User talk:Vassyana

Meatspace is consuming a lot of my time and energy lately, so I may be sporadic in my responses and participation for a while. Sorry for any delays or lack of response. If I forget about something, feel free to leave me another talk page message for a bright orange bar reminder. :) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Word of the day
Treeware. noun. /'triwɛər/.
An antediluvian method of publishing information on a portable medium created from processed arboreal macerate, often with decorative covers glossed by petrochemical solids.

"Reginald went to the athenaeum to peruse treeware with the assistance of an informatics professional."

---

Thought of the day: I am seriously and vastly disturbed by the proposals for increased bureaucracy and centralized committees flying about Wikipedia recently. I strongly oppose any such change, and will depart the community if it takes this well-meaning but vastly wrong-headed turn (as it is directly contradictory to the community I joined). It is a solution to a problem that only exacerbates the problem. The problems are being caused by rigid interpretations of the rules and excessive bureaucratic sprawl. Adding more of the same is not a solution, it's masochistic and foolish. 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Help me out.

• Take a look over History of early Christianity and Apostolic Age and provide some feedback on the talk pages. Thanks! 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.

---

• Talk Page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Refs reorganised

Hi Vassyana, I've Harvardised the main refs in Osho. Do you reckon it's good enough now to pass muster? --Jayen466 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it and post to the article talk with anything I think either excels or needs some work. Vassyana (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada FAC nomination

I am sorry about your injury and hope that it is healed enough for you to do what you want to do. :) I hope your are allright to have a peek at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anekantavada. I am trying to assume good faith, but somehow certain objections raised seem to a bit frivolous even after giving proper explanation. I hope you can chip in something. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns about the reliability of the portion of Jain World used. It's part of a collection of stories that lacks any indication of the author or source. If the story is noteworthy to the topic, surely some other clearly reliable source has used it as an example?

On another note, there seems to be an inordinate number of quotations in the article. In general, quotes should be used sparingly to illustrate (for the reader's benefit) what is being said in the article or in the rare case when a quotation would provide greater clarity to the article. Vassyana (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have addressed the concerns. I have removed the Jainworld reference all together. The quotations aspect has been addresed by making the smaller quotations as part of prose. I hope you find the article worthy of featured status--Anish (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still very uncomfortable with the number of quotations used, but I wouldn't oppose the article's promotion. I admire the hard work you've invested. Vassyana (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It now a featured article....the nomination and review process was very rigorous and stressful, but worth it and productive after all the unproductive edits wars over Indian religion page. However, I need your help once again. One anon IP is making edits on Indian religions page and adding some material that all Indian religions are offshoots of Hinduism. This is contrary to the consensus with IAF. The IP is refuisng to have a peek on the talk pages and have a debate. I have reverted him twice, but he is insisting on adding his stuff. Can you check out the page?--Anish (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. I just want to remind you of the mediation case concerning Fatimah. Hopefully, you could help us end the dispute soon. En Ne talk 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading to a university library over this coming weekend to find sources for a few things, including the disputed material in Fatima's article. Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, please be aware of developments on AN/I here, which notes that User:Enforcing Neutrality has been indef blocked. I have withdrawn from mediation on this basis, as nobody other than EN was involved in the dispute: other editors who reviewed the cases were in basic agreement over the inadequacy of the sources. While more sources may be beneficial for the section (although the Encyclopedia of Islam's coverage of the issue is probably sufficient), it isn't something that requires either page protection or formal mediation. Regards, ITAQALLAH 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. Thank you for notifying me of the updated situation. I will still keep the issue on my search for sources list and if I find anything solid or worthwhile, I'll let you know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sirjoh

Yep, clearly the same user. He was indef-blocked 19 months ago after waging a rather bizarre campaign on Indigenous Australians, trying to get cannibalism added to the article even though all the sources he had for it were more than 70 years old and most of them have been discredited. He's also been adding information suggesting or promoting the idea that the Aboriginals are a dying race, which has not been mainstream in Australia since the 1950s and is arguably disputed by Census figures. His odd campaigning extends into other trigger issues for the far-right in Australia such as Flag of Australia, Australian flag debate, Republicanism in Australia, Australian republic referendum, 1999, Eureka Flag, Eureka Stockade and anything to do with Aboriginals. Essentially he routinely abuses WP:UNDUE, WP:TALK and WP:NPA, adding reams of stuff to talk pages and highly contentious stuff to articles. We all thought he was gone until some odd stuff on my watchlist revealed some odd activity on the republic articles which then led to discovering the rest. Most of his editing is from IPs, relating either to Bigpond (a very large Australian ISP) or Uni of Newcastle. "Sir Joh", by the way, would relate to Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the right wing Premier of Queensland from 1968 to 1986, who's something of a folk hero for people of that persuasion. Orderinchaos 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GEC Conspiracy theory

Hi, I've submitted this article to AfD, quoting your prod reason. I hope that's ok with you. All the best, Verbal chat 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Co-ordinators

Hi,

I'm wondering what sort of work you do as a MedCab Co-ordinator? cheers   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MedCab is quite informal, and the coordinator position is no exception. There are no defined or specifically expected duties. Generally, I offer advice to volunteers, keep an eye on some cases, ask around for additional volunteers when we need it, and so on. Vassyana (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if...

