removed the text once. It appears as though Martin did raise the issue on the talk page to explain his objection.[11] The article statement was moved by another editor and expanded per a reliable source by Martin.[12][13] In the end, Martin had a objection about a picture caption, another editor simply moved the interesting and relevant factoid to the main body of the article, and Martin provided a citation and better detail. I really fail to see the problem or disruption in this. Vassyana (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Martin removed the caption with false comment here (the prize is not open only to celebrities, no where is there anyone that says it's open only to celebrities, and I doubt Martin would defend that statement going forward). The fashion needed to make it stop is for you to take the active role you promised when you imposed the restrictions - It's all talk, talk, talk. SA violated the terms presented, but you let him get away with it. Martin violated the terms presented, but you let him get away with it. You expect me to take a threat that my "tone" is poor seriously at this point? If you have suggestions about my "approach and tone," I suggest you suggest them, rather than threaten - or, you could just do what you stepped up to do, you know, police the shitty behavior of both of them? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
SA received a clear reminder and warning about the restriction. Martin received a clear reminder and warning about his ArbCom restriction. SA raised his complaint about the restriction on ANI, as is his right, and the restriction was confirmed (with some people advocating for even stricter conditions). I think the best thing I can do is have a bit of patience. Make sure anything potentially unclear is clarified. Let people use the forums for review and appeal available to them. If a problem still continues after clear warning and confirmation of the conditions, it becomes very easy to impose sanctions as indicated under the restriction and get them to stick. A little patience can go a long way towards making things easier to deal with in the long-term. Vassyana (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you prefer that I notify you of future terrible behavior from either of them, or should I just report back on cumulative results over a defined time period (of your choosing, not to exceed 3 monthS?) PouponOnToast (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If you notice a current problematic pattern or something particularly egregious, please feel free to leave a message here or send an email my way. Vassyana (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eyrian[edit]

I have started a follow up at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tottering Blotspurs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Message removed[edit]

I notice a short message from me was removed from this page. If this is due to any mistake of mine, or there is something I do not know, please let me know. Otherwise - please let me know, I suppose! Redheylin (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have happened here: [14] Jayen466 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

note for u[edit]

there is a note for you here [15]--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You asked for notification.[edit]

You told Martin "Communication via edit summary is not sufficient." Whilst this is not "Removal of sourced information," which was your direct admonision, in this edit Martin makes POVness clims in his edit summary, which I believe leads to edit warring. I have not evaluated the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the edit. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On brief review, it doesn't appear to support either version very clearly. The relevant part of the source states: "Scientists have been investigating PK since the mid-19th century but with little success at demonstrating that anyone can move even a feather without trickery involving something as simple and obvious as blowing on objects to move them." I have plans for this evening and I need to get ready, but if I have time before I leave, I will look at the situation more thoroughly. If not, I will look over things when I get home. Vassyana (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's just that no one can source what "all scientists think." If you make a statement which isn't attributed, (or can't be sourced as with "Scientists contend") it's Wikipedia making statements which are impossible to verify- or else making a judgment that all "real" scientists say so. It really ought to be attributed to Robert Todd Carroll, but the way I phrased it is self-evident: all X who are skeptics of the paranormal will ipso facto say that psychokinesis does not really exist. Not controversial, so doesn't need better sourcing or attribution. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that is not what the source says. Stick to the sources. What does this source say about it? That is what should be reported in the article. Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the debate. It's not about what the source said. It's about whether we can make absolute claims based on a source, without attribution. This is a clear case coming under WP:Reliable sources#Claims of consensus. We don't say "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist" because we can't source it.
We could say "According to Robert Todd Carroll Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist."
(Of course maybe the source didn't say that anyway, not sure).
As an aside, "Scientists contend" means that all who do not contend this are not scientists. That's what the reader would assume, since the reader would expect that otherwise we'd attribute. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 04:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to rephrase as "scientists contend" isn't the right phrase. Parapsychologists contend (against opposition). Scientists "maintain". It's not a matter of stating absolutes in consensus. It's a matter of stating levels of acceptance. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that's a nice job looking up the words, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to, ah, maintain nor contend that parapsychologists aren't scientists. Nor that "Scientists" all "maintain." ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 05:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It would still be (using your sentence) "According to Robert Caroll, scientists -maintain- that psychokinesis doesn't exist". According to Robert Caroll, they aren't contending anything. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, right, I see what you mean. When you put in the attribution it's fine. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note the quote I cite above. That is the relevant portion of the source in relation to the claims being made. It's not Wikipedia's job to relate an editor's opinion or extrapolation of a source (WP:NOR). Stick to the source being cited. It doesn't say that scientists or skeptics assert what is being said in the article. Misusing a source to make claims it does not present itself is dangerously close to disruptive, and it doesn't matter if someone else did it first. Instead of changing it to how you think it should read, check the source and stick to it. I believe this principle has been explained to you in the past and further rewriting to reflect a POV instead of the source will be treated as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't see why you're so harsh about it. I basically just trusted that the source said what other editors said it did. Yes, I should check, but we -editors- have to trust each other sometimes. Granted this wasn't one of those times- my mistake. But I don't think I was disruptive. Vassyana, you have to give me some room to be human here. There is a limit to how careful I can be. I can't review every source all the time to make sure the former editors weren't misrepresenting it. Remember the edit was fine if the source in fact said that "Scientists contend" [16]. Principle: "I ain't lying to you if they ain't lying to me." ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As I mention above, I do not believe either edit is accurate. My point was, and is, that changing a statement based on opinion of what it should say isn't the best way to go about things. Stick to the sources. I apologize if I came across harsh, I simply trying to be to the point, so as to be clear. I am not taking any action to sanction you, but rather simply a making an attempt to be very clear about why such edits are problematic. My approach to that is to be blunt and forthright about the issue and how it is perceived. I apologize if that sometimes comes across as cold or harsh, but I really feel that pussyfooting around the issue in any way will not be helpful at all to the situation. Being clear, to the point and explicit about the problem, without window dressing or superficial niceties, is the best way to approach it and avoid any misunderstandings in my opinion. I do believe the edit was well-intentioned and made in good faith, but I also believe that it was a POV-push at the same time, as I explain above. If you cannot review the source, I would strongly recommend not rewording things that change the emphasis and impact of sourced statements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me with them. Vassyana (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to take what you say in an analytical manner. I agree the edit was problematic, though not a POV push. I'll review sources better. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
[Unindent] By that logic, it's not Wikipedia's job to contend that people who think the moon is made of green cheese are wrong, or that evolution is scientific and creationism is not. Nonsense. Go have a reread of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV/FAQ, and WP:FRINGE. There may be a tiny fringe minority of scientists who think parapsychology is scientific and valid. But it's undue weight to treat that tiny minority as the majority, or as evidence that we cannot present the majority view. This is entirely typical of Martinphi's modus operandi, however Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That's right. We don't contend or argue that the moon is not made of green cheese. As to parapsychologists, no one argued for doing, or did, what you say. Minus the mistake which Vassyana pointed out where I trusted other editors to have been basically in line with the source, you're right that this is what I do a lot of the time: basic attribution, and elimination of sweeping unsourced claims. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
More importantly, Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV Here, MartinPhi seems to be trying to push an edit to policy in order to further his position in this dispute. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What dispute? It was against policy as it was. Most everyone agreed on that. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Danger: quick sand ahead[edit]

