User talk:Vassyana/Archive008

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

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

May Pang

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

Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Informal mediation

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

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

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

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

Homeopathy probation notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ScienceApologist

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

Revert

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

Suggestion

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

Reply

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

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

I sent you an e-mail

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

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

Thelema

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

Talk:Bosnian_Mujahideen#RfC:_Renaming_the_article

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

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

Got your e-mail

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

14-M

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

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

Prem Rawat pro/anti bias in the spotlight

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

Hey, Vassyana!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third part

Hi Vassyana

Thanks a lot for the input in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu dicussion. I'll try to follow those guidelines.

-- NitenBr (talk 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

You seem rather desperate for posting at our pump. I'm a member of military history, history and archaeology and can help you in that field if need is. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your input. Do not worry, this is what I am expecting.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Vassayana, What do you do to maintain your rationality and equanimity with such aplomb inspite of provocations? Maybe meditation!! Anyway jokes apart, thanks for all your help and keeping a watch. You have really acted in a neutral and non-partisan way in accordance with the standards of Wikipedia. Your recent “protect page move” reflects your impartial approach. Well, atleast the IR page is 50% NPOV if not completely NPOV. Thanks to you, IAF has atleast seen some sense. Continuous edit-warring had made IR article a laughing stock of entire Wikipedia. Thanks again…Hope to see more of you.--Anish (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My patent nonsense

I don't like to argue with supporters in an RFA, but you're an editor whom I've respected for a long time, and since you've labeled part of my concern as "patent nonsense", I do want to say something in my defense. I'll do so on your talk page, as I think I've said my share at the RfA. First, I am not anti-Veropedia at all. I am really, really grateful for all the work that Veropedians have done, and am proud to have a large number of articles on which I've worked included on the project. I am also aware of the Foundation's policies regarding free content. Though my prior usage was always within policy, limited, and rigorously justified, I quit adding fair use images six months ago.

The incident I linked to, however, was a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board saying that a particular set of edits were inappropriate. The board member was told by one editor "Do you think I give a furry fuck" and then told by ^demon that he was wrong. By itself this would be a minor, if peculiar, incident. But ignoring consensus, deleting articles without discussion, deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by MFDing RFA, antagonizing Jimbo and Anthere (gratuitous confrontation with three board members is a big warning flag for me). Non-admins get quickly blocked for this sort of behavior. I'm not suggesting anything like he should be blocked, but noting the amazing double standard.

We may disagree, but hopefully it doesn't seem that I'm spewing "patent nonsense". As he did all these things after his previous commitment to act differently, I don't believe that I'm "assuming" anything at all.

On a happier note though, I saw that you had resigned a while back, and though I don't know what happened I'm glad that circumstances were such that you felt you could return. --JayHenry (t) 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain things so well and politely. It is sincerely appreciated. I did try to emphasize it was purely a subjective POV that certain points makes no sense. I entirely accept that your opposition is well-thought. If you feel that my statements may not assume good faith or could be construed as an attack, I will gladly strike and rephrase because I had no intention of impugning any editors. It was simply my intent to express my own opinion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was proactive and struck the wording, replacing it with a better indication that it's not an accusation/insult, but rather my own opinion. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (P.S. Could you direct me to the incidents involving Jimbo and the other two board members besides Anthere? I double checked the RfA, but I did not see the indication of these incidents. Thanks! 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Thank you, the gesture is appreciated and reminds me why my impression of you has always been so favorable :) The incident with User:Anthere, the first board member, is a thread she started here Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest#Cash for writing. Read how thoughtful, reasonable and open to discussion she is here. This is what I desperately want to see more of from our leadership. We don't see enough of this, part of the reason is the response her post met.