Hi Vassyana, I wonder if you could take a look at Ronald Reagan, where a dispute between myself and another editor, User:Jimmuldrow, is starting to get out of hand. Here is the page history and three chronological discussions, starting with Talk:Ronald_Reagan#FAR. Here's the general lowdown:

1. On July 30, User:Jimmuldrow inserted a section desribing Reagan's "environmental policies"
2. I reverted, citing the fact that this article is about Ronald Reagan the man, not entirely about Reagan's presidency, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:SS, but I encouraged the user to place a NPOV paragraph related to this subject into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, a subarticle.
3. The user reverted my edit, saying, "Why talk about Reagan's Presidency but not his policies? If I left out more positive environmental stuff, add facts in instead of removing facts with references."
4. User:SandyGeorgia reverted that edit saying, "Discuss on talk, marginally related to Reagan, likely belongs elsewhere"
5. Jimmuldrow then nominated the article for a featured article review, and created a talk page discussion (under his IP address, later signed properly).
6. On July 31, Many discussions took place, including those at the talk page and the FAR. At both, I outlined my reasons for opposing the insertion of this full paragraph and closing the FAR. The FAR was quickly closed by User:Marskell.
7. Following the closure of the FAR, Jimmuldrow inserted a very similar paragraph to the first one.
8. I shortened down the paragraph, placed it in another paragraph (still getting the general idea across to the reader), thanked Jimmuldrow for his attempts to include necessary context but again encouraged him to place the full paragraph in Domestic policy of the Reagan administration per WP:SS.
9. The user began a talk page section and reverted me in article space.
10. I responded on the talk page and proposed re-implementing this per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE. I did not revert in article space.
11. After two days without a response from Jimmuldrow, I implemented my proposal. He reverted just over an hour after I put in, saying, "this is closer to what the cited references say".
12. I did not revert him, but commented at the talk page.
13. The following day, Jimmuldrow responded, asking a question regarding WP:WEIGHT.
14. I responded, answering his question in the hopes that we can reach an understanding.
15. Following my answer, he cut out one sentence but apparently some non-NPOV language that we had previously taken out is back. The new paragraph is about Social Security and the environment, two unrelated ideas as well, which I've expressed in my latest comment at the talk page discussion.

So it seems we have made a little progress, but still appear to be engaged in a stalemate. Sorry about the long list, but as a member of MedCab, any comments would be appreciated. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to some personal preconceptions, it would be better if I did not personally become involved. However, with your permission, I will gladly open a MedCab request for you. It might be wise to request a third opinion first, to see if an uninvolved view might help resolve the dispute (I could also file the request for you there if you would like). Just let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Well I think things are going better, but if they turn around I may go for that MedCab. I don't think it is necessary at this time, though. But thank you :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Vassyana, would you we willing to take a look at this article? El C has just protected it, which I think justified. The subject of the article admittedly represents a minority view, but it has been subject to treatment to make it appear it is a fringe theory; and it has been taken to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard and there has been an AfD too. Perhaps I am misjudging the situation. I would appreciate it if you could review the article, and the editing situation, because I think an outside view would help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I owe another religious article a review, but after I complete that, I would be happy to look over it and offer some advice/help as I can. Vassyana (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance to look at this article, perhaps you can evaluate statements of Malcolm's such as [1]. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I asked for Vassyana's opinion because I think he is fair. If he thinks I am in the wrong I will stop editing that article. The COI, in the sense I used it, could apply to anyone, including me. It was not intended as an insult. Also, I think that if everyone was just a little less sure about being right, it would be easier to edit the article. Sorry if I offended you though....that was not my intention. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I will comment later this evening. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: original research in Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi

Vassyana, I know you opined on this a few weeks back, but I just learned of this thread a few hours ago. Would you mind revisiting this discussion in WP:NOR/N? I have added some more information, which includes Casteau's decision to completely delete the passage in question. (You can take your time over this: I'll be offline tomorrow & Wednesday due to personal business.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but inasmuch that no one has responded to my latest comment at WP:NOR/N (except Yom, who might be considered biased), should I consider the matter closed & despite everything I wrote C. is in the right about this matter? -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No bother at all! Yom's response seems fairly appropriate and more or less approximates my own opinion. The matter is closed IMO, as the original concern was addressed and there seems to be a clear way forward. Vassyana (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations

Hi,

Waaaaayyy back in March you removed info about the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria allegations. They were replaced a couple weeks later. I've no familiarity with the case, but I wonder if they're appropriate to be included. References were added at the same time as the replacement, but I don't know if they're appropriate and reliable. Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a case that makes no assertion to being an SRA case. I removed it and another that similarly lacks SRA elements. Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. WLU (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3O at Talk:Toyota Prius

Hi Vassyana, thanks for your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Toyota Prius#Third opinion. I have replied to it there, and I wondered if you would like to make any further comments. Best regards, -- de Facto (talk). 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 History of the Jews in Poland

Hi,

This case is starting to get out of hand, what makes it worse is the other mediator has effectivly bailed out due to ISP issues. I would like someone with experiance, perhaps a member of the mediation commitie to sit in on this one because this is proving a real headache. Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC) (I have put this notice on the other co-ordinators page also)

I'm asking around to see what assistance I can find. Do you think that a formal RfM may be in order? Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

You previously helped with some editing disputes at Patrick T. McHenry. I've tried the BLP noticeboard, requesting a third opinion--and so far no response. I know admins are busy though. Here are the links where I've tried to work out the dispute: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_T._McHenry
Talk:Patrick_T._McHenry#Neutrality
User_talk:Ziegfest
User_talk:Ystava
Thanks!! Ystava (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of providing a third opinion. :D If you have any questions or further concerns, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Toby Keith

