User talk:Vassyana/Archive016

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) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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) 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindu mythology
I've replied to your query  BalanceΩrestored Talk 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BalanceRestored#Hindu_mythology  BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, can you review BR's talkpage activities at Talk:Hindu mythology and Talk: Vedic mythology over the past few days (you can also find some links at the message I left on his talkpage) ? He is clearly getting on other editors' nerves through constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and it would be good to nip the tendentiousness in the bud, before the atmosphere worsens, or knowledgeable contributors are driven off the page/project. Cheers and happy 2010! Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor claims to not be a sockpuppet and wishes to appeal his block. Would you agree to an edit restricted unblock so that he may appeal his case at the appropriate venues, which I assume would be here, WP:AN, and Arbcom? --GoRight (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, can you please provide some indication of the nature of the evidence used to make this determination? Is it all circumstantial and subjective, or is there hard IP based evidence to back up this block? (I am not asking you to reveal any IP related information only comment on whether such evidence exists, but if any circumstantial evidence was relied upon in this case I would ask that you elaborate on what that might actually be so that the editor will be able to better mount a defense.) --GoRight (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The case has been forwarded to the functionaries list and I have the same questions. It sounds a great deal like an editing dispute. Fred Talk 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is checkuser evidence please forward a link or information about it to me. Fred Talk 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No kidding, I'd like to see the evidence too - and keep in mind false positives are quite possible when dealing with large ISPs. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on WVB's talk page. While it provides an extensive list of allegations it provides no substantive proof to back them up so that the validity of the allegations can be independently verified. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity here, but to mount a defense against a finding based on such circumstantial evidence such details must be provided. I seek some form of independent review of your findings based on the details that must underly these allegations. If you do not wish to make such details public, then I would ask that the review be conducted by a suitable set (perhaps 3) of other checkuser enabled reviewers who can then simply publicly state whether they concur with your assessment, or not. That is, of course, unless there is already some other process in place that performs this function. If the latter, please inform us on how to proceed with such a request. --GoRight (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The bionic woman is here with a special message...
Hello Vassyana, I am just popping in a tad late to wish you and yours a very happy and healthy 2010! You have been very kind and thoughtful to me and I just appreciate it more than words can say. So I hope you enjoyed the celebrations leading into this New Year. This year, 2010, I have hopes to be more active and regain more of my life that seemed to have disappeared on me for awhile. Thanks again, and Happy Healthy New year! -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope the New Year treats you well and is full of healing. :) Vassyana (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Me as admin?
Hello Vassyana and very best wishes for the New Year. I guess also from your temporary userpage and note about inactivity that you may have had a recent bereavement - if so, please accept my condolences.

You may remember that a year ago I was put up for admin. You voted for me but for a variety of reasons it went pear-shaped. I was thinking of running again, and wondered, if you think I would be suitable and ready for the role, if you would consider nominating me. Moreschi and Doug Weller, my previous noms are willing to do it again, and I would like that to happen, because the previous experience was not their fault. But I wondered if you wanted to come in as a third. Do let me know if you think I'm not ready, or just decline if you don't want to, you're too busy or whatever, because I can go ahead without. Regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so recent. He was a true gentleman that I met in the most unlikely place of the online cracker scene and came to know and adore. His loss still affects me greatly as he had a massive influence on my life and he holds a dear place in my heart. I really should restore my normal user page. The current real life drain is just a combination of work, social obligations, and general zoom zoom zoom. (Not that it is at all a bad thing, except for how quickly the weeks and months go by.) On point, I'd more than happy to co-nominate you for the adminship. You're a delightful and clueful editor that would serve the project well with the bit. Vassyana (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Loss of your friend: really sorry to hear, do keep a space for him on your restored user page. Nom and comments: aw, shucks, will tell Moreschi and Doug. Acceleration of everyday life: wei wu wei is the way to slow life down, I'm told. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nrcprm2026 Semis
For starters, these are the main areas:
 * Cold Fusion & Talk
 * Gulf War syndrome & Talk
 * Depleted uranium is a main target but would appear to have substantial collateral damage
 * Uranium appears to be a bit too public to semi. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what does the term 'semi' refer to here? Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected articles can only be edited by WP:Autoconfirmed users - those with more than four days and ten edits. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, I assume this relates to the problem of Nrcprm using multiple IP-address-type logins to edit. Am I right in assuming it blocks him from using those accounts, and what about the main account?  Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The main account has been indefinitely blocked for some time. Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