The incident with Jimbo, the second board member, is at Mzoli's.[1] He created a stub, indicated that it was a work in progress and he was going to be adding more. Less than 20 minutes later, with no attempt at discussion, and not enough time to search for sources, ^demon deleted the article without discussion. This is my personal nightmare. It's hard enough to write this encyclopedia without someone who has never written an article deleting your work without even giving you half an hour to work on it. Suddenly you have to waste a week of your time defending the right of your content to exist, instead of working on the content? The issue is partially that he did it to provoke Jimbo, the issue is also that he did it at all, to anyone, who indicated a work in progress. This sort of attitude has driven away, literally, Vassyana, literally, thousands of would-be contributors who started slowly.

The incident with Eloquence, the third board member, is the Veropedia incident above. --JayHenry (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Little Caesar (film)

Hi, I noticed you closed the RM on Little Caesar (film) citing no consensus. But there does appear to be consensus and more people support the move. Parable1991 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a slight majority, which is not consensus. Discussions are not plurality votes. Vassyana (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It says though that polling is not a substitute for discussion but all reason have been provided. Also there appears to be more consensus to move Dalmatian (disambiguation) to Dalmatian. Same concurs with discussion. Parable1991 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When even, or near even, numbers of people disagree with no argument clearly overwhelming another, there is no consensus. I am sorry you disagree with the result of the discussion, but there is clearly no consensus for a move in either case. Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Battery electric vehicle

Your revision of the consensus to move to electric car is not appreciated. The move has already been done. Anyone can see that the oppose votes were all for very bogus reasons and that the support votes were all for very good reasons. It just wasn't done properly and requires an admin to clean it up by moving battery electric vehicle to electric car and then recreating battery electric vehicle as it currently exists and electric car as it currently exists in order to preserve the history of each article (battery electric vehicle is a new article with very little content, electric car is a very old article with a great deal of content). By the way, I had nothing to do with closing the request - that was defacto done by someone else, I just cleaned up the mess. Or am attempting to clean up the mess. What needs to happen is if you could unrevise your revision and do the move properly. The request is copied here:

• Battery electric vehicle → Electric car —(Discuss)— Battery electric vehicle is an obscure industry name, everyone else knows these as the electric car. —199.125.109.29 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This move requires the assistance of an administrator - all of the content other than milk float is being moved to electric car. To retain the history of the article this should be done by a move and not by cut and paste. 199.125.109.18 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of the opposing votes, there was no clear naming standard or convention favoring one over the other nor any related overwhelmingly convincing argument. There was significant and articulated opposition to the move, which indicates there is no consensus for the move. In the future, please do not close such discussions except in 'clearly uncontroversial cases. I have posted at WP:SPLICE to have an admin familiar with history merging to review and correct the histories. Vassyana (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said I didn't close it, it was defacto closed and I just let the summary reflect what was done. Thanks for your assistance. 199.125.109.87 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Home

Hi Vassyana, thanks for volunteering to help informally mediate the parkour article. I’m back from my trip today and on Wikipedia again! Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

South Africa under apartheid

As a previous contributor the discussion, please have a look at Talk:South Africa under apartheid. We need to build consensus on how to split it up, or otherwise shorten it, and your input would be appreciated. 9Nak (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. It seems like the current split suggestion you've proposed is well-supported. I have provided additional suggestions which may (or may not) be helpful. Vassyana (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Toledano Tradition article