Hi there,

You provided a helpful response and solution to the dispute regarding an unsourced edit that an editor insists on adding to the article. Well, the editor is back to adding in the information with no regard to the comments that have been made on the talk page. Do you have any advice on how to further resolve this issue? Thank you.--Startstop123 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you fixed my Twinkle revert (which didn't restore the correct version). I have also left a message on the user's talk page about the matter.[2] Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!--Startstop123 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I've tried everything I can to work with an editor, and they just continue to feet-drag, are disruptive, and talk right past me. The relevant conversation is here. You may note that this person seems to subsist only with reverts to Atropa belladonna. I'm at my wits end. This guy just cannot be worked with. I need some administrator intervention. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This can't be right....

MartinPhi has just returned to editing but he has met with this:[3], [4]

and this was added: [5]

I'd like him to stay around but this doesn't encourage in anyway. How can this be fair? (olive (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks this has been taken care of.(olive (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

RE: Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I don't think the mediation call is valid any longer. The user that started everything has since disappeared from the scene (at least as far as related pages goes) so there has since not been anything 'provocative' happening, as the log will illustrate. Since that time, the regular contributors - of all backgrounds - have continued to work together to build a NPOV article based on consensus. Thanks for your offer of assistance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask people if mediation was actually still needed. *chuckle* Thanks for the heads up. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. All the best, A Sniper (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Togo

Hi,

You have helped me out before and I was wondering if you can help me again or give me advice on how to go about resolving a situation. An editor keeps adding in unsourced information. The information is already within the article (written better and with a better flow) and I do not want to enter into an edit war. Do you have any suggestions?--Startstop123 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I reread the edits and I think if I just fix some grammer, it will be fine. Sorry to bother you. Thanks.--Startstop123 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI double post

Don't worry about the double post. One thing to remember, however, is to remember to sign your posts. At first, I thought it was Red4tribe forum shopping in a third location, which is a bad thing to do at ANI ;) Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was something that minor. It's all good. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi violating the terms of the editing restrictions

In this edit, Martinphi removes a reliable source by an extremely respected scientist (Sean Carroll) that was added by me. I believe that this is a violation of the restrictions you imposed. Can you act? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho

Hi Vassyana, the implementation of one or two of the suggestions arising from your informal review is being discussed; I would be grateful for your input. Cheers, Jayen466 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia is Serbia and Montenegro

We have the People's Republic of China and (officialy) the Republic of China (in fact Taiwan) but when we say China we mean the PRC and not ROC. Also when a two or even several women, men, chilidren have the same name (even the same date of birth) we know that it is the case of two or even several different people. Why do you insist on claiming that the EBU database (probably made by a meere IT specialist) is correct. Do you know that "Yugoslavia" in the ESC 1992 appeared under the flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and not under the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I think that your opinion did not help us because you haven't noticed that in the EBU database this appearance of "Yugoslavia" has been listed under the flag of SFRY and it did NOT appear under that flag but under the flag of FR Yugoslavia.

Also I would like to mention the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. They are two different states. The list could go on and on.

Please consider looking at the database and this message more closely (even if you do not agree).

Imbris (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While the points you raise are certainly valid concerns, Wikipedia isn't the place to raise them. Those facts may seem of importance, but we shouldn't include them unless they are prominent in the body of reliable sources. Eurovision's official website recognizes the 1992 entry as representative of SFRY.[6] The authoritative source on the contest lists it as an entry for SFRY. It probably be fine to note in Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest that while the entry was accepted for SFRY that Eurovision itself notes that "Yugoslavia was ... de facto dissolved in 1991 with no leaders representing it". Vassyana (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Binary prefixes

Regarding Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-13 Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and whether it is still needed: That was started by Thunderbird2 because, IMO, he was still unwilling to accept the consensus view. He was looking for some way to get his way. There recently was a spat where he and another editor were “revising history” through a series of edits to Binary prefix. It took only a modest amount of effort for three or four editors (and a 24-hour block on T-bird for editwarring) to put an end to that. So… From my point of view, things seem stable and there is no need for the cabal. However…

It wouldn’t surprise me if T-bird finds this post by me and states a contrary opinion. My fear is that this issue of the binary prefixes with him will be like having a herpes infection: you think it’s all over and then there’s yet another outbreak and this dispute never goes away. Just in case, I’ve copied all the code to make responding to his claims a little easier. Greg L (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Vassyana, there was this exchange between T-bird and the other fellow behind the cabal, Tom94022, that indicates that the cabal can be considered as abandoned. Thanks for checking into this. Like I said about herpes infections periodically raging up (no, I don’t have herpes), I see that T-bird is still maintaining his “list of damaged articles” on another user’s page (an edit T-bird made quite recently, at 09:53, 19 July 2008). So we’ll see whether this issue ever goes away. Greg L (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ellen_Barrett

I think it's deployable by now :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Prius consensus failure

