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) (Still true 19:24, 5 October 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) (Still a serious concern. 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

---

Help me out.

• Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.

---

• Talk Page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

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)

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)

Hi Vassyana, things seem to have calmed down on this article. I think most of the issues relate to the conduct of one user, and there are two behaviors that I find especially problematic: first, that he extends talk page discussion past any productive point, refusing to truly understand and respond to other editors' arguments, and instead engages in soapboxing. Second, he has rather, shall we say, idiosyncratic ideas about what constitutes good sourcing--his argument that the Oxford University Press as an institution has a COI on this topic is just one example. It's worth pointing out that the user in question makes very few edits to the article, and almost exclusively edits the talk page. So in one sense the disruption here is minor, but discussions with this user are time-consuming and hold up progress on the article. I'm not really sure how to deal with this; a reminder from an uninvolved party that talk pages are to be focused on article content might help, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:43, 18 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)

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)

NORN

I am curious to read some further input from you at this topic at NORN. An editor has compared this to an ongoing dispute at Chiropractic and I gave my own comments on how I felt it applied. I am interested in reading your thoughts on the matter if you have the time. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the invitation to comment. Vassyana (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your in depth commentary. I posed some follow-up questions for you when you have a moment. Much obliged! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I would just be restating what I said in any reply to your questions. Is there a point I made where I could more clear or is there a point that I raised where you disagree? Vassyana (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I want to clarify a few things with you and see if it affects your thoughts at all. Mainly, you state that there are only few researchers (mostly within chiropractic) who dispute the use of general SM studies used to discuss chiropractic. Actually, quite the opposite is true. It is the chiropractic profession that has often conflated the two. And it is the mainstream researchers (mostly outside of chiropractic) who have disputed the chiropractic profession's use of general SM research as proof of the effectiveness of chiropractic. For instance, there was a RAND study on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation which came out quite favorable for spinal manipulation. When chiropractors jumped on that research to proclaim things such as "Chiropractic works!", the chiropractors were in turn jumped on by the researchers who said that these studies were not about chiropractic specifically, but rather spinal manipulation in general and that chiropractors were in effect misusing these studies by relating it to chiropractic. RAND spokesperson Dr. Paul Shekelle, released this statement:

"...we have become aware of numerous instances where our results have been seriously misrepresented by chiropractors writing for their local paper or writing letters to the editor... RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic... Comparative efficacy of chiropractic and other treatments was not explicitly dealt with."

Another example comes to us from Edzard Ernst, who in reviewing a study performed by chiropractors, criticized that:

The authors also claim that 43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain have been published, but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation.''

So Ernst feels that most of the published RCTs for spinal manipulation do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation. So knowing Ernst's position, but not knowing how we as Wikipedian can distinguish which ones relate to chiropractic and which ones don't relate to chiropractic, can we honestly ever satisfy WP:OR by including general spinal manipulation research at Chiropractic to discuss the effectiveness of chiropractic? Especially when much of this research does not specify or even mention chiropractic whatsoever in their conclusions?

During this dispute, I have often quoted the following passage from OR:

...to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic and directly support the information as it is presented.