Vassyana, thank you for your third opinion on the Toledano Tradition. However, abafied, who requested the opinion, seems ready to fight against the changes you recommended. The article does need to be changed as you suggested, but I have I have had all the controversy I can take in the past, and would like to find a good way to settle this. If you have any suggestions of how to move the process forward, despite the resistance, I would be happy for suggestions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I note that Schosa has now moved to deletion of the article and is no longer interested in the next, more formal step in the process of mediation, which needs his agreement, a per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Request for Mediation. I am happy to continue discussion of the article on the deletion page which Schosa put up and on which you added comment. I have started a discussion in the discussion page there and have copied its contents so far to the Toledano Tradition discussion page. Best to have the unresolved dispute out in the open, no? abafied (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Abafied has retroactively installed his own headings on the AfD talk page for Toledano Tradition. The way he is going this, by naming me as the problem, instead focusing on the article, seems to be part of his attempt to build a case against me before requesting mediation. It seems to me that the AfD is not the proper place for for that. I have reverted his headings twice, and he has replaced them. Since a third revert is problematic, I would like to know if some administrative help, to prevent his effort to control that page, is possible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that he is using the deletion talk page as a soapbox attempt. However, the headings are not particularly problematic. Indeed, those are objections to the article that you have raised and I have raised. I see nothing inflammatory or divisive about clearly labeling my objections as such. It the deletion talk page gets out of hand with soapboxing, drop a polite line on the sysop noticeboard with a 'neutral request that an admin review the deletion talk page (with link) for potential violations of civility and/or soapboxing. Combating over it and kicking up a fuss will only further spur him on. Vassyana (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

for responding to the 3O request! best, Doldrums (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Hello. I'm implicated in a dispute about "Russia" article and as you are seen as a very experienced user a and well-known wikipedian mediator I would know if I may request you a third opinion about that POV's divergence ? I've the opinions of two others editors yet but a third one from a mediator is perhaps the only solution to stop this conflict except arbitration (as my "opponent" doesn't seem to agree with my proposition of asking for a mediation). You can ask me any detail you need about the dispute or my POV. I'll answer as fast as I can. However it wouldn't be a problem if you had no enough time what I perfectly understand ;) Thank you Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This disagreement is a bit outside of an area where I would feel comfortable assisting. I have posted a request for outside opinions from WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Soviet Union and WikiProject Russian history.[2][3][4] Hopefully, they will be able to provide some guidance and assistance with the dispute. WikiProjects are often good places to get outside opinions and the assistance of knowledgeable experienced Wikipedians. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Uncle Scrooge (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help in some way. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. As no one in the WikiProject seems to be interested in this case I requested a mediation as the second step after the third opinion. A Mediation Cabal didn't look to be the best solution as it sometimes lasts several weeks. As we have already two independant opinions about this dispute I think I'm allowed to request a formal mediation, is that right ? If no; do you know something more I can do to reach a peaceful solution (the negociation has failed) ? If yes; may you please lock the article until the dispute is resolved as the endless reverts don't seem to do anything except stirring irritation ? Again thank you for your help !

Uncle Scrooge (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• PS: It looks like my opponent seems ready to agree with a mediation after five days of intense supplication ^_^

"I feel that mediation would not achieve anything as we would just repeat the same arguments and it would distract me from improving this article (a problem, which of course, you do not have to worry about as this is your only contribution to the article), but if you insist I can repeat the same arguments."

Another case for me

Hi. One of the people asking the mediation of the first case I worked on seems to be on holiday, and the mediation is nearly over methinks. Do you think it would be a good idea for me to mediate in another case? --Slartibartfast1992 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel up for taking on another case, please feel free to do so. If you need any assistance or advice, please let me know. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I took another case up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-19 Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. Could you maybe tell me your opinion as to whether I'm doing well or screwing up? --Slartibartfast1992 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm now starting to constantly remind the two parties that the solution to their dispute is to strictly follow WP:V and to avoid OR (though only one of the parties would seem to be breaking this). I've strangely gotten what might be considered an attack from the user who is actually trying to enforce WP:V. I figure he/she must have misunderstood me or something. I've left a message reminding what I'm trying to do on either talk page, to see what response I get. Thanks for taking the time to assess how I'm doing. --Slartibartfast1992 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The user still hasn't answered and appears to no longer be discussing on the case. I've sent a reminder today. --Slartibartfast1992 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Case closed ;) .--Slartibartfast1992 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality check