The third opiniont you gave for the Talk:Toyota Prius page has been rejected by de Facto. The user will not accept consensus on anything if it disagrees with his/her POV. The situation has become intolerable and is going to require higher level dispute resolution. This is the most frustrating example of wikilawyering I've ever seen and is frankly just tiresome. I would like to find a way to get this resolved other than just caving into the whims of a single editor. We are having pointless, endless discussions without resolution. Please advise. Red Harvest (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You won't be surprised to hear that I totally disagree with that interpretation of the situation. Your opinion wasn't rejected, it was given due consideration and acted upon. I desisted from restoring the addition, and let it rest for close to a fortnight, based on your concern that I may be giving the piece undue weight. Then a couple of days ago I started doing a bit more research. Now that the episode of Top Gear that contained the item, which was only broadcast for the first time a couple of months ago, has permeated more thoroughly around the word, the notability of the exercise is increasing, including this mention in The Australian (Australia's leading national newspaper) it appeared to me that the item had probably achieved enough weight to be considered. It was only then that I decided to re-open the discussion on this topic via a bit of BRD. There is still discussion ongoing here, and your comments would be most welcome. -- de Facto (talk). 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No it was rejected by you the same way as you have rejected that of every other editor, de Facto. This is ridiculous. To avoid 3RR you have resorted to endless squabbling on the article talk page and even on user talk pages. It's the same thing, you've just moved the venue to skirt the rules. Red Harvest (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

re: MedCab check-in

I appreciate your interest. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I have not logged in for a while - frankly I was disillusioned with the entire project - I hope that you can revive my interest.

The MOSNUM issue is an ongoing problem that really needs a solution, although it is unclear to me how to get there. The way I see it, it is caused by a piece of MOSNUM text that does not have consensus (11 editors voted against it in March-April 2008, with none in favour). But the present residents of MOSNUM will not even permit a discussion about it - shouting done attempts to bring it up by several different editors (including myself, Omegatron and Quilbert). Their argument is that the new text was carried by a 7-3 vote in June, but I don't see how that counts for consensus when less than half (4 I think) of the original 11 editors were aware of the new vote. All I am asking for is the right to hold such a discussion without my proposal being ridiculed. I would very much appreciate the help of a mediator to achieve this. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2, please do not continue to misrepresent the situation. There is consensus and that is shown by reading the evidence provided on the mediation page. This evidence refutes your claims about the "11 editors" not being aware because Headbomb (or others) actually contacted them. Also the evidence shows you cannot keep on misrepresenting the consensus reached by trying to cite a much older vote on a tiny individual issue. As the evidence shows there were many discussions and later votes that lead the the current text. Also as the evidence shows and as Headbomb keeps on pointing out to you there were no substantive arguments from you or anyone else against the current guideline text. The much stronger arguments relevant to Wikipedia policies and guidelines helped shape the consensus for the current guideline text. You have every chance to hold a discussion on the WT:MOSNUM talk page, but you must provide substantive arguments. To date you have not done so, what you have done is present your personal point of view which got refuted by multiple editors and in multiple talk archives, again this is shown in the evidence presented. Consensus does not require that we include refuted minority points of view in guideline text because weak points of view would make weak guidelines. If you want your point of view included in the guideline text then please present stronger arguments. If it feels to you that you get shouted down then you would be correct to assume that is because your arguments are weak and editors get annoyed when you keep on repeating the same weak arguments (Read WP:POINT to see why). Headbomb told you this many times, please listen to him. Take my experiences as a good example: When I first started editing Wikipedia and became aware of WT:MOSNUM I presented weak arguments (about binary prefixes) much like your weak arguments. These weak arguments were mostly based around personal opinion and little factual basis. I too got shouted down and looking back I can see why. I took the time to learn the Wikipedia policies and guidelines because they hold a lot of pre-existing knowledge about things like consensus and reliable sources. By learning these guidelines and policies I was able to help to slowly change the guideline to its much better present form by presenting strong arguments relevant to Wikipedia. In summary I learned that my personal opinion on WT:MOSNUM is irrelevant, I had to present strong arguments relevant to Wikipedia and provide evidence to support those arguments. You must also learn that your personal opinion is irrelevant and you must also learn to present strong arguments relevant to Wikipedia with valid evidence. I hope you take this advice from my personal experience well, as it is intended that this advice is to help you become a better editor and that you learn from it. Fnagaton 07:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Hi Vassyana,

Awhile back Malcolm Schosha asked you to take a look at this article, but you may not have had a chance. I wonder if you could take a look, not so much for article content, but for user conduct. There is an editor that I feel is unproductive, if not outright disruptive, and you can see an example of what it's doing to the discussion at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis#.22However.2C_in_anthropology_the_situation_appears_to_be_different....22. Thanks for any input you can provide. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the snark is flowing freely from all sides there and that everyone needs to remember to take a breath and move towards polite conversation. That said, it does certainly seem like some people are at least coming close to pushing the line of disruption and tiresome interference. Collecting some evidence for review may be helpful, but with the frustration and incivility flying from all sides, it would probably come down on a lot of heads. If you would like, I will post a polite reminder for everyone to cool down and treat each other with some respect. I would also be willing to volunteer as an informal mediator to see if I could help people reach some agreement. (I promise I would use less wikilinks in the process! *chuckle*) Just let me know how I could best help. Vassyana (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanks for your response. It's obvious that I am frustrated with the state of affairs at the article, and I've sometimes been too sarcastic in my comments. But honestly, it's ridiculous when editors complain for months (literally, months) about sources that they haven't even read, and contend that the Oxford University Press has a COI problem because it "also publishes bibles". That's a decent example of WP:TE, don't you think?