I am relatively concerned by the recent accusation of disruption against Martin by POT.

In my mind, we must clearly delineate an action that is a deliberate disruption from one that that can create disruption. If a comment in an edit summary for example is considered to be a deliberate disruption then a good faith comment is made and the discussion moved to talk. An editor meaning to deliberately disrupt is unlikely to try and explain his point as Martin did here. In my experience deliberate disruption is usually a response to an imminent consensus-based change, which bogs down in some way ongoing editing. Such editors are generally not interested in real discussion.

Any comment at any time can adjust the flow of editing in a new direction. This is also disruptive if you will, but is part of the normal evolution of an article. Such comments must not be judged as disruptive to the ongoing collaborative environment of the encyclopedia, which is what I assume Martin must be careful of. Any editor must feel that they can comment and edit in a way that is appropriate to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Using a single comment in an edit summary as a case for disruption can only breed fear, is a slippery slope leading to an overly, complex, muddled environment and is inappropriate in the environment we need here.

Martin's edit summary was completely appropriate. At no time on Wikipedia, as other editors have stated above, should we be using statements like "scientists say, or as another example art critics say," unless we are willing to line up every scientist/ critic in the world and start to hand out questionnaires. Such wording must be considered a generalized, blanket statement and is WP:Weasel wording.

If weight in an article must be shown to create the proper sense of how scientists for example "weigh in" on a topic, then first the comments must be attributed to specific scientists or reliable, verifiable articles on the topic, then the article itself can contain subheadings under which the appropriate, attributed comments can be placed. If multiple scientists weigh in against a topic as opposed to one or two weighing in for the topic, then these sections will and can indicate the weight of each those opinions and will create an appropriate NPOV article. Although we all may agree that most if not all scientists have a particular view on something, to say so in this way is an article is OR and synthesis since I as an editor must find some' who feel this way and then make a jump in logic to assume that those some represent all. This is not an encyclopedic standard. Martin's comment stated the obvious as per guidlines and policy(olive (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

The action Martin took is certainly a POV push, well-meaning or otherwise. Weasel wording is not an absolute forbidden, but rather a red flag indicating we should review the statement. If a source states "some scientists", "almost all skeptics", or a similar 'weasel' statement, that is what we should report. That said, replacing OR/SYNTH with more of the same from another slant is not the solution. I believe his action was well-intentioned, but there's that saying about intentions. Part of the negative aspect of Martinphi's editing reputation is the perception he is a fringe POV-pusher. Edits like this, which just replace one POV with another instead of consulting the source, are deeply problematic and reinforce that view. Please note that I have not sanctioned Martinphi in this instance, but rather have made sure that the problem is explained and made clear to prevent any misunderstandings. Vassyana (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana , this was not directed at you in anyway. You are the admin. here and as understand your position your job is to be neutral, and I saw that in your comments. My comments above are more general, and is really about all of us looking at an edit summary, unless its completely foul in some way, as disruptive. I reread Martin's summary and I really do disagree with you . He is I think in somewhat circuitous language asking for a NPOV reading of this, and is saying what I have just said above, but by explanation rather than by citing policy as I did. I don't read it as POV. and although the way to anywhere may be paved with good intentions ... that good intention here it seems to me is called good faith. I call into question any of us that don't initially "read" that way. Weasel wording may be a red flag but it also in this case is OR. going to a source is an obvious move in the right direction, but not seeing that and asking for something more general is not an ianppropriate way to proceed . One is specific one more general There are lots of ways to skin a weasel.....Anyway I do stand by my comment by respect yours as well.(olive (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC))
It wasn't the edit summary so much as the edit itself that I thought problematic. Replacing one POV OR statement with another is not a solution and only perpetuates conflicts and the problems of inappropriate source use. Even though I obviously disagree, I respect your opinion, because it is well-thought out and civil. Please always feel free to express your opinion in the polite and well-thought manner that you have consistently used here. While I may not accept the opinion or may not agree, I will always give attention and thought to polite and well-considered messages. Vassyana (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Its obvious I am trying to support an editor on this, but also what brings me into these frays is a sense of something larger lurking in the wings. If certain things pass us by, and we don't stop them, examine them, and judge them we miss opportunities to prevent possible problems later- quicksand- , and as well the potential for growth . Wikipedia must be dynamic and grow to meet the challenges that will arise. If it doesn't, and we are Wikipedia, it can't work. A final thought. Famous last words.;o)(olive (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

Martin - again[edit]