I've been mediating Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football for the last couple of weeks. its taken a couple of unexpected turns, but the main body of editors seems to have reached a consensus. However, one editor who differs with them keeps requesting I abuse my admin powers to enforce his version. I've firmly declined, but I'm wondering at what point I should conclude the mediation? Obviously, I'll issue a concluding statement to each talk page, but I wanted a check to make sure I'm doing this whole thing right. MBisanz ^talk 09:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Giving me a summary version, what is the dissenting editor's main complaint? Vassyana (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He wants to say one sport is the "national" sport, usually Australian Rules football. I've reviewed half a dozen reliable sources and there is no clear consensus on what is the most popular sport and there isn't a sport that the gov't says is the national sport. The others involved prefer a wording that says there is no national sport, but that x, y, and z, are popular sports. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, would mentioning the "native" origin of Aussie football following the statement about all of them be sufficient to satisfy him without upsetting the other participants? Do any of the sources break down who considers, or why the sports are considered, central to Aussie consciousness and identity? if so, would a brief statement about each satisfy people? Just a couple thoughts. Vassyana (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, those might work, but now this user's taken to speaking to other participants in a foriegn language (italian), that apparently they understand. I could struggle through Babelfish, but I'm wondering if this hasn't moved beyond compromise to conflict. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are conversing in a foreign language, it may be appropriate to politely remind them that this is the English Wikipedia and conversing in a foreign language may be discourteous to other users reviewing the situation and other editors who may wish to comment. Regardless, if you feel that the participants are not interested in finding a mutual solution and that nudging them towards compromise would be fruitless, it is likely best just to close the case and strongly encourage them to reconsider their conflict-orientated approach. Vassyana (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Lima RfC

I'm going to open an RfC on Lima. The Wikiquette Alert didn't work. Would you be willing to share your opinion once things are underway? I'm logging issues on my talk page. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I've started a subpage, as you suggested. I didn't know how to do that. I'd really appreciate some help in getting links together, if you could offer it. While I don't want to play the "my wife's real sick" card too often, it's sadly very true, and I could use whatever support I can get. Also, I've never done one of these before. Any pointers you could give me would be super. Leadwind (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-limiting administrators

I have been working to formalize the concept behind my userbox. When you get a chance, could you please take a look at User:Bovlb/Self-limiting administrators and tell me if you think I'm on the right track? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Mhsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has insisted on WP:POVPUSH by inserting a rather tendentious section on "Crime" in Mexico. This issue has been discussed extensively before, and on two occasions the consensus of the editors was to remove the section. I have told Mhsb that I do not oppose a section on Crime, but that I preferred a serious less tendentious and fully referenced section. I invited him to discuss, pointed out the areas in which I disagree with his proposal, explained to him that, given that this was a controversial topic previously discussed that he should seek the consensus of the editors instead of unilaterally editing. He resorted to use personal disqualifications [5], and called me vandal for reverting his edits.

I simply ask you, if you consider it appropriate, block the article temporarily to make Mhsb discuss properly and obtain a consensus.

--the Dúnadan 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I kept an eye on the article to see if the small period of back and forth reversions would continue. Brief edit wars, while undesirable, do not require blocks or article protection unless there's a reason to believe the disagreement will become ongoing or disruptive. It seems like he is no longer reinserting the section and he has edited the article since it was last reverted. There also seems to be talk page activity about the proposed section. Taken together, article protection seems unnecessary. If the situation changes again, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MedCab