At any rate, if you would be willing to mediate, I think that would be fantastic: you seem to have the requisite patience. However, since one of the major matters in dispute is the use of sources, could I ask what your procedure for mediation is? Would you, for instance, read the sources under dispute to check whether the parties are representing them accurately?

Also, since you mentioned that the snark is flowing freely, I would appreciate it if you pointed out any posts where I've gotten out of line, or gone over the bounds of WP:CIVIL. It seems to me that your judgement on such matters is sound, and I'd like to make sure that I'm not behaving badly (not too badly, anyway...) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My method of mediation varies a bit depending on the exact dispute at hand. Usually, I proceed by asking a fair number of questions to clearly see where everyone stands and identify the underlying dispute. This can sometimes require a series of follow-up questions. After that, I usually move things to working on a sandbox draft or into a guided conversation to try and reach a consensus. In this particular case, I would probably try early in the discussion to try and forge some agreement regarding the use and reliability of sources, addressing issues like university presses and low-impact journals. Without being somewhere in the same neighborhood on that issue, an agreement will not be forthcoming. I will examine the situation and sources used, though I would keep my opinion relatively muted while participating as an informal mediator. If someone is behaviorally way over the line or misrepresenting a source, I would interject with a clear opinion.

In your case, there is nothing that is too much of a concern. However, some of your comments are mildly inflammatory. Some of your posts do little more than serve to express your frustration and fan the flames of the dispute. An example is the frustrated and sarcastic post here. That's not to say the points you raise are invalid, but sarcasm and snark will naturally do more to raise hackles than to get your point across. We're all human and frustration will get the better of all of us at points (I've certainly made comments along those lines in the past), but it is important to recognize when our frustration is impeding our ability communicate effectively.

What seem to be the central points of dispute (purely in relation to the content) to you? Who are the principal parties? Vassyana (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, thanks for the note. I had seen your post above, but was waiting until I had some time to craft a full reply. Just a short note instead--thanks for noting the diff above, I agree that I was letting my frustration show too much and that sarcasm doesn't help the situation. However, I don't feel that constructive posts are advancing the situation either. Really, I feel the situation is pretty ridiculous--I don't know if you've looked at the talk page lately but one editor seems impervious to reason.

I'll try to leave a more detailed response later. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I will remain available if assistance is required. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Regarding the matter which you have just closed: do I understand this correctly - that use of language such as piece of shit is in order here? This was the principal civility offence of ScienceApologist and I am surprised that it should be thought unimportant. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I note above that ScienceApologist regularly comes to you directly for help. If he is your protege, your action seems improper. Please explain. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think any explanation is due here. I get lots of questions on my talk page from folks that aren't a "protege". Warden failed to WP:AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling an article by an expletive is not the height of etiquette, but I don't see it as crossing the line laid down by ArbCom or general community standards. It may be impolite or uncouth, but a vulgarity does not instantly turn a comment into an insult or plainly uncivil behavior. I do not believe he would be reported for incivility if he simply called the article "extremely terrible" or "very inappropriate". Please try to discuss the content issues at hand with those involved. If a discussion doesn't help settle the matter, seek outside opinions or assistance to help resolve the disagreement. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. The use of such profanity to describe another's work is fighting talk and destroys the collegial atmosphere which WP:CIVIL aims to promote. When combined with intemperate edits, it seems obvious bad behaviour and that is why I presented it. You are perhaps over-familiar with such behaviour due to your regular association with this editor. I remain shocked. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you continue trying to get people to intervene on your behalf or get those you disagree with sanctioned without even trying to discuss the matter with the other involved editors, you will continue to be shocked. Similarly, if you continue filing complaints at noticeboards over one-off incidents that at best are questionable circumstances for a sanction, you will continue to be shocked. I also assure you that given those circumstances, I will not be the only administrator to shock your sensibilities. You've been around long enough, active enough, involved in enough controversial areas and reminded enough to know exactly what is expected of you and how to pursue dispute resolution. Try and resolve the conflict in an appropriate fashion. Vassyana (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did first discuss the matter with the closing admin Sandstein and his response indicated that he wished to avoid drama and was otherwise ineffectual. I contemplated various forums such as ANI and the incivility noticeboard. I have little experience of any of these places but supposed the Arbcom forum would be the most appropriate place since there was a tailored process specifically for ScienceApologist there. If I should consider him uncivil again, please indicate the more appropriate fashion in which this should be addressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Raising the issue to Sandstein is not trying to discuss the matter with the other involved editors. Regardless, his advice was spot on and simple: Try discussing the issue with the other involved editors. It is the first step of dispute resolution. That's not being "ineffectual". That's telling you, in a very polite fashion, to follow the basic wiki process. If you feel a comment was uncivil, you could discuss it with ScienceApologist himself. In recognition of his sometimes heated commentary and his restrictions, he even provides an easy process that will lead him to immediately refactor his comments and reconsider future comments along those lines. Take part in discussions when you disagree about content decisions. If that doesn't work there's plenty of options for assistance. Try discussing your concerns with ScienceApologist if you feel he is being uncivil. If (and only if) a good faith and considerate attempt to address your concerns directly with the editor does not work should you post an enforcement notice. Vassyana (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of indicating some inappropriate bias towards ScienceApologist, I think you will find things quite different than your implication. Neither of us treats the other poorly because of this history. There is no reason for us to not treat each other civilly and seek assistance or advice from each other. As examples, I ask him about scientific topics (such as this) and he asks me to review situations as an admin who has been willing to step into some topic areas (even though it's obviously not always been to his benefit). Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Vassyana's assertion of impartiality in this matter. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I could use your assistance

Vassyana, I have been having some problem with User:John Foxe. He entered a 3RR warning on my discussion page today stating that I have been warring on his talk page. He was warned by a User:Voire Dei for warring on Golden Plates, but continued to war. When I issued a warning, I noticed that he had deleted a first warning, which I brought back. I also told him that deleting legitimate warnings from his talk page is against policy.