In this edit, he invents a "disagree about the strength of the evidence for RV." One scientist says "it's pseudoscience." The other says "more evidence is required." This is not a disagreement - there is no source documenting a disagreement, just two people saying things that are, fundamentally, the same. PouponOnToast (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This (not so) subtle twisting of words by skeptics and then synthesizing a different meaning somehow favorable to Remote viewing is disturbing. His editing of the Fringe policy at the same time is also disturbing. -- Fyslee / talk 13:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm looking over his contributions right now. Vassyana (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
On the talk page I made an analysis of the new wording here, and I found that it wasn't backed at all by the sources on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
POToast has apparently fixed the deceptive wording, but this is symptomatic of the continual POV pushing by Martin. It needs to stop. We shouldn't have to waste our time putting out fires instead of actually editing. -- Fyslee / talk 13:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Situation addressed. Other issues and situations involving that user and also about the broader topic area have also been addressed. See: [17] [18] [19] [20] Vassyana (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment[edit]

Hi Vassyana, you don't know me but I have seen you around lately in different areas. I just wanted to say that you impress me with a lot of your comments and your honest open opinions on matters. I hope my coming here to say this is alright. I just felt I had to tell you this. Thanks and have a good healthy day, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness and compliment. It is appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Vassyana,

I will not continue to edit WP if I cannot follow the sources. You are right that the article is rather negative- it was written by JzG and other skeptics. I looked up what Hyman said in other places, and it is even more positive than I portrayed. I have yet to review the actual gov't report. The Wiseman quote is a reflection of Utts- he actually said it is proven to the standards of other sciences, and I portrayed him correctly as saying it needs further testing to be accepted. That's a very big distinction from calling it pseudoscience.

At any rate, I cannot edit under these circumstances, which essentially have you making content decisions based upon your interpretation of the subject matter. If admins are -in essence- allowed to block or ban based on their own take on the subject, WP would never work. It certainly won't work for me. I have to edit based on my understanding of the subject and the sources, and that is what I did, portraying the difference between the skeptical positions accurately. At this point, barring a change in my understanding, I will be requesting an indefinite block. I will ask that you note in your edit summary on the block that I requested it myself (in case I wish to come back in the future).

I have been planning this for some time anyway, due to the continual negative atmosphere, which your recent sanctions against me and SA have done nothing little to help. If one could simply portray the sources and discuss them withoutbias, that would be one thing, but one cannot. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 15:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a "take" on the subject. We just had a discussion about this type of edit, where you changed the phrasing to what you thought it should be without sticking to the sources. From my perspective, this is the exact same type of edit. You were warned and I followed up on that warning. Please read the paragraphs that follow the Utts quote, as the source plainly presents a picture quite the opposite of what you are claiming. Indeed, the entire purpose of the article is a rebuttal of Utts statements. Turning it on its head and claiming support is just ... mindboggling.
I'm not using any opinions about the subject to determine my actions. I simply looked over the source with an eye towards what would be obvious to the average person. It's screamingly obvious that the article is a rebuttal of Utts and that her statements are disputed by Wiseman. Again, please read the paragraphs that follow the quote, and note the overall purpose and tone of the article.
The reasons for the errors and edits could be manifold (including many perfectly well-intentioned, good faith reasons), but the bottom line is this is the kind of edit you were just warned about. The misrepresentation of sources is one of the most insidious and truly disruptive behaviors an editor can engage in. You are not at all prohibited from "simply portray[ing] the sources and discuss[ing] them without bias", but that is exactly what you are not doing. After one incident where you did not read the sources and now this where you argue a reference supports a point directly contrary to its central point ... well, my good faith is near run out. However, I would prefer that you stick around, but mindfully take better care in your reading and use of sources.
I will not block you. Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"the entire purpose of the article is a rebuttal of Utts statements" Indeed. And that's NPOV?

Never claimed support. There is a huge difference between "pseudoscience" and "It has good results, but needs more to be accepted, "which is what Wiseman and Hyman say.

Admins are not supposed to be making content decisions.

I did not misrepresent the sources except in that I portrayed them more negatively than is warranted. I apologize.

If the article, as you say, is making an argument, then NPOVing the lead is not a bad thing, it only indicates a work in progress. As I said, it was written by absolutist skeptics.