I have quoted this because I want the "other side" to demonstrate that they are not presenting OR. So knowing that the mainstream researchers don't necessarily relate spinal manipulation studies to chiropractic spinal manipulation, my position is that if we at Wikipedia make such a relationship ourselves by using spinal manipulation studies to discuss chiropractic spinal manipulation, we are in effect using a source in manner which the authors of the source did not intend; in a manner which is disputed by many mainstream researchers such as Ernst and those at RAND; and in a manner which is not directly supported by the sources. Thus, to do so, we are violating WP:OR. So what do you think? Do I present a reasonable position here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously possible that I misunderstand the balance of sources. If my understanding of the available sources is correct, then it would be appropriate to treat the matter as an appropriate subtopic (since reliable sources generally treat it as such). If my understanding is actually inverted, then it would be inappropriate to treat it as a subtopic and the article should only use sources that explicitly discuss chiropractic practices and/or the chiropractic use of such studies. Basically, the distinction I would draw is between a recognized subtopic and a topic touched upon by some explicitly on-topic sources. Recognized subtopics are explicitly treated as a subtopic of the overall topic by reliable sources. "Touched on" topics are simply relevant information and claims made in reliable sources in relation to the overall topic. I think the distinction is important. Do you understand the line I am trying to draw? Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I thank you for your thoughtful response. If it helps, here is the source where you can read Edzard Ernst's opinon that most spinal manipulation RCT's are not related to chiropractic. Given Ernst's influential opinion, my main contention at Chiropractic remains: How are we to determine which spinal manipulation RCTs are directly related to chiropractic and thus can be included in the Chiropractic article without creating an original research violation? My answer to this has been: Unless the source explicity states that its conclusions are related to chiropractic or some other researcher has published a reliable source which states that the research is related to chiropractic, we cannot include general spinal manipulation relation without violating WP:NOR. Does that seem like a reasonable position to take? My idea is that such non-chiropractic related spinal manipulation research can certainly be included at the Spinal manipulation article, which discusses spinal manipulation in general (as performed by osteopaths, physical therapists, chiropractors, among others). Reasonable? Once again, I greatly appreciate your thoughts here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a very complicated/confusing issue, as indicated by my initial misunderstanding. I will be honest and tell you up front that I have neither the time nor impetus to research the issue to the degree that would be necessary to provide fully informed feedback on the issue. The best thing I can offer is to say that if you are following the general principles I elaborated on, I would be likely to agree with you. I know that's probably not what you were looking for, but it's better to provide an earnest response. Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate that this is a complicated issue. I can also appreciate the insight which you have already provided has already helped me shed light on the subject even more. I thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, I just discovered this exchange and think you should be alerted to a serious case of "confusion" and misquoting above (to put it civilly, since this matter has been brought to Levine2112's attention elsewhere, yet he persists...).

There is a big difference between "chiropractic" (a profession) ("RAND's studies were about spinal manipulation, not chiropractic..." - Shekelle) and "chiropractic spinal manipulation" (a technique) ("but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation." - Ernst) Notice that Ernst doesn't leave out "spinal manipulation" and write "do not relate to chiropractic", which would be another matter entirely.

One is a profession, and Shekelle was incensed that positive research on general spinal manipulation performed by both chiropractors and non-chiropractors was being claimed as a vindication of the entire chiropractic profession, with all its false claims, dubious practices, quackeries, and healthfraud issues. No, he wasn't about to allow such misuse.

Ernst, OTOH, was just complaining that Meeker & Haldeman had improperly failed to declare upfront that they had used both mainstream and chiropractic research on spinal manipulation. They had also left out some negative research and had thus drawn false conclusions. Ernst had no problem with such mixing, since he himself later performed similar research that included both types of research, but he properly declared upfront that he did it. They hadn't done that.

Levine2112 then goes on with his own form of OR when he writes:

* "... where you can read Edzard Ernst's opinon that most spinal manipulation RCT's are not related to chiropractic."

Notice he leaves out "spinal manipulation" at the end, yet attributes it to "Ernst's opinion", which isn't true. He is misquoting Ernst to further his own interpretation.

In that statement he is also making Ernst's opinion much broader than it was meant by stating that "most spinal manipulation RCT's". No, Ernst was speaking about a specific and limited group of "43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain", not about all SM RCTs, as implied in Levine2112's statement above. Levine2112 is here giving a clear statement of his own opinion, one which is not shared by Ernst, Haldeman, Meeker, myself, or Eubulides.

Thus we see that these sources are dealing with two very different matters. Levine2112 has been warned about doing this type of misquoting before, and discussions are still ongoing at Talk:Chiropractic, where I have recently called him on this tactic here. So be cautious, this is a very complicated matter and Levine2112 is not telling the whole story, nor interpreting things rightly. He has to twist quotes to make his interpretation hold together. Eubulides has also corrected him on this. I don't want to call this deliberate dissembling on his part because it really is complicated, but the effect on Wikipedia is the same. It games the system and fools people into believing his OR interpretation, and it keeps Talk:Chiropractic hostage to a very long discussion that drags on forever and goes in circles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

HELP

New Thought has some aspects of it which are essentially "faith healings". Inasmuch as this is the case and New Thought practitioners make claims that they can cure diseases with positive attitudes, we have issues of neutrality and fringe theory advocacy. Apparently, a number of New Thought believers are none too happy with the proposal that we try to make it clear that these faith healing activities defy medicine despite the fact that this is done in many other articles. Can you help out?