My request is:

1. Will you revert his inappropriate 3RR warning on my talk page or note that it was inappropriately issued.
2. I know I have read something about not removing warnings, but can't find it. Do you know where it is.
3. Let Foxe know that it is not appropriate to issue warnings with no basis.

Foxe is a knowledgeable fellow, but with a very strong POV. Any assistance you could provide would be appreciated. Thank you. --^StormRider 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would still like some assistance. I will not revert the improper posting of a 3RR warning on my page; I will leave that for an admin to do. I would like the appropriate warnings that were given User:John Foxe returned to his page with an additional warning that it is not acceptable to remove warnings that are appropriately issued. He has backed off of his edit warring and is taking a slightly more reasoned approach. He still is not much on discussion, but I can work with that for now. Am I off base on this?--^StormRider 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that not restoring removed warnings is the common and accepted practice. Is there any other way I may be able to assist? Vassyana (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet blocked?

See User talk:Thunderstruck45. He's able to edit the page it appears. .:davumaya:. 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour

Hey. Out of curiosity, what's the status on this case? Looks like it's dwindled down and could be closed from what I can see. Wizardman 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The activity is very sporadic and spread out, however slow progress has been continually made through working out things in draft. There's still a few things left to resolve (the material about lawsuits) and it was one of the central points of the dispute, so I'd rather leave the case open until the sources are compiled and a version agreed upon. Vassyana (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Just checking since the date jumped out at me. Wizardman 01:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

The chiropractic article is once again in need of protection. A group of editors are making edits without finishing the ongoing discussions on the talk page. Not a very collaborative editing style. One is quite probably a reincarnation of the indef banned CS per WP:QUACK. Precisely same style and obstinate determination to own the article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get to the point. A sock has returned. It is time to block the account and IP (User:Soyuz113, User talk:208.101.118.33). QuackGuru 19:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been some controversial editing without waiting for discussions to reach a consensus, thus resulting in edit warring. Another interesting development is the apparent reappearance of the indef banned User:CorticoSpinal, under the guise of User:Soyuz113. A check user would help here. He even forgot to log in once, a common mistake CS used to make, thus revealing his IP, which he had previously used before being indef blocked, and is in the same range as CS'S other known and confirmed IPs. See more. -- Fyslee / talk 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the user has received a {{second chance}} from the blocking admin. I will defer to AGK's judgment in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Supporting sockpuppetry is disruptive. Please stop. QuackGuru 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where (dif) and when did this happen? He received more than one "second chance" and ended up being indef blocked three times! He even used an IP sock to evade the second indef block! Now he's evading the third indef block and making his presence felt yet again. This guy can create great disruption again. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AGk says so here. If you disagree with this, I am positive he would be responsive to polite and reasoned feedback on the issue. Vassyana (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AGK was never interested in dealing with this matter and I think Vassyana should also not deal with this matter. Both admins have not taken any action against the sockpuppetry. Vassyana, do you agree to defer to any uninvolved admin? QuackGuru 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am always willing to defer to a clueful uninvolved admin. I even openly advertise that I encourage other admins to be bold in reviewing and overturning my administrative actions (via User:Bovlb/Userboxes/anti wheel war on my user page). Thus where I am involved, you should always feel free to defer issues to uninvolved admins for action or review of my actions without my prior permission or acknowledge (though I would appreciate a note that you did so). That all said, while a fresh set of eyes would be nice, I believe that you and Fyslee are correct to be concerned about sockpuppetry and the actions of Soyuz113. (However, I would recommend approaching the matter with supporting diffs and rhetoric with less of an alarmist tone in order to receive a better response. For better or worse, a paucity of diffs and the rhetorical equivalent of "the sky is falling" will generally result in reactions ranging from apathy to antipathy.) Vassyana (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action before he did more than he managed to do before getting stopped. His last edits provided more evidence that it was CS we were dealing with. They were precisely his issues, interests and arguments. Although I even agree with some of them, we can't tolerate block evasion, and this case deserves no mercy after so much we have already been through from him. Thanks again. We need more brave admins like you. -- Fyslee / talk 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of support. Both accounts approach editing in the same fashion, editing the same topics, pushing for the same points, sharing the same attitude and views ... mix in the use of the exact same IP and it seems like a blatantly obvious case. Nobody else was taking action on the case, so I moved to resolve the issue. Even if contrary to appearances Soyuz113 is not a sockpuppet of CS, Soyuz113 is obviously a sock account used for a prohibited purpose. If an uninvolved administrator feels I was way off base, they're free to step in and undo my actions as with any of my admin actions. That said, I would suggest that with checkuser requests that you be specific in identifying specific edit patterns, providing diffs as much as possible to support the assertions, or else they are likely to rejected as "fishing" requests. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Save A Little Dram For Me