But I won't argue with you about the sources, which I was continuing to research. To be blunt and analytical, instead of polite as I usually am, there is sufficient stupidity to leave even without you making content decisions and misinterpreting the sources and acting as if it's OK for the article to be making an argument...... and then saying if I go against that "argument," I'm doing something wrong. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The "article" in that quote was referring to Wiseman's article (as indicated by its context). Blatant misuse of sources is a conduct issue, not a content decision. Please reread my comments. Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am incredibly sad to have this happen Martin. I respect Vassyna's input in this and his fairness, but feel also that this is a content based decision and is subject to subjective interpretation, and therefor not appropriate material for a topic ban especially given your obviously honest and good faith efforts to portray the material.My understanding of collaborative communities of which I have a fair amount of experience given my teaching area, and in my recent reading leads me to know that however harassed SA is was last night this isn't the wild west and law must rest with the community, and that comments on you at this time are deflective rather than appropriate good faith comments. This was my warning about quick-sand ahead. As well this comment[21] leads me to feel doubly concerned for a decision made at this time which in effect discourages an editor badly enough to walk away. This kind of comment, however, honestly made and believed does not serve a collaborative community, is destructive, and should be taken into account in the present dispute climate. I can't say how sad this makes me feel, or how discouraged I feel (olive (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Please see my comments to Martinphi above. I am sorry but, for example, claiming a source holds a position that is the opposite of its central point is well-beyond a content consideration and fully into the land of reference abuse. Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position as much as much as is possible for me too. Dealing with content requires subjective reading and judgmnent, and no matter the astuteness of the reader, its still subjective. That's my concern. I'm in away over my head here in terms of what I generally would feel is appropriate discourse on such a topic and with an admin's actions and will probably feel badly later about it , but this really bothers me, not just because of an editor, but because it sets a precedent in dealing with this situation, so, as per your obvious preference for straight talk. This is straight. And thanks.(olive (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
A source being discussed is this one, for reference. Please always feel welcome to leave your polite feedback and concerns on my talk page. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable raising issues to me. I am just another person and I do make mistakes. If you're ever not comfortable leaving a message here, please feel free to drop me a private email. So you're aware, in this situation, I tried looking at what the obvious impart of the source would be to an average person. I specifically have avoided arguments over wording, how to use well-sourced material, and the like, to avoid crossing over into legitimate content issues. I feel that I made the problem with such edits clear to Martinphi. I am trying to strike an appropriate balance between caution and action, and it's entirely possible that I am errant in my approach (thought at the moment I obviously do not believe so). Vassyana (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry I won't leave impolite feedback anywhere, hopefully:0)... As per your point the issue must be as well, and perhaps is more fundamentally, one of intent. Martin's intent was obviously, unless I have no sense at all of what honest and righteous indignation is, (and as a teacher if I'm missing that with my experience I'm in big trouble), to write his honest sense of what the sources said . If I had a dollar for every editor I've dealt with who interpreted sources in a way that seemed in my mind, completely "out to lunch" I would be relatively wealthy right now. I'm not saying either that Martin's interpretation of the source is wrong or right . He did this in good faith as best as he could . On Wikipedia how can we even begin to judge how editors read the sources. That's why its collaborative . If I get it wrong hopefully another editor will come along and get it right. If we disagree we discuss. Immediately assuming the intent to be a disruptive gesture and to report it seems to me to be a move that lacks good faith. Where his edits well-intended, and if so how can that be an activity that deserves a topic ban? This is a rhetorical question, I guess.(olive (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
It's sometimes hard to tell if Martin is well-intentioned or not - for instance, while I dislike his edits to policies that seem to advance his position in disputes, I also am coming to accept that he is probably editing policy that way because he believes that interpretation is the correct one, hence why he used that interpretation in the dispute. However, even still, well-meaning behaviour can be highly disruptive.
I now think there is more hope for Martinphi than I used to think, but these topic bans may be necessary to get him to reassess his behaviour, and fall into Wikipedia norms. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes... and so I would make a very clear distinction, as I did earlier, between edits that are good faith edits, but that run counter to general agreement and which in discussion bring into question some edit or idea, and that are the everyday providence of Wikipedia article writing.

..In my mind, we must clearly delineate an action that is a deliberate disruption from one that that can create disruption. If a comment in an edit summary for example is considered to be a deliberate disruption then a good faith comment is made and the discussion moved to talk. An editor meaning to deliberately disrupt is unlikely to try and explain his point... In my experience deliberate disruption is usually a response to an imminent consensus-based change, which bogs down in some way ongoing editing. Such editors are generally not interested in real discussion. Any comment at any time can adjust the flow of editing in a new direction. This is also disruptive if you will, but is part of the normal evolution of an article. Such comments must not be judged as disruptive to the ongoing collaborative environment of the encyclopedia... Any editor must feel that they can comment and edit in a way that is appropriate to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

(olive (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Here is what Wiseman said about Utts. As has been quoted in the body of the RV article for months.

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. ... Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."
   —Richard Wiseman,  Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28-29

What Martin was doing was aligning the intro with the body of the article. What is "mindboggling" is how anyone can claim that that quote was so badly POV'd by Martin that he needs to be topic banned. (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I just love how that quote a) skips the comparison of the credibility of RV with the credibility of UFO landings b) ignores the journalist's introduction: "Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists (...) (Wiseman) refuses to believe in remote viewing.". (striking out to avoid derailing the conversation from the main point)
Well, anyways, the point is that the assertion also included Ray, and that at the end of that sentence there was a link to this article written by Ray, and, like Vassyana explains, she "looked over the source with an eye towards what would be obvious to the average person", and Martin was misquoting the source. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC) wow, I just saw [22]. Well, saying that Ray asserts that RV is supported by studies is a really really bad misquoting. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is anyone here who has quoted or sourced something and found later that they weren't accurate or had misquoted, please stand up ... the rest of us can discuss whether this was well intentioned or not which is more to the point, I think.(olive (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
No, we are not on the same circumnstances as Martin. If you read the topic ban message, it seems that Martin had promised to review sources better, and also Martin is subject to this editing restriction so he can be banned from a page for edit considered disruptive by an admin (this being the case here, me thinks), so it's not the same situation as you and me making the same misquote as him. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)hat the bottom line . mayb
I couldn't disagree more. We are talking about an editor who did something he thought was right. I assume he reviewed it and probably still is considering the circumstances. We are all human and we make mistakes, even assuming it was a mistake. A ban in my mind, must be given for deliberate intent, not for editing and someone like you or me disagrees. Why would either one of us be more right than Martin. If you or I think we are right what we do is talk about it, because we assume good faith and that's a Wikipedia corner stone and its for everybody. My points are about intent that's all, and that's what I think is important here for this case and for Wikipedia. That's also why I think this is worth talking over with Vassyana.(olive (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
Well, that's your opinion on what is needed for a topic ban. But the Arbcom restriction is topic banning for "edits considered disruptive", not about "edits considered to be intentionally disruptive" --Enric Naval (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. This is my opinion. I believe the "intentional" is implied, though. Nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines or policies is there a place where editors are reprimanded for making mistakes. Its not part of the way this community was setup or functions.(olive (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