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This topic falls more closely under my actual expertise in religious studies. I will endeavor to find some good sources and contribute to the article. Vassyana (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Jordan Declaration International Churches of Christ First Satanic Church Israel Finkelstein William H. Poole Jesuit Asia missions Duke of Zhou Patriarchs (Bible) Herbert Giles Burton Watson Religious socialism Tao Yin Orant Testaments The Christian Century Folk Christianity Resident Aliens Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia Churchianity

Cleanup Arab Christians Adam Great Fire of Rome Merge Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) Phylogenetics Arch Add Sources Wu wei Orthodoxy Karma in Christianity Wikify Spiritual gift Black Hebrew Israelites Kedar Expand Five Classics Book of Isaiah Sharif University of Technology

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) 03:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice please?

Hi Vassyana - I'm coming to you since I've noticed your activity as part of the Mediation Cabal and I hope you can steer me in the right direction. I've already raised this with PhilKnight, but he's said he's not able to help at this time. I've just copied-and-pasted my previous request below - please forgive the "form letter" approach, but there wasn't anything in there that was PhilKnight-specific - advice from any experienced mediator would be very welcome :) So...

For the last couple of months, there's been a series of disputes centred on the Battle of Britain and related articles. It's spread to Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, Supermarine Spitfire, Messerschmitt Bf 109 and others. Probably the most active disputes currently are on Supermarine Spitfire operational history. I haven't been involved in editing any of these pages, but since I'm very active in WikiProject Aircraft, I've been called on by the various disputing parties at various times when they've felt that admin action is needed.

As time has gone on, the disputes have become increasingly intricate and detailed and the quality of the actual articles has taken a real nosedive as the disputing parties stuff ever-increasingly minute levels of detail into them in order to support their views. Outright personal attacks have flared up from time to time, and contributors on both sides have been blocked on account of this.

I personally believe that one of the parties is actively pushing a POV, but would have trouble substantiating that opinion with specific diffs. Part of the problem is that the edit histories of the articles are now extremely convoluted; and unfortunately, none of the disputing parties are given to expressing their differences concisely, so the talk pages are a real morass as well, and it's very difficult to work out who's accusing whom of what (specifically). I'm extremely wary about how both sides are using their sources - I feel that there's a good deal of interpretation, generalisation, and Synthesis going on; and both sides have resorted to their interpretations of primary sources at various points.

The side that, in my opinion, is advancing a specific POV and "righting a great wrong" now appears to have exhausted the patience of the opposing side.

What would you recommend as a course of action? Any advice would be much appreciated! Regards --Rlandmann (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a brief look, but it is certainly complex. Give me a day or two to look over things in more detail before I give you a good response. Vassyana (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that I have no forgotten about this. Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I may be able to provide some assistance as an informal mediator. The disputes seem resolvable. Do you think that everyone would agree to informal mediation? After taking a look over things, I believe it may help resolve the disagreements to have someone assist everyone in staying focused on the broader issues of article content and using reliable sources that place things in context. What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a reasonable chance that they might participate. I'll raise this with those involved. Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

By the way, while I have your attention, let me give you this canned message.  ;)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

We don't really have a guideline to deal with sources that are not strictly reliable, but are also, not fringe. I wonder how you feel about making a distinction between Questionable Sources and Fringe Sources. I think we need to make a distinction between say, a working paper from the NBER, a publication from the Cato Institute, and a magazine printed by the Communist Party of America. BTW, Vision thing has reverted both of us over at WP:RS. He's quite active in promoting Austrian Economics vs the mainstream view. lk (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While fringe and extremist sources can be pointed out to be substantively distinct, they are treated in the same fashion for our purposes here on Wikipedia. They both represent tiny minority views forwarded by vocal factions that passionately seek prominence and endorsement of their views. Use of such sources falls under the same restrictions and inappropriate use typically violates the same principles. I combined the paragraphs in the section in question (and have not yet been reverted), based on that line of thinking (and on the fact that the paragraphs in question said much the same thing in variation).[2] What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By the by, I am pondering the scale of reliability presented by your examples. It is something I want to give some more thought to before providing any solid opinions. Vassyana (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. As far as I'm concerned fringe and extremist sources should be treated in the same way. But there are sources that are strictly speaking not reliable, but are also not fringe or extremist. I wonder if the policy should clarify what should be done in that case. lk (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. I just need some time to consider it. Your post on WT:V expresses the issue that needs the addressed quite well. Vassyana (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:AGK#SA