Been waiting on your signature a few days. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My internet connection has been wonky the past few days. Vassyana (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WB! :) Durova^Charge! 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. The AfD was here. After the brief flurry of news articles last June or July, there have been no further indications that the project is still on, that Ben Kingsley is still associated with the project, etc. I confess myself puzzled. Jayen466 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to focus on the NPOV issues, particular proper weighting, and leave notability completely out of it. Personally, if the article was at GAC with the full text version of the film information, I would place the article on hold citing a violation of undue weight. A brief media flurry over a then-planned, but now canceled, project should not receive more than a passing mention (if any mention at all) in an article about a topic that has received such voluminous coverage overall. (NPOV and due weight are about the balance of the total body of reliable sources on a topic, not the subjective opinions of editors about what is "important". Similarly, NPOV is about editors being neutral in handling and presenting the material, not about balancing the article by some subjective standard of "neutrality".) Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Your input is much appreciated. Jayen466 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you need further assistance or advice, please do not hesitate to leave a message for me. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would appreciate it if you could keep a close eye on the article edits and talk page at the moment; I fear some editors' tempers may be in danger of getting a little frayed again, and I would like to avoid a breakdown of civility. Thanks! Jayen466 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an update: I have converted most of the quotes in the Reception section into text, and incorporated the apparent "hit piece" at the appropriate point in the bio timeline. Clarke is now integrated in the section for scholarly views. Hope that addresses some of the concerns you expressed in the informal review. Current article status: [12]. Cheers, Jayen466 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

notability RFC

I understand how you might be worried about the RFC. But as I try to empathize, I think it's based on a few misconceptions. Modifying or removing proposals would be horrifying if this were a vote, but it's not: it's a discussion that's meant to rule out certain possibilities, and measure the support for other ones. Leaving a proposal out would be extremely undemocratic if this were a vote, but it's not: there will be time to make further proposals, and even before this RFC began it was almost a certainty that they will be 100% necessary.

You might ask... why make an RFC that won't settle the issue? Because the issue itself is hard to settle in one sitting. Debating and discussing dozens of proposals would result in zero consensus. Focusing on a few proposals and two issues might not give us consensus on WP:N, but it *will* give us consensus on a lot of other things: that we are mostly opposed to one extreme or another, and that a few proposals in the middle are closer to gaining support. And that the final solution will probably improve on what one of the "middle" proposals did to attract a decent amount of support.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. That said... If you feel strongly enough about your proposal, I would personally invite you to re-add it. It certainly had a significant amount of support, and had a reasonable shot at gaining a consensus. But I think we're going to need another RFC no matter what. Hit me back on my talk page, so we can keep the RFC itself from being too cluttered. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have a certain amount of trouble distinguishing your new proposal from B.3. But I know there was some support for your initial proposal, and therefore you should add it the way you've written it, regardless of whether it's substantially different from B3 or just a fix with the same overall "spirit" as B3. As for where/how to include it, you might want to include it as B3.2, because I see it as quite similar. But at the same time, if you're concerned that associating with the "bad" proposal might hurt your "good" proposal, it might be better to propose it as a wholly independent proposal just as a matter of strategy. As for my personal opinion on the proposal, I like it -- but I'm concerned that there's no practical difference between "we presume that sufficient sources exist to assert notability" and "we presume the article is notable". It might help to explain this difference, and how it would affect AFDs in practice. Or if there's no difference, you might as well jump in and say "it is notable". (Or maybe "it will soon be notable, if it isn't already". e.g.: it just won an award, so it's only a matter of time before someone covers it.) Just thinking out loud. You should definitely trust your judgment. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're essentially saying that in borderline cases: where something meets an SNG, but there's good reason to believe it doesn't meet the GNG because sources are severely lacking, a merge is probably appropriate. I'm not sure you want to be that prescriptive. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagined a slightly different approach. "SNGs can create a presumption that an article meets the GNG, by creating the presumption that third-party sources exist on the subject and only need to be found. As time passes and Wikipedians undertake an actual search for sources, it may become evident that sources actually do not exist. In order to determine if an article meets the GNG, failed efforts to find appropriate sources should be weighed on balance with the presumption that they exist." -- In other words, we defer to consensus, and probably don't delete something unsourced that meets the SNG after a few days or weeks. We'd have to tag it for months, and see a decent effort to verify it, only to give up once and for all. But that's the way I'd understand it. Maybe there's a clearer way to say it, or you'd want to say something completely different altogether. Randomran (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it over. It would definitely be something I support, although just like many of the other proposals we'd have to iron out the kinks in the wording. I've been a little busy so I haven't been able to monitor the RFC as closely as I would have liked. But my only hope is that it's finally chugging along on its own, with no major disruptions or controversies. Would you say that's true, based on what you've seen over the past few days? Randomran (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've identified the issues. But don't let that list of 7 challenges make you "overwrite" this proposal with lots of instruction creep. There should be a way to rewrite or clarify what you've already written without too many more words that would be more clear. I'm not sure what it is. But if you need some help hashing it out, I'll have more time during the week. Let me know how you want to proceed. Talk to you soon, Randomran (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit

I am not interested in getting into a revert war; however, consensus can change, and adding an additional idea with hopefully fresh eyes should be a valid option. No one owns the RfC and there's no reason why we cannot consider other alternatives and ideas. Discussions should not be restricted from discussing all avenues of action. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds

It'd be useful to talk to you about this, particularly I'd like to finish up the gospel songs. Poke me when you're online next? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FSC

I've set it up - thought it would be best to do it in two sets, as discussion could easily run away from us if there's 6 at once. So, just need you to sign: Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Three_gospel_songs_from_1943 Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I trust your judgment and unbiased opinion so as to ask you to give me some feedback at User_talk:Jossi/What_shoud_I_do ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion - Talk:King David Hotel Bombing

Hello, I'm one party to a dispute on the Talk:King David Hotel bombing page which was subject to a request for a Third Opinion. You deleted the request, stating that, " Third Opinion is not for behavioral disputes." Could you please advise on where it would be appropriate to go to seek resolution of the conflict instead?