That place is WP:ANI (examples provided below).
I think that maybe you have the wrong idea about the purposes of blocks and bans. See WP:BAN#Decision_to_ban for when a ban can be handed out. For the reason to make a partial ban like the one handed to Martin, see "partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter.". As you see, there is not mention of the disruption being intentional or not.
Also, for blocks: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" WP:BLOCK. This means that the intentions of the disrupting editor are not taken into acount. That means that editors are regularly blocked because they keep making the same mistakes and not learning to follow wikipedia policies, independently of whether or not they are failing in good faith to learn (basically, those editors are only blocked after it's clear that they are going to keep disrupting wikipedia until they get temporaly or permanently blocked or banned). As examples of blocks that have nothing to do with intent, see "Time to restrain Ottava Rima from wasting so much of people's time?", a block for reverting edits that the editor believes in good faith that are not really copyvios, also blocking an editor because he made an edit that broke his editing restriction with him thinking in good faith that it didn't, etc. For more explanations on what a block wants to accomplish, see WP:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goal. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Olive, there's certainly room for disagreement, in general, over the impart and impact of sources. However, sticking with the example I've raised above, it's hard to see arguing the direct opposite of a reference's main thrust as within the boundaries of reasonable disagreement.
As a trend throughout the history of Wikipedia, good faith is treated has been treated as a reason to make an effort to help an editor understand why certain actions are problematic. A small minority of editors have treated good faith as essentially an exemption to the rules, but I strongly and fully reject any such position. Disruption is disruption. The only distinction good intentions brings to the table is that a well-meaning editor should be treated with a reasonable measure of patience and given clear indications of the problem. There are plenty of people that have been banned to various degrees for arguably good faith actions because even after explanation and time for acclimation, the problem did not cease.
Martin's edit is problematic in a number of ways. It is a kind of edit that people have long complained about in relation to Martinphi. He's under an ArbCom restriction for disruptive editing in large part because of this type of perceived POV push. Martin has been around Wikipedia for quite some time and really should have a good grasp of what is passable and what it not. In addition, he was warned about this exact type of edit. (He even agreed the previous edit was problematic and promised to take more care.) I will admit my assumption of good faith is running a bit thin, due to the immediately preceding facts, however my good faith is not completely exhausted. If I assumed a complete lack of good faith, I would not have taken the time to clearly explain the problem with certain edits, nor would I have made the topic ban so narrowly focused.
I hope this helps explain my view of both this particular matter and the general principles being raised. Vassyana (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Vassyana for your patience on this. I do probably still disagree on some points, but I see your perspective and respect it.(olive (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
No problem. If someone disagrees with my actions, the least I can do is try to explain why I did what I did and my perspective of the situation. Vassyana (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive editing by QuackGuru[edit]

Vassyana, could you take a look at this and follow up in whatever way to deem to be appropriate? A syn tag was added to Chiropractic, and is still being discussed on the talk page. However, QuackGuru seems to have decided that he can ignore the ongoing discussion and remove the tag because he feels it isn't a syn issue. (edit & discussion). Thanks DigitalC (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic Confusion[edit]

Hi Vassyana, Thanks for asking! I've responded to your question on my talk page. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Response. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a massive response for you. I'll apologize to your eyes right now. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On advice to IP user about closing RM discussions.[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you gave apparent "permission"[23] to an IP user to close Requested Move discussions in certain circumstances. This user closed a discussion here that had six "votes" (3-3) after 2 days, archiving the discussion on the Talk page and removing the request from WP:RM. I reverted the first close. WP:RM calls for administrators to evaluate thusly: Requests are generally processed after five days, although backlogs of a few days develop occasionally. If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". The IP user closed it again. I reverted again, and this sparked a discussion here. Perhaps you could review this, and offer a comment to the IP user and/or me. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What we talked about last night[edit]

The proposal for the Wikipedia and School CD-ROMs are up. The proposal is here and I am waiting for your support. Thanks!Mitch32 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things, look at Wikipedia:Wikimedia School Team and wanna join tonight's Not the Wikipedia Weekly on Skype? It starts in 45 minutes.Mitch32(UP) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on FICT[edit]

I apologize if I am misinterpreting your comment, but if the bit about academics was directed at me, I must object. Yes - were I to decide to devote a large share of my time to sourcing articles on fictional subjects, I could find good sources for a lot of things. However I do not have the luxury of that time. I have decided, with the time I have to commit to editing Wikipedia, to push for general changes that will protect the way I use Wikipedia as a reader - which is, frankly, the more important pursuit for me since it ties in with my career. I am sorry you find my focus on reader experience disheartening. Rest assured that I find your public condemnation of it far more so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The complaints about notability in relation to fiction are special pleading. When it is a person with better research training and access to reliable references, the fallacy is particularly apparent. The foundation of your complaints doesn't lie in notability. The problems you point out find their root in poor editing, organization and research. It's not notability's fault if editors in a topic are unwilling, for whatever reason, to do the same basic research required in other areas. As it is, fiction and pop culture receive an amount of leeway unthinkable in other topic areas. What the area needs is more editors willing to do the minimal citation and research necessary to establish notability, not a liberalization of the rules to circumvent the need to follow basic good practices. Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC Lima[edit]

You were a tremendous help early on, and then I lost steam. I'd like to get back to editing Baptism, etc., and Lima is already making it harder. Do you think that we have enough to move forward? See User:Leadwind/LimaRFC. At this point, I've given up trying to make it perfect and would be happy just to make something happen. Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead, did a bit of research and added a fair chunk of sourced text representing the spectrum of views on the topic. Vassyana (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
While you are at that, would you please also look at what has most recently caused displeasure. Lima (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I provided sources, and have done so occasionally in the past, to address your views is because I happen to like the principles of Wikipedia quite a bit, including NPOV. However, do not mistake my occasional bit of research in that regard to be any kind of endorsement for your editing or approach. The problems with your approach and sourcing have been repeatedly explained to you by multiple editors. If you wish to put forward your interpretation of early Christian documents, you are quite welcome to do so at Wikiversity and Wikibooks. If you believe a view in underrepresented (or is not represented at all) in contradiction with NPOV, please do not use ancient documents to prove your point. Instead, please ask me or any other willing user with reasonable access to sources to find a solid reliable source that talks about it (if you cannot access library resources yourself). Vassyana (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I regret that I still don't see what was illicit in quoting, without commentary or interpretation, just quoting, John 3:22 and 4:2. But I thank you for replacing that simple quotation with something much more elaborate, and for later, as I requested on the article's Talk page, removing the over-simplified bald statement "Jesus did not baptize", which was the reason why I thought the John quotation would be useful. Lima (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I like doing research. :) Seriously though, if you need help finding reliable secondary sources for something, please let me know. I'm sure I could provide some quotes and paraphrases for you to draw from as needed. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If I am not asking too much, would you please intervene again here? In so far as possible, I want to avoid disputes with one who seems to think my editing is done to spite him. Lima (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed redundant info and combined redundant sections in that part of the article, including that bald claim. I figured if I was removing redundant information, I may as well take a full swipe at it rather than just remove one little bit while the rest remains messy. Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As I am not eloquent, I can only say: Thanks. Some of your changes I myself had in mind, but, in the circumstances, I had to avoid boldness. Lima (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I am glad that my changes have been helpful. Let me know if there's something else I can do. At the moment, I'm just digging around for sources and trying to improve that general section of the article. Vassyana (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