(Messaging you in public for transparency, although I was inclined to email you this instead. If you'd prefer to discuss via a private medium, just initiate wherever you desire, and I'll go there; whatever makes you feel comfortable.)
Perhaps you can check out the link in the header? Are any follow-up restrictions necessary, in that ScienceApologist is, according to Martin, misbehaving?
Anthøny ✉ 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will get back to you tomorrow on this. I'm taking the time to look over contributions and the general atmosphere/context. Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Idries Shah

Hi Vassyana, I've put a few hundred edits into revising Idries Shah (before/after). If you feel like having a look, I would be grateful for any comments or further suggestions. If not, or if you're busy with other things, no problem. Cheers! Jayen466 21:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading offline into the meatspace soon until tomorrow, but I will look it over withint the next couple of days and provide a bit of feedback. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[3] Cheers, Jayen466 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of help, please

Hi, Vassyana, on your recent message to me (many thanks! the cookies are splendid) you said that there was an email link "on the left" of your user page. Am I being dumb? (Likely) I cannot see it anywhere. So, a couple of newbie questions here. (1) If I check out external links and they end in 404 notices, may I just delete the links? (2) This is for the future, but just so as I know: is it permissible/desirable/a total "no-no" for me to take stuff from the spanish language Wikpedia, translate it and put it up in the English Wikipedia? There is some lovely info about Guanche mythology on the Spanish site and very little at all in this English language site. Oh - and (3) WHAT is "meatspace"?!! --Guanche Lady (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Those are called "dead links" and they should certainly be removed. (2) Yes! It would be wonderful if you were willing to translate useful and interesting pages from the Spanish Wikipedia for article topics we are lacking here at the English Wikipedia. There is even a project for translating articles from other Wikipedias into English (Wikipedia:Translation). (3) Meatspace is a silly way of saying the real or flesh & blood world. (Cyberspace, meatspace.) :) For the email link, on the left hand side of the screen there should be a few boxes of links. The second box of links down underneath the search box ("toolbox") should have a link a few down in the list that says "E-mail this user". You're not dumb, there's just a lot of links there and it's a lot easier to find when you're used to interface and know where to look. If you need anything else, please let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And another: Was I being discourteous?

Another editor has told me, at the Gospel of Thomas talk page [[4]], that I had been discourteous in asking for citations. Obviously, I want to learn what is appropriate in Wikipedia, so, if you have time (and are free from Meatspace!, I'd be helped if you'd give me your opinion. Thanks again.--Guanche Lady (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think the complaint was more discourteous than your own actions. Your response to the complaint was very gracious and courteous (or in wikispeak quite "civil"). The burden is on those wishing to insert or return material to provide citations to reputable sources. You didn't do anything wrong by tagging a poorly written section. For the section in question, it may be more appropriate to use {{Citations missing}} instead of individual citation tags. Generally, if a section or whole article has citation/sourcing issues, it is better (and considered a bit more polite) to place a template like that pointing out the general concerns about the article or section. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup has a convenient, if huge, list of cleanup templates to use. Both of the general tag variety (like {{citations missing}}) and of the in-line text variety (like {{fact}}.

Regarding linking, there's a title in bold at the topic of any given page. For the Gospel of Thomas talk page it is "Talk:Gospel of Thomas". To link to it, simply put double brackets on both sides. [[Talk:Gospel of Thomas]] produces Talk:Gospel of Thomas. To link to a specific section, you can copy/paste the part of the web address following the "wiki". For example, you can copy "Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas#Theology_of_Gospel_of_Thomas" from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas#Theology_of_Gospel_of_Thomas" and surround it with brackets to produce Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas#Theology_of_Gospel_of_Thomas. You can also replace the underscores with spaces if you want a "cleaner" link, like Talk:Gospel of Thomas#Theology of Gospel of Thomas. You can also change what words appear for the link by using a horizontal bar. [[Talk:Gospel of Thomas|Gospel of Thomas talk page]] produces Gospel of Thomas talk page.

