User talk:Vassyana/Archive007

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong word?
In the RFC-COGDEN talk you say:

"I believe those comments about "defenders of the 'status quo'" refer to people who revert and oppose with any real explanation."

Did you mean to say "...without any real ..."? --Minasbeede (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Thanks for pointing out the typo. Vassyana (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Could you share your opinion at Talk:Objections_to_evolution. I have to leave now for Christmas, but hopeful some others, if they have a differing opinion, will also share theirs at the page indicated. Merry Christmas. Ra2007 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas, I don't know I will be online or not. :) BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethics → Ethics (philosophy)
Rather than fixing the thousands of disambiguation page links, I'm thinking of proposing to revert this move at WP:RM because the philosophical topic is the primary topic of the word compared with all the other articles, and is reasonably what people expect when they search "ethics". Thoughts? –Pomte 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to think people are looking for "practical" ethics when looking for "ethics". However, please feel free to undo the move. I am not particularly attached to any given article titling/organization. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Early Christianity
Pardon, but which part was objectionable? - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion it was a split between the Pharisees and Nazarenes. This is not supported by the cited material in the article, and is in fact contradictory to the academic material with which I am familiar. Vassyana (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, the lead of an article should avoid specifics, instead presenting a basic introduction and/or broad overview of the topic. We should also stick to the sources when making assertions. Hope that helps explain. If you have any further questions, please ask. Vassyana (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Good article reassessment. I contest that the article should be delisted without due process, so it must go GAR. Further more, you did not remove it from the actual list at Good articles nor did you drop the offical GA count, you just changed the grades on the project banners which does nothing in the grand GA scheme of things. Send the article to GAR, rather then changing the grades on the banners of projects you do not belong to. --SECisek (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Process for the sake of process? Did you read the policy on the GAR? Unless the subject is closed for debate, GAR is the process for delisting - not bold action. If you feel the article should be delisted, you nominate it for GAR. As for "owning" the article, all I do is guard it against blatent vandalism. -- SECisek (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations
Yeah. Pretty much. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
No problem. I try my best, nice to get a positive comment! --Rbreen (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ten Days' Wonder
Thanks for your third opinion. I have tried to edit both articles to find a middle ground, reflecting your comments, since I very much doubt if there is any possible citation for this particular piece of information. (Scholarly work on detective fiction is not thick on the ground.) I'd appreciate it if you would keep your eye on both articles for what I might call non-consensual edits. I thank you for your efforts and hope to return the favour at some future point; should you require my assistance, please feel free to call on me. Accounting4Taste: talk 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I cannot agree with your third opinion here. I was going to point out the fact that no such dispute was happening on the Ellery Queen article, where I had added an almost ver batim passage virtually simultaneously, but I see Accounting4Taste's reply to your "3rd" refers to "both articles," so I won't. I do have to say that when the only noticable difference between the character in the original novel and the one in the film (aside from the shift in nationalities, which in this particular case doesn't really count, as it merely reflects the different home countries of the novelists and the filmmaker) is the change of names, to call the statement an opinion is dubious at best. The parallels are perfect. Do we have to have citations for each of the character analogues from Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon in its incognito second filming, Satan Met a Lady? Your reasoning here would seem to require one, which would be absurd. I repeat and emphasize my "Edit Summary" statement that the works speak loudly and clearly for themselves, and strongly request that you reconsider your ruling, especially given the following: With no Talk Page debate of the issue that I was part of, or even aware of, surely his request for a "3rd opinion" was premature? Had I found today that he had again reverted, I would have initiated a discussion beyond the edit summaries myself. I must point out that Accounting4Taste's thanking you and hoping he can "return the favor" strongly implies that you have indeed done him a favor here, rather than ruled with objectivity. Was this just an extremely ill-advised choice of words on his part, or is there in fact some pre-existing relationship between the two of you, one that perhaps should have led you to recuse yourself here (to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, that's how it looks "whether [I] say so or not; [I] might as well say so," given the implications; I therefore hope not to receive a civility warning for it)? Ted Watson (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After posting the above, I went and took a look at the article, and found the current edit, beyond a mere restoration of the citation tag, to be a more than satisfactory compromise, and can assure you that I will not be the source of any "non-consensual edits" there. (I did find Accounting4Taste's very strong implication that I would do so after a "3rd" had been handed down to be offensive and worthy of a civility warning BTW, more so than either of the two comments that each got me one in the past, and merely became so caught up in the real issue at hand before that I forgot to say so.) Ted Watson (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscle contraction
Yesterday I put a request for a third opinion on a dispute about the Muscle contraction article. I see that you removed it, but I don't see that you gave any opinion. What did I do wrong? The other guy and I agreed a month or so that we would submit this to a 3rd opinion, and I finally got around to doing it. EricK (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. The dispute seemed inactive. I will relist it for you with a note that it was previously agreed to by the involved parties, just long-delayed. Sorry again! Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi Vassyana, I agree with your assistance. Thank you very much. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments?
Levels of competence ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconding that request. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wider mediation on related articles
Vassyana, again, thank's for your time mediating on the Bosnian Mujahideen article. However, as very much the same conflict (about the Bosnian Mujahideen) exists between more or less the same set of editors on a number of articles: Mujahideen; Al Qaeda; War in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. There is also a edit conflict between more or less the same set of editors but on different issues on a number of other articles: Bosnian genocide; Alija Izetbegovic; and Serb propaganda. None of these edit conflict are likely to be resolved through further discussion between only the involved parties. A request for formal mediation was requested for the article Bosnian genocide but one of the involved editors (Grandy Grandy) declined to participate and the request was denied. My question is wether, as a first step in attempting to resolve these edit conflict, you could mediate them (informally) as a group. Especially the first set, all relating to the Bosnian mujahideen. I think this would be an efficient way of dealing with these edit conflict. What do you think?. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the comment on my talk page about mediation on the Bosnian genocide article.Osli73 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you asked for a list of involved editors. I will provide that and a list of the related articles below. First, the involved articles are: The main involved editors are: I think the articles Serb Propaganda and Bosnian Genocide should be left out of the mediation.Osli73 (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bosnian Mujahideen
 * The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war (only regarding role of Bosnian Mujahideen)
 * Mujahideen (only regarding role of Bosnian Mujahideen)
 * Al Qaeda (only regarding role of Bosnian Mujahideen)
 * War in Bosnia and Herzegovina (only regarding role of Bosnian Mujahideen)
 * Osli73
 * Grandy Grandy
 * The Dragon of Bosnia