Hi, I saw your name on the Mediation Cabal page where it listed mediators for the "buddy system." I personally would very much like to be a part of the mediation process, but I don't know how to get started. Could you give me a few pointers, maybe, and get me going in the right direction? Many regards, Dr. Extreme (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any experience in dispute resolution on-wiki? (Such as WP:3O, WP:WQA, etc.) Do you have any experience in article analysis and feedback? (Such as WP:GA, WP:PEER, etc.) Neither are necessary, but you would find a little experience in both can be quite helpful. What topics areas would you feel most comfortable mediating in? Vassyana (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My "experience" pretty much comes from constant watching of dispute resolution processes, and also reading old debates, ArbCom cases, RfC's, RfA's, basically anything where a dispute is liable to occur. I like to think I have a pretty good idea of how Wikipedia's meta-rules and guidelines work. I haven't ever participated in any of these debates, for two reasons: either it's an old debate and it's either already archived or almost over, or in the case of on-going disputes, I don't feel like my input would be welcome; I've never been an involved party in a dispute, and in fact I have very few edits of any kind. I don't really have a head for article-writing, copyediting, or things like that, and as a result I've kept a very low profile and my comments would probably seem no more authoritative or respectable than if they were coming from an anon IP. Would participating in a GA/FA discussion or some kind of peer-review be a good place to start? Dr. Extreme (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally recommend doing a few good article reviews and answering some requests for a third opinion. Taking a little time to look over both article RfCs and user conduct RfCs would be helpful in understanding how people approach disputes and what kinds of common issues arise in disputes. None of this is necessary and you are free to adopt a MedCab case if you feel you can help. They're just my personal recommendations, because they will help you develop a feel for providing feedback and get a sense of how the average editor approaches disputes. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll check out some good article reviews and third opinions, and try to make myself heard despite my lack of high edit count. If I still need pointing in the right direction after that, could I check back with you? Dr. Extreme (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you have any questions or need any advice, feel free to leave me a message. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden

Seeing as you are the closing admin, I am asking you to reopen and relist the move request for Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden that was closed earlier this month. It was no consensus (w/ 3 votes), but at least two other editors have come to a new move request stating their preference for the earlier suggestion, so I think it deserves relisting. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All set. Vassyana (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I improved the article based on ICTY verdicts and Radio Free Europe research, trying to avoid speculation per WP:RS. I think the article is much better now, but the problem related to the title still remains. Probably I am going to start discussion in order to move the article to the proper name used by the ICTY/RFE. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COGDEN

Made some late comments there. A lot of old editors edit like COGDEN do. I do too.

Fair warning: I am very heavily opposed to bricking-in the wiki in favor of more bureaucracy. I am also becoming less and less enamored with meatball:ExpandScope-type procedures like RFC and village pump.

It has become much harder to maintain policy, especially since that RFC. You might be surprised by my comments ^^;;

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Xishen_Jing

May I tap you into looking into this? I am unable to find any sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can find. Life away from the keyboard has been keeping me busy. You are most likely to find sources using the Wade-Giles spelling of "Hsi Sheng Ching". It's a bit difficult to find sources that use the Pinyin Xishenjing. Vassyana (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen (again...)

Vassyana, could you please take a look at the recent edits of User:Grandy Grandy in the Bosnian mujahideen article. I believe they amount to POV pushing and have lodged a complaint about GG's behavior. However, could you please take a look at or give a comment on the matter. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He has been warned about the behavior. If the edit warring continues, the page will be protected. Please politely and firmly invite him to discuss issues on the talk page. If he will not do so or resorts to inappropriate behavior, I will address the issue. Vassyana (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hi @Vassayana, I explained all major edits in the talk page, please I would like you to review the article and read my comments, I think it is the best neutral solution by now. I added "Incidets" section as well as Propaganda and Backgorund. Grandy Grandy (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. My attention is divided at the moment, but I will take a good look over the new version a bit later when I have a solid chunk of free time. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Glad I could help. It's a book specifically about Papal elections, but has a very comprehensive history section encapsulating the major beliefs concerning Apostolic Succession, etc. As far as the Church or Apostolic Fathers...I asked if the Roman Missal would be a good source. Here's the prayer in question in Latin: "Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genitricis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi: sed et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreae, Iacobi, Ioannis, Thomae, Iacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis, et Thaddei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Ioannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damianis: et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis, precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protentionis tuae muniamur auxilio. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen." and English: "Communicating with, and honoring in the first place the memory of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ: as also of the blessed Apostles and Martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon, and Thaddeus; Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy Saints, through whose merits and prayers, grant that we may in all things be defended by the help of Thy protection. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen." Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement were the first 4 popes. Sixtus and Corneilius came later (maybe 10 and 20?), anyway each one contributed something specific to the Catholic Church: Linus -consecrated bishops, wrote canon of women covering their heads in Church, mentioned in Paul's second letter to Timothy;Cletus - Consecration of bishops, wrote some prayers still used in Tridentine Rite, etc; Clement introduced the Roman collar; Sixtus wrote rules for handling sacred vessels (chalice, ciborium, etc)and was arrested while saying Mass and beheaded by one of those 2 emporer's I sourced. I can't imagine their significance to anyone outside the RCC. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for as well?--Mike Searson (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dropped Mediation Claim