V, sorry to read about the finger. And very sorry to see that photo of it. Thanks again for your help on Baptism. You say I'm way off base about the Jesus baptizing citations, etc. If I'm off-base, I want to know so I can stop making myself out to be a jerk. You should know that I am prone to rhetorical flourishes, but that doesn't always translate into policy. I don't want to exclude information from the page. I just want to label it right in the right context. Here's how I understand it. NPOV says that good scholarship is good scholarship, regardless of the scholar's religion (or sexual orientation, race, etc.). Raymond Brown's work on the Johannine community is recognized as expert. We don't refer to him as "Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown." But when a source's goal is religious, its religious nature is noted. It's not a violation of NPOV to say "Catholic theologians affirm the Pope's primacy" in place of "Many theologians affirm the Pope's primacy." So if there are historical sources that say one thing and theological sources that say another, it's right to let the reader know which is which. If it can get published in a nonsectarian scholarly journal, it's plain old good history. If it's an expression of religious faith, it's a notable POV. In fact, in the current text Brodie is described as a theologian, not as a scholar or historian. That's as it should be, right? Leadwind (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we are closer in our opinion of what the article should be than may initially appear. Let's try and focus on the points that we obviously agree upon and work out from there. I'm sure any disagreements we encounter going from that approach can easily be solved with some discussion and/or compromise if we're starting from the same page. Make sense? Vassyana (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say please don't bother to respond until your hand is better, but I see you already responded. I must say, I was taken aback by the distance that seemed to be between us, and I'm relieved you no longer think it's there. Sometimes I am pushed to the point at which my rhetoric exceeds my intent. I probably sounded quite unreasonable. Leadwind (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we were both unintentionally talking past each other to a certain extant. It happens from time to time when dealing with human beings. :) Taking a step back and looking at both of our comments, it seems obvious to me that we are not at all far off from each other. We both want an accurate and well-written article. I'm sure we can work together and help it get there. Vassyana (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Let me lay out what I'd like to see, and you tell me what you think. If we are far apart, I'll drop it. If we can get the page partway to what I'd like, let's do that and be done with it. As for me, I'd like to see two sections on Jesus-and-baptism, one for Jesus and one for the Christian tradition about Jesus. I want the Jesus section to be about what historians say, just like the "Early Christian bishops" section is what historians say about Early Christian bishops. And the Christian-tradition section includes the New Testament section. The Cambridge Guide material either goes here or goes in the Jesus section where it's labeled as an attempt to reconcile historical Jesus and orthodox Jesus. There is no information in this section, off-hand, that I'd want to exclude. In fact, I'm dying to know why scholars think that the "Jesus-didn't-baptize-directly" line is an interpolation. The topic only comes up in a paragraph designed to nix that interpretation, not to describe it, so the reader doesn't even know why scholars would think such a thing in the first place. Leadwind (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, but I also think it will be very difficult to extricate the two approaches from each other cleanly without going beyond the sources and/or presenting the information out of proportion and context. My primary concern is that some of the most prominent and well-respected scholars of early Christian history are theologians and religious studies academics (philosophers). Similarly, some of the top tier of theological and religious scholars are historians and anthropologists. It is not at all a simple matter. I fear that disentangling the bits of the subject in such a fashion may be a level of analysis that is inappropriate for Wikipedia's purposes.
That said (ow my hand! *chuckle*), I believe we may be able to achieve something similar without venturing into dangerous territory. While separating the various "camps" of scholarship may be a sticky wicket, we should be able to distinguish the subtopics that we are addressing with greater ease. That is, we could distinguish between the historical and religious questions. For example, the first and third paragraphs of the baptism by Jesus section would fall under the historical, and the second paragraph under the religious. We could further expand and refine both sections to present a more complete picture of each. What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the first paragraph is that it's not strictly historical. The source has a combined religious-historical project. It's not that religious people wrote it; it's that it was written to satisfy a religious purpose. In addition, if you read that paragraph carefully, it never even says that historical Jesus baptized: "According to the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, the Gospel of John explicitly confirms that Jesus baptized (John 3:22-23), reinforcing the central place of baptism in the message of Jesus. (The Cambridge Companion further states that the initiatory baptism of Jesus and the requirement to "repent and accept baptism" in earliest Christianity were further evidence of baptism's central place in the "good news".)[16]" It says that John says he baptized, reinforcing baptism's central place. That's true whether Jesus actually baptized or not. It says that Jesus' own baptism and early Christian baptism demonstrated baptism's importance, also true regardless of whether Jesus actually baptized. Does the Cambridge Guide say he baptized? Here it only says that John says he baptized and that baptism was central to early Christianity, and there's no argument here. But if that seems like splitting hairs, then let's just give Cambridge Guide and Oxford Dictionary of World Religions similar treatment. One says (or at least strongly implies) he did. The other says he didn't. Setting those two sources up as contemporary, reasonable, differing sources seems fair, especially if the reader is alerted to the religious nature of Cambridge Guide. And the, as you say, treat the theologian's comment as theology. Leadwind (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It comes from the historical, not theological, portion of the book. It also relates, as does the article, that the Gospel of John confirms the (supposed) historical fact that Jesus baptized. Vassyana (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, set Cambridge and Oxford up as competing, contemporary historical sources. I always figured that there was a historical source out there that would back up scripture, but I really wanted someone to produce it. It's news to me that this information is from the historical section of the book, so fine, it's historical. There are different historical viewpoints. Let's give them roughly equal weight. You wanna do the editing? Leadwind (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