Indian religions
Hi, please refer to the ongoing debate on the discussion pages of Indian religions and edit warring by IAF. The debate has unfortunately degenerated into irrelevant stuff and has become a colossus waste of time. IAF has debased the debate into various wild claims like Jainism is a cult, Parsva is a vedic god, amongst other wild claims. While I am trying to keep the article as Neutral as possible by providing scholarly reference that Sramanas and vedics existed side by side, he is not ready for any consensus or for that matter, accommodate alternative views. I require your assistance. Is there any way to stop this silly arguments and make this article NPOV more if possible. I want to get away from this edit warring and make more positive contributions. Thanks. --Anish (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done on IAF’s disruptive behavior. He is continuously indulging in edit wars making a mockery of wikipedia and has started his usual abusive behavior. He has made a casteist remark by calling my discussion as “street banya-giri”. IR page is going to become a laughing stock for everyone.--Anish (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi…..Thanks for your advice. I believe that we should go for a consensus on IR page. I had tried before but IAF refused. Still I will go ahead and put up what IAF wants as well what I have referenced so that both views are reflected in the article. As it is bound to happen on ancient history, scholars have a diverse view and there is no "one view" and this fact should be reflected on the pages of IR. The question is....will IAF go for compromise or will revert to edit warring as soon as his ban is lifted ? I dont know....but a consensus is worth a try, so that all the parties’ views are taken into consideration.

By the way, IAF’s charge that I am using two accounts is totally false. I had merely archived my discussion with IAF on my talk pages as it can be seen here… User_talk:Anishshah19/Discussion_with_IAF…..This page cannot be considered as another account. However, if this is not permitted, do tell me, I will delete it and put it back on my talk pages. --Anish (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jose.chacko has reverted the changes made by Manish Modi on the pages of IR. Considering the edit warring and passions generated, it is surprising that a new user who has only two contribs, should revert the changes. It seems to be a sock puppet account, possibly of IAF. I dont know. Can you please check out. The Sock may force either me or Manish Modi into edit war so that he can ask us also to be banned. This is just one possibility. I request you to semi-protect this page until a consensus is reached to prevent socks from editing this article.--Anish (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put up a compromise solution for consensus as suggested by you on talk pages of IR here. Thanks for your help and advise. I hope that IAF agrees to it and this saga of edit wars will end. --Anish (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose moving Origins of Christianity to History of early Christianity
Please express your opinion at Talk:Origins of Christianity --Richard (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Help Again
I would love to request your assistance again with the article on the Dominican Day Parade. A user by the name oif "UnclePaco" and I are arguing about the inclusion of information that I classified as lacking significance to the article. He has made snide remarks that can be labeled as an attack. Youw ere very helpful with the opinion you provided on the article in the past and I thought I would request your help again. Please see the articles TALK page for more information. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At not point did I attack him I commented on how he got off block and started to revert articles Please take a look at this and this   UnclePaco (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Want to research Business
Help me...  BalanceΩrestored Talk 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re
I disagree, I think the article should first be nominated for deletion, cause the name of the article is fabricated. It aint a common name. For God's name @OSLI73 was banned so many times cause of similar behaviour. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had not understood that it was archive. I wonder why you would want to archive such a small amount of text, but not enough to want you to trouble you to answer. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC) '''Sorry, we weren't able to suggest any articles for you. Something is probably wrong on our end.'''

Criticism of the Bible
You said: Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Vassyana (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reference to the diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=184517146

First: "Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years, and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it." That is not exactly what Ezekiel says. This is distorting the original material. An author goes on to say "Neither happened." No reference is given for this.