Hi Vassyana,

I was involved in a mediation case with Tilman and a few other some months ago. I have been extremely busy, and have not hear from you for quite some time. I recently found out that you moved to drop the claim because we have been calm or quiet. I took classes in mediation in my undergrad work, and to make the decision on your own is not appropriate for a mediator to make. You should have sought the permission from all the parties involved. I do not recall asking me if this issue should be closed. because if you had asked me, I would have said, "no." this issue is still an issue to me. I am an aspiring academic, and I referenced myself in a academic paper I wrote (it was presented in a CESNUR conference). It was removed by people who said it was not academic. Later in the debate over its removal I found out one of the reason why it was removed was because the organization was not well liked. This is extremely biased. If mediation has been closed with out any of the parties permission, and cannot be reopened, I may take this to arbitration (or whatever the next step is)John196920022001 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take a breath and relax. :) I closed the case because there was nothing left to mediate. The dispute was not ongoing when I closed the case. As far as I can see from the history of the talk page and article, none of the participants have edited the article in the past several months. Yourself and Tilman both made single comments on the talk page since the closing, but on a completely unrelated topic where you don't seem to disagree. In the absence of an ongoing dispute, reopening the case or pursuing other avenues of dispute resolution would be fruitless. I would simply suggest you go ahead and edit the article as per the normal wiki process. If a dispute arises, it can be addressed. However, in the absence of conflict, there is nothing to mediate and no issue for dispute resolution to address. Thanks for your understanding. Vassyana (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I now agree that it would be fruitless to re-open the case but for different reason than yours. One of the parties is no longer even on Wikipedia, and the other is taking a long wiki break. His page says he will be back some day. Trying to reopen the case would bring them back to Wikipedia. So I am going to drop if for now. I still respectfully disagree with your reasoning on closing the case. In a mediation situation it is not up to the mediator to close the mediation unless the parties cannot come to a compromise. Take care John196920022001 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Hi, as you may have seen, User:Thatcher has banned me (and User:Grandy Grandy)from editing the Bosnian mujahideen (and Mujahideen) articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Break). He doesn't clearly state what the reason for this is, though it seem I did not engage in discussion or seek mediation. However, I believe I have done nothing but explain my edits and seek mediation with regards to this article. I have left a note ([6]) on his talk page explaining as much. However, since you have been involved in the Bosnian mujahideen article as a mediator for quite a long time, I would very much appreciate if you could drop him a note describing my conduct. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who is correct in the situation, I believe Thatcher has done the proper thing in order to prevent continuing edit wars. Continue your efforts to discuss matters on the talk page. I will drop by the BM article talk page periodically over the next month to assist in keeping the discussion focused and help everyone find some agreeable middle ground. Thanks for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, I don't agree with you that Thatcher did "the proper thing". Anyway, if you would keep a look at the article I would be pleased. User:The Dragon of Bosnia is already reverting back to User:Grandy Grandy's version.Osli73 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RM

[I originally posted this message 13 March, but you did not respond. I don't know if that was intentional or not. If intentional, could you please advise another admin to look at this? Thanks.]