From my point of view, I would find a third opinion on a few points valuable and worthwhile having. My understanding is that it is permissible to comment (in a civil manner) on the actions and editing behaviour of editors on Talk pages; Jayjg's stated view is that only the content of articles, not editors (including, their actions and behaviour), should be discussed there. Therefore, I would appreciate comments about the correct interpretation of the rules about Personal Attacks, how they are applied in practice and whether the deleted comments have breached the rules. Also, my interpretation is that the deletion of comments should only be done in exceptional circumstances (such as when personal details have been disclosed) and therefore I would appreciate comments about whether the deletion of my comments was justified.

Thanks. -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The policy on personal attacks is summarized as "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The same is repeated in the introductory paragraph. Certainly when raising conduct concerns, there is not choice but to comment on the contributor. However, this should not on the article talk page, but rather other appropriate places. Removing personal attacks is a matter of some controversy, regarding where the line falls for appropriate removal. Generally, one should request that the person making inappropriate comments removes the comments themselves. Alternatively, it perfectly acceptable to civilly and calmly request that an administrator do so. Both of these options are relatively uncontroversial.

That said, you should focus on the content, rather than the contributor. My recommendation would be to talk purely about the article content at hand. Address the concerns other editors are raising. Show them (using reliable sources) that the information you're adding is not only forwards by a tiny minority. Reputable textbooks can be very helpful in establishing what is considered a mainstream or large minority view. Bear in mind during the discussions that we should not go beyond what the sources explicitly state and that we should not use multiple sources to build a position. If you stick explicitly to the sources and provide overview references (textbooks, review literature, etc) and/or multiple reliable sources in cases where people feel the information is put forward by only a tiny minority, you should be fine.

On one final point, the lead should reflect the article, not be treated as distinct component of the article. I would recommend tabling the lead discussion until the rest of the article is resolved, or at least taking form. Vassyana (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho#Charisma

Dear Vassyana, I would be grateful if you could have a look over the recent talk page discussions, especially the last section, "Charisma", regarding possible SYNTH – I would appreciate your feedback and advice. Cheers, Jayen466 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to stick to the sources as closely as possible. I would tend to agree that there is a legitimate concern about synthesis. Statements that X group of people or Y category of scholars hold an opinion or agree on a certain piece of information should be avoided, unless the sources explicitly support such a statement. How exactly to handle the material that can be sourced is best left to those involved parties with a better familiarity with the subject and literature than I possess. However, it would be best to scrupulously avoid going beyond the sources. Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Vassyana. We'll do some more work on this section. Jayen466 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - revised, as per sources. Jayen466 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Technical question

Hiya Vassyana .... hope all is well with you.

I have a technical question. I am dealing with an IP ..... this IP has a long history of problems which is ongoing. Something I was not aware of until I checked the history, and saw many warnings which a user had deleted. I checked the IP, and I think it is a shared IP, but I am not 100% sure. I tried reading up on policy about this, but did not find it to be clear.

Does this make a difference? If it is a shared IP, can the warnings be restored by anyone (I have seen this done many times)? For what it is worth, the IP is 24.184.206.83. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're unsure if an IP is shared, using a block that allows logged in users to continue using the IP and tagging the appropriate talk page with {{anonblock}} is usually the approach that I use. Vassyana (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a few good editors....

...who are willing to help hack through the labyrinth we call Wikipedia Policy. I've started up a project called Wikipedia:Policy condensing to help address the increasingly problematic instruction creep on the 'pedia. Ideally, this project will work to condense, merge, and in some cases delete the jillions of policies and guidelines into their basic components, so that both new and experienced users only have a few pages to read through if they have a question or concern instead of many. I'm hoping that once this project is through, we'll be able to reduce the number of policy and guideline pages by half while still keeping all the nuances and interpretations clearly available for users to understand. I'm contacting you about this because either you have previously expressed an interest in this, and/or I know I can count on you as a reliable editor who knows their way around the project. I'm not advertising this in the open just yet, as I'm hoping we can get a good foundation started with the few editors I'm contacting now so that when we do make this more public, we've already got a head start to show people what this project can do. So, if you've got the time and are willing, please stop by Wikipedia:Policy condensing and jump right in. If you have any questions, post to the project's talk page or leave me a note - I'll see it quickly either way. As always, thanks for your help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

FS promotion

Congrats. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Vassyana (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sound promotion

Congraulations! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability RFC

Thanks for your response. I'm a bit busy today, but I'll look at this some more tomorrow. While we aren't quite there yet, I'm happy that we have so many people working so hard on a solution. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a quick attempt at tightening the proposal, but only covers the first step.

Subject notability guidelines serve as complementary criteria to the general notability guideline. However, meeting an SNG criterion is not a specific exemption from the requirement to meet the GNC criteria. Instead, it is presumed that sufficient sources probably exist to demonstrate notability for articles meeting the SNG criteria, in other words the article will be given the benefit of the doubt. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)