Second: "Ezekiel incorrectly predicts that the island of Tyre will be utterly destroyed and "made a bare rock" which will "never be rebuilt"(Ezekiel 26:1,7, 14,32)." This seems to be a spelling mistake. Should be: "Ezekiel correctly predicts ...". Or better "Ezekiel predicts ..." Compare Ezekiel 26 with the predation by Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander. As much as is verifiable is fulfilled. I can see the ruins today on Google Earth.

The author goes on to say "Ezekiel admits his error in Ezek 29:17". His error? Quote: "And it came to pass in the twenty-seventh year in the first month on the first of the month that the word of Yahweh came unto me saying:". That's it. Ezekiel 29:17. No discussion of any error.

Apart from that, one of the references (Ezekiel 26:32) does not exist. Ezekiel 26 is 21 verses long. :]

Third: "Jesus falsely prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers." Another spelling mistake? Jesus christ described many times his visitation on Jerusalem in AD70 and also his return to establish the kingdom of god. Considering AD70 happened in the lifetime of some of his followers and the other was not expected for some time which other prophecy is the author trying to inject? No reference is given.

Fourth: "The inaccuracy of the prophecy is also exhibited in the Revelation of Jesus to John." Which prophecy? The only prophecies Jesus christ gave regarding his coming are AD70 and the return to establish the kingdom. Considering the apocalypse was written some 40 years after the first visitation it is not a prophecy given in that book. The apocalypse goes to much length to describe the setting of the return to establish the kingdom. Considering this prophecy does not relate to the time of the early believers then which other prophecy is the author trying to inject? No reference is given.

Fifth: "Apostle Paul also falsely predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime." No reference is given.

Criticism of any subject ought to be based on familiarity with the original material.

David Ian Walker (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding on your talk page. Vassyana (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise
What was the unreferenced stuff you were referring to in your quickfail? And hey, what parts of the presentation did you object to? If you're going to say things need to be fixed, examples of it are always nice. Howa0082 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Now I can figure out what to do about it. Howa0082 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2 people blocking consensus on .. Consensus
Oh shoot. This is the situation we discussed earlier. You can just play the typical 3RR cards and so if there's just one person, but if there are two, you're kind of stuck. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that they're probably acting in good faith ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there
And welcome back btw --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen
I've asked User:Mackensen to help out with the mediation cabal. I hope he helps out. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Are you on irc at times? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

2008-01-08 Bosnian Genocide
With regards to you mediation of the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-08 Bosnian Genocide. I think that we have a problem with this page, because it seems that so long as the page contains the a view that emphasis the minority view (as stated by the ECHR) that there was a wider Bosnian genocide, those who hold that view are not willing to engage in a discussion to find a compromise and any edit to the introduction is simply reverted.

I would really appreciate it if you would jolly those that support the minority view that there was a wider Bosnian Genocide and that this view is still widely held after the ICJ judgement to answer the questions put to them. If you look through the Talk:Bosnian Genocide page you will see that nearly all the sections end with Osli73 or me asking questions to which no answers are forthcoming. For example see this request on the talk page of Fairview360 to which there has been no answer. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops sorry. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments by other user
Hi Vassyana, Jay Jinendra

I am sure you must have noticed the snide comments made by IAF against me. The remarks do not take the discussion any further. Instead, they only serve to highlight his pettiness. I shall give a proper reply to IAF in keeping with the teleological aims of Wikipedia. Manish Modi 06:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit dispute at List of Cuban Americans
The problem is XLR8TION labels every source I add in unreliable. He doesn't offer a reason why he thinks a source is unreliable, I'm just expected to differ to him like if he was some wise elder statesman. Is there a place on Wikipedia where you could submit a source to see if it passes muster in the community? Because this back and forth bickering with XLR8TION is going nowhere fast. Also, I wouldn't be opposed to your idea of a "Disputed" section for someone like Fantasia Barrino. But I don't see who else it could possibly apply to. Sammy Davis, Jr. and Eamon de Valera aren't disputed, there's evidence to support their inclusion on this list. (Crossposted at Talk:List of Cuban Americans) InMySpecialPlace24 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Armija BiH.svg
OK, license it as it must be... i posted this picture that I made a long time ago, I don't know what are new rules and standards. It is my work. Regards. --HarisM (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New Mediator
Hello. We have a case at human rights and the United States. Our mediator seems to be progressing, but it is his first case and he is only in the tenth grade. I'm fine with him and suspect that we are moving toward consensus.

Our mediator posted: "I'm having a hard time trying to understand in what aspect Raggz disagrees with my proposal, and even understanding what his view is. Apparently the summary I came up with in "Mediator's Notes" was wrong. You've known all about him in these discussions you've been having in the talk page of the Human Rights in the U.S. article, could you maybe explain the concept of my solution to him whenever you get the time? I feel like I'm just screwing things up every time I try to explain. Thanks, --Slartibartfast1992 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

You might want to offer this new and enthusiastic mediator a bit of assistance? Regards - Raggz (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)