TW Abuse[edit]

User talk:ScienceApologist#Use of Twinkle and minor tag (moved from Talk:Quackwatch) may need your attention since you communicate with SA more than I. Some users noted that SA was using TW to mark major reverts as minor at Quackwatch, and the same was done at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunately a feature of Twinkle. I am not aware of a setting that would turn off the minor edit feature (though it may certainly exist). Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I gathered from the discussion over there. The discussion there seems more related to TW's feature/bug bit than for a talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


I am trying hard to disentangle from ScienceApologist as you have suggested. However, his recent treatment of me is abhorrent. Over at Talk:Atropa belladonna, he keeps "hiding" my comments, referring to them as disruptive. Now he has posted an unjust AN/I report about me and is actively canvassing for support [24][25]. How do you suggest I respond (if at all)? Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, for stuff like the ANI post, just let it blow over. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen people on both sides of this debate propose full topic bans, blocks, etc for their opponents, I could pay for a carton of cigarettes in New York State (roughly equivalent to being rich :-P). Generally speaking, people can see when complaints are justified or not, and in the general topic area people are apt to kind of ignore them because everyone is sick of the complaints (and also add in a little bit of "boy who cried wolf" syndrome). If the complaints are substantial enough (or gaining enough traction) that you feel the need to respond, it is likely there is some kernel of truth to the complaint that you should consider. This is kind of a "cold case" now. Sorry that I did not respond earlier, I just kind of missed the message and my attention hasn't been fully wiki-focused the past several days. Vassyana (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Formal mediation[edit]

Vassyana, thanks for your help with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour. I’m thinking however that it may be time to peruse formal mediation. What are your thoughts? --S.dedalus (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would like, I could also get another solid MedCab volunteer to take a look over things. Another perspective could be very helpful. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that would really help? You’ve done a fine job. I don’t know what another user could do, but if you think it’s the right course of action, I’m all wiling. However, from the tone of this very long discussion, and what I’ve seen in connection with it, I fear this case may eventually go to WP:ARBCOM. If that’s a possibility, formal mediation should be tried first. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you recover well from your fractures[edit]

Wow, meditation must be way more dangerous than I thought! :D Jokes apart, I hope that you recover well, and that you don't get too many markings on your face from whatever hit you. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My god, hope you're alright. Get well soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you a speedy and full recovery. Yaf (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope you feel better soon and heal quickly! Blessings! Renee (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So sorry to hear about these injuries.... hope you recover and heal soon. All best wishes.(olive (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for all the well-wishes. It still hurts a lot, but the swelling has started to go down, bringing me great relief, especially in the face. So, I should be around sporadically, if a touch slow. Vassyana (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, whatever you did to deserve that, don't do it again! (Get well soon.) Rumiton (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So sorry to hear about your injuries...and that photo speaks a thousand words of pain...feel better fast..! (and I certainly hope you have some good pain pills...;) Dreadstar 05:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008[edit]

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi Vassyanah. I realize that the recent discussion taking place on Talk:Torah represents a meeting of very strong differences in perspective. Perhaps we'll all learn something. I'll begin by agreeing that the article was never terribly balanced to begin with and recent have made things even less so. I also agree that sub-headers with titles like "foreign" perspectives are completely inappropriate. I have long supported articles on religious subjects which present both academic and religious perspectives. Judaism is a particularly scholarly religion. There are recognized leading scholars, academies, commentators, legal arbiters, etc. that bear a relatively straightforward analogy to the academic world. For this reason, my view has been that religious commentators with widespread and documentable regard in the religious world are reliable for presenting specifically religious perspectives (identified as such). I acknowledge this is not necessarily the case for all religions or religious subjects, because "reliability" isn't necessarily definable in religions that aren't as organized or centered around academies. (Islam, among other religions, has a similar system of recognized academies and a legal-scholarship tradition). Therefore, my perspective has been to try to support Haredi and other traditional religious editors and give them some leeway in presenting religious perspectives using high-quality religious sources, while trying to keep them from removing or discounting all other scholarship. I realize this has sometimes resulted in articles with a rather bland introduction with controversies dealt with in later sections. Every now and then we get an academic editor who wants to remove all the religious content or everything sourced to religious sources, and then I see it as my role, in maintaining balance, to try to prevent one extreme from taking complete control of the article, just as I see it as my role to try and prevent the other. Wishing you a speedy recovery. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed your picture and comments[edit]

Hi, you don't know me but I kind of followed a trail of difs to here and saw the picture and your description. You must be in horrible pain and discomfort so I just wanted to drop in wish you well and to tell you I hope the healing process is going well for you. I am assuming some kind of an accident caused this but I didn't take the time to look at your talk page first, sorry. But anyways, I just wanted to wish you well and hope the healing is going well. Take care and I hope you are feeling better with every hour that passes. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikilove, now and before. It was a really stupid accident ... I tripped. My hand fell beneath me, my neck hit the curb and my cheek/face snapped down hard. To be honest, I'm oddly thankful for the injuries, as considering what happened, a couple inches one way or another would have been much much worse. The healing process goes well. The major relief in pain and gain in comfort was the day the swelling went way down. The pain is quite tolerable (even not that bad at all) by this point. Thank you again for the kindness. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion[edit]

Abrahamic religion is a term. A religious term is something inherent to the religion it is used in, and Abrahamic is not. Comparative religions studies don't use Abrahamic since there is not such religion, i.e. no group associated with it. It is therefore political, in the sense that it seeks to group populations by reclassifying them. For example Workers and Peasants Party, or Capitalists, or the Third World. It is not meant to be insulting, just a matter of fact. The book used was not cited, that is no page number was provided. I am not going to read a whole book because someone picked out a paragraph in it and forgot to mention the fact, so it goes into recommended readings until someone decides to to go fishing for the substantiation of the statement being made--Meieimatai 06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Something "classical" does not originate in the 1960s ;-)(except classic rock and roll)--Meieimatai 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert involving a mediation case[edit]

Hey there. A Wikiquette alert was recently submitted (here), which involves a case you are currently mediating. I am not sure if WQA is really equipped to advise regarding a case that is already in mediation. In any case, the diffs provided by S.dedalus to not show egregious breaches of civility, and the case is a bit on the long side for me to want to read it to get the appropriate context.