To link to "diffs" (specific edits), you link it like it is an external link. (Anything with "w" instead of "wiki" in the web address uses this type of link.) For example, looking at the page history of the talk page you can click on the "last" link next to any of your edits to get the "diff" (specific edit). Clicking on your most recent edit gives us "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=243427047&oldid=242876326". You can just make a straight link to it by placing single brackets around it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=243427047&oldid=242876326] produces [5]. You can also have the link display as words by adding a space and then the words after the link. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=243427047&oldid=242876326 Your most recent edit on the talk page] produces Your most recent edit on the talk page.

You can link to templates without showing the tag as I did above as well, by adding "tl|" as the beginning of the tag. {{tl|fact}} produces {{fact}}.

I hope this has been helpful! Let me know if you need any further assistance or have any other questions. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lumme

Thanks again, Vassyana. Coo, wot a lot there is to learn... I'll get there, tho!

Regarding putting the citation missing tag, should that go at the top of a section or the end?

Oh, I looked up the Translation project. One of the articles for proof reading had been removed from the Spanish wikipedia site. Someone else had noted this in July - is this just evidence of a huge backlog?

Another translation-needed page I looked at was a simple publicity puff for a new singer. How does one comment about the appropriate "wikiability" of a topic in "civil"?! --Guanche Lady (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For the "box" tags, they should go at the topic of the article or section in question. Redundant tags (like {{fact}}) should be removed.

I believe the translation project has quite a backlog.

What Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view both provide points that are appropriately used to argue against "puff pieces". "Notability" and the related music guideline may also be appropriate, depending on the specific circumstances. In general, try to be polite and point out the rules that would argue against the content you see as problematic. However, you should bear in mind that the rules represent principles and avoid getting caught up in the specific language of the rules. Vassyana (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to add to this section, Vassyana? May I have some help, please? I'm trying to edit the Guanche page and am stuck with the technicalities of referencing. The info is on my user page sandbox - sorry, my brain has seized up and I can't do a link to the sandbox. Thank you again.... --Guanche Lady (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite understanding what you would like to do. Are you looking to use Pliny as an external link or a citation? Vassyana (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Osho Rajneesh - sourcing issue

Hello Vassyana, as you have offered opinion on this article previously I am bringing this to your attention. It has also been placed on the relevant notice boards.

There seems to be an issue with the dependence upon Judith M. Fox's book in this article. I question why of the 350 odd citations, 100 (including ibidem's) are taken from one 54 paged "booklet". Some sections in the Osho article depend almost entirely on Fox. This would appear problematic considering the abundance of material available on the subject.

In light of this observation, I am seeking an opinion as to whether or not this issue warrants the placement of an appropriate tag, or tags, to highlight this concern.It is essentially one editor, Jayen, who is responsible for the weighting issue arising from the use of this source.

Notable also, in terms of questioning the quality and reliability of the source, is the fact that the book in question is published in conjunction with an Italian organisation called CESNUR, owned by one Massimo Introvigne; who seems to have a reputation for his stance against so called anti-cultists, or cult-apologists.

Generally, I have found that there is resistance to the inclusion of material that questions offically endorsed appraisals of Osho Rajneesh; despite numerous valid sources being offered, for example Talk:Osho#Review_of_sources_covering_the_move_to_America & Talk:Osho#Medical_condition_as_possible_pretext_to_enter_America__-__source_review.

The officical view, that endorsed by individuals sympathetic to the Osho movement, is always presented as the primary version of events, with all other perspectives sidelined as secondary. This is not a neutral presentation of verifiable sources.

Another observation is that the weighting of Fox's assessment of Osho's teachings gives it primacy over the views of other scholars, such as Carter, Metha, Urban, Mullan, etc. all of whom have written on the nature of the subject's teachings. Instead some of their views are relegated to one small section entitled Assessments by scholars of religion. This simply adds to the imbalance.

I believe there is an ongoing issue with the polarised presentation of certain information, you have noted this in saying: However, the views of both supporters and detractors come across in the editorial voice of the article, sometimes relying on poor referencing and original research to push the claims. The article needs a solid rewrite and fact-check. The only solution I see to this problem long term is if the editoral style is overhauled in such a way that conflicting editoral matters are addressed by directly attributing views to the respective holders, in prose form, rather that making a statement and citing a page number, as is currently the case. If you have anything you would like to offer on this please leave a comment here Talk:Osho#Judith_Fox_weighting_issue.Thanks. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)