As you will see at Talk:Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden#Requested_move, the requested move has stalled. I think that since no party has come forward supporting the current title, the page should be moved, even without consensus, to the slightly preferred Gustavus Adolphus. There is no consensus to either suggested title, but there is no opposition to both (i.e., no support for the current title, which I think I showed was ridiculous). I don't know aboud Wikipedia policy on this, but it seems to me that keeping a title universally regarded as bad just because there is no consensus for another option is silly. Besides, another RM would work much better if the article is moved. Srnec (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My lack of response was unintentional. Sorry! There's a backlog again at requested moves, so I'm going to draw admin attention to the backlog. I would prefer to avoid reclosing a discuss I previously closed, to ensure an independent sysop closes the discussion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to my stepping in and closing a few - the ones that clearly have no consensus for the move? 199.125.109.52 (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're simply closing move requests that obviously lack support, I don't see why it should be a problem. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. No need for admin action or for them to be hanging around in the backlog. IPusers can't move pages so the only ones I can close are the no-action ones. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Noob admin requires advice on how to close a contested move

Suppose I think consensus has been reached to move Sir William Henry Perkin to the title William Henry Perkin. Are these the steps for me to follow:

1. Add {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}} to the discussion, adding the verdict at the top
2. Delete William Henry Perkin which is a disambig at present
3. Remove the requested move template from Talk:Sir William Henry Perkin
4. Move the page and the Talk page
5. Add the hatnote to William Henry Perkin pointing over to William Henry Perkin Jr.

Then what do I do with the entry proposing the move on the WP:RM page? Does it need to be 'closed?' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It gets summarily deleted. By that I mean you just delete it, but make sure you indicate in your edit summary that you are deleting it from RM. <- volunteered by IPuser, not by Vassyana. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why PD is MOS issue

The public domain text is an MOS issue because WP:MOSQUOTE has been used to support a demand that reused public domain text be in quotations. It became an issue in Bathhouse Row because copyedits are being reverted in order to lock the original text inside quotations (although the article was created without quotation format). The editor insisting on quotations has been found to be trying to get quotations around several other public domain texts. Searching for more examples has only found one editor doing this, although maybe other editors are using phrasing which isn't being used in searches. At any rate, there is no recorded style guidance, only the unwritten customs of using PD text. There are a couple of proposed changes in WT:MOS. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Toledano Tradition

Would you kindly de-garble this ungrammatical sentence you altered on the Toledano Tradition page: "The Toledano Tradition is a term used by Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi and the Kabbalah Society to describe a modern tradition of Kabbalah that is said to revival of a tradition in early medieval Spain and France, which prospered of Lunel and Girona and the city of Toledo, Spain."

The original sentence was: "The Toledano Tradition is a term used by Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi and the Kabbalah Society to describe the tradition of Kabbalah that evolved in early medieval Spain and France and which included among its many focal points the towns of Lunel and Girona and the city of Toledo, Spain."

Thank you. abafied (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Degarblefied. (Yeah, I know it's not a word, but it sounds fun.) :) Vassyana (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Ta muchly - worthy (I think) adversary! abafied (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I should have made a "clean" version in the first pass. *smacks self on wrist* Bad Vassyana! :) Vassyana (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry!

oops, sorry, you were a mediator on earlier versions of these re-posts, not a contributor to the articles, so I deleted this post. Any wise words are always welcome though! Renee (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Asking assistance on personal attacks and ad hominem in the Cabal Mediation

Hello. I'm writing to ypu as coordinator of the Mediation Cabal section. I've seen that alleged user SadPuppy in this and the previous two editions (same paragraph) have launched several personal attacks against me using it as ad hominem. In his (or her) contribs page I've seen this is a user created only two write in the ask for mediation of user HappyApple (I believe SadPuppy was created only to disrupt his claim). After I attract attention on some irregularities, reprisals and harashment against HappyApple and the other user who supported him in order to silence them, user SadPuppy writes against me in a paragraph where there is no argument, only defamation, personal attacks and ad hominem. I don't want to answer to such people as I had a sad experience trying to talk politely to persons who launched such provocations and even accused me. What can I do? Could you remove his attacks and monitor him? Thanks. --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)