I am inclined to just refer it back to the mediation case (saying "Take it to mediation" is not an uncommon outcome for WQAs, heh). Do you have an opinion on how this should be handled? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a relatively obscure topic that has editors with strong opinions editing it. As such, this kind of conflict and frustration among the participants is almost par for the course. I'd say let the discussion continue at WQA. Some of the feedback provided there may help some of the people involved gain a bit of perspective. Beyond that, I may ask another MedCab volunteer to adopt the case, as a different mediation approach and fresh perspective could be helpful. Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'll keep the WQA open for now. Since I don't have the time to get all the relevant context, I am going to assume based on your comments that the blame (if any) is evenly distributed, i.e. this is a case of lost tempers rather than a case of a problem editor engaging in repeated incivility and personal attacks. S.dedalus already expressed a willingness to take a step back, so perhaps this will work out after all.
Thanks again for the quick reply, and here's wishing you a hearty "get well soon" with the finger!! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good form![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your astute and insightful comments and rebuffs in the current debate at Talk:Torah. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A little prize[edit]

Oxycodone.png The Painkiller Star
For managing to type with a hand that looks like the one at the top of the page. Ouch! Dr. eXtreme 20:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)|


I didn't realise it was that bad :-S Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I still need to get the film developed, but I have pictures of the finger bent all the way the wrong way to horrify everyone. :) I do have to take sudden breaks from typing occasionally, due to the discomfort. (I also tore some stuff up in the other pinkie and I have some damaged muscles in the same arm as the ugly finger.) However, at this point it's not so bad as there's very little swelling left and I've become used to typing with just the first and middle fingers of each hand. The stitches come out tomorrow and I start physical therapy next week! Vassyana (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I've been howling all day that my sore throat is unbearable but now I've stopped - I don't want to even imagine that picture. :S Wishing you a speedy recovery!! Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Off I go to get the stitches out! Vassyana (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I had to go to the dentist to get two molars extracted, one of them was a Wisdom teeth that had grown sideways. The dentist worked for one hour and made on the inside of my mouth stitches similar in size to the ones on your finger. Thanks goodness for anestesics!!! Pity I did't think of taking a photo of the bloody mess, I would have gotten some nice brag rights for situations like this :) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Blame my brother-in-law! He's a quirky sort of fellow that is disappointed if there's not a camera to document his injuries. He rubbed off on me. :D Vassyana (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Those are good edits. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I can only hope that everyone agrees. Vassyana (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please?[edit]

Sorry about your injury, hope you get better soon!

I'm wrirint to ask if you take a look at and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual people, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Bias on Abraham page[edit]

Vassyana - I am trying to understand what you think the bias is when stating that Abraham's story reflects the birth of Judaism essentially. I am not saying that I agree or disagree when it is worded that way, but I do not see what the bias is. The article still states that he is a key figure in Christianity and Islam. Thanks. Sposer (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We should not provide undue weight to any given claim of ownership or to any given view. Endorsing claims of religious ownership in the lead is highly inappropriate. Vassyana (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Stating that he the patriarch of the three religions is ownership? Nobody owns Abraham. As far as the removal of the other bit tying him to the Jewish people, I think I agree with you there. I do not understand the bit about the Edomites, et al. Is that at all important? What is important is that he is the father of the three major monotheistic religions. Sposer (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean this change? It wasn't anything about ownership, just a reduction of repetition. On the remainder, the lead certainly needs further rewriting, as does the entire article. Vassyana (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


... for the note and barnstar. Incidentally, did you notice that I referenced a case you mediated at the top of my new, improved, more bitter and cynical userpage?

On a serious note, I hope you're mending well. Those injuries look pretty rough, so I hope you're doing OK. MastCell Talk 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot about that case. :-P (OMG! I should have known you were an evil industrial-pharmaceutical-fascist-communist-revisionist pig! *chuckle*)
I occasionally roll over or do something else silly to cause myself some discomfort, but generally the pain is very mild at this point, with only occasional flareups of more extreme discomfort. I go for an MRI on Monday to fully assess the damage caused to some torn muscles and other soft tissue. The ENT said the bones in my face are healing quickly and the primary said the badly damaged finger is mending quite well considering the severity of the dislocation. Times like these make me glad that I'm generally a "quick healer". :) Vassyana (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources[edit]

hello. i quoted something that you wrote about reliable sources on the Tucker Max discussion page. I believe that i quoted you with the proper essence of the point you were trying to make and not out of context. if you believe that i quoted you out of context or if you believe your quote to be non-applicable to the situation, please let me know so that i can strike out the quote. (please note, i am not soliciting for help or comments on the article, just clarification on whether i represented your quote accurately.) thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you used my comments relatively on-point, though I will refrain from commenting on the particular situation at hand. Vassyana (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

re:User talk:[edit]

I am extremely sorry for that IP tag ... it likely permitted the vandal to keep working longer, so while I'm grateful you shut them down, I do apologize for that screw up.

Also, I'm not sure if that picture is of your hand or not, but as someone who once had a finger joint shattered, and the enjoyment of pins, a cast, and a joint permanently fused, I can sympathize a bit. I hope your recovery is speedy and pain free. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Vassyana,

I just noticed something kind of weird going on at User talk: About two minutes after you blocked it, a different anon account came in and made some changes, but kept the block notification. Some time after that, the came in and edited again. Am I cuckoo, or is there something odd about that? LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those are typical tactics. Note that User: is another open proxy/zombie computer being used for this purpose. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)