what and why thank you
Vis-á-vis Cold Fusion Talk, I determined that CF is cold fusion but what is RS and why are certain sections of the talk page struck out? Just curious. Too bad articles don't have a section / link to shorthand terminology, etc. used therein, eh? :-) Thanks. Uh...will you be responding here on your talk page or over on my talk page (I've seen it both ways and am at a loss as to how to determine which way it will go unless it is specifically stated)? JimScott (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The letters refer to abbreviations of policies and guidelines. If you see a word in all caps or a short string of letters in the same, it probably refers to a Wikipedia space link. So, if someone mentions POINT violations, they probably are referring to WP:POINT. A brief list of common letter soups:
 * V refers to Verifiability (WP:V).
 * OR and NOR refer to No original research (WP:NOR).
 * NPOV refers to Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).
 * RS refers to Reliable sources (WP:RS}.
 * SOAP, FORUM, and a bunch of others refer to What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).
 * N refers to Notability (WP:N).
 * I hope this helps! Vassyana (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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) 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Eyes
Hi Vasyana would you mind keeping an eye on this I've asked the other user to stop posting but to date they haven't got that message or the message about IAR. Thanks-- Cailil  talk 20:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After his latest block by Ed, I have given him a final warning. If he indicates that he has no intention of heeding the guidance he's received or continues the same nonsense, I will block him indefinitely until he agrees to at least follow some basic common sense standards of conduct. Vassyana (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao
have you dropped this page, or are you just taking a break? I didn't want to intrude on your revisions until I had a better idea of where you were going with it, but the page is currently a bit of a mess and I'm starting to feel the urge to wade in and clean it up. let m e know where you are with it. -- Ludwigs 2 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about intruding. I'm sure we can always find a way to sort it out either through editing or chatting if we have any disagreements or the like. If you would just prefer to get a better idea of the structure and substance I'm working towards, I'll be working on the article over of the next couple of days. Feel free to work on the article either way. :) Vassyana (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your service to Wikipedia as an Arbitrator during the last year. Although I sometimes did disagree with you, I could always see that you dug into the evidence provided quite deeply to find the underlying problem behind a dispute. I personally always valued your work and your judgment, and I hope to continue to see you around. NW ( Talk ) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the time and effort you spent with the Committee. You may have felt sometimes that your efforts weren't noticed or appreciated, but they were. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you from me too
Dear Vassyana,

I am very sorry to see you leave Arbcom. I especially appreciated the way you were willing to dig through and look at the evidence. You will be greatly missed. Perhaps you will rejoin in the future. I hope so.

Best wishes,

Mattisse

Me2
Sorry to see you resign. You were one of the arbs that I counted on to show good sense and cut through the crap. But I understand that the position is a tremendous time sink. Best wishes - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think you served admirably and faithfully to the spirit and letter of the arb system as it's set up. It's a difficult job, and I have a lot of issues with the way arbitration is used, but I very much respect your good faith efforts. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks for your thanks. If you've got anything that needs admin or mediator eyes, I'm a bit more free for that now. (That goes for you talk page lurkers too!) I can't promise that I'll be able to handle everything, but I can at least help get other eyes on it. Vassyana (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply
Left a reply for you on my talk page. DegenFarang (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh
thank you SO much for noticing that, I will fix it right now. I will get back with you on the rest.Ikip 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"I would like to help implement this for a couple of Wikiprojects." Both clean up and incubation? Go ahead and follow this instruction on getting the clean up bot to add to your project. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks
Thank you for your contribution to the Fringe Theory discussion. I meant to send you a message about the missing book title, but I got pretty disgusted with the entire situation. Verbal reverted my various edits, even after so many editors weighed in, and after insisting that that discussion be brought back to the article talk page, he has failed to continue discussions. He then threatened me with a 3R report after I made a non-controversial edit based on the discussions that you took part in. Apparently, he won't even let your reference be used. If you don't mind, could you tell me if you have any idea why Verbal is allowed to control the page this way? Do you have any suggestion as to how I might proceed, or should I just give up and move on.Smatprt (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:POETRY
Hiya, Ottava wanted to know if you've heard anything. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your talkpage has a bug
Something seems to be wrong with it - it's not allowing new sections at the bottom of the page to stick. Please see your History. It could be the ref list. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Vassyana,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gulf War syndrome entry's semi-protected status
I have several concerns about the current state of the Gulf War syndrome entry. At the moment it has semi-protected status on both the article and the discussion page. I would like to make a contribution to the discussion and raise a NPOV. I am new to this so cannot do so at the moment, and as a cynic would suggest this is protecting an inaccurate and biased entry. Please could you allow me access to the discussion page at the very least?

It is clear that the topic has raised much controversy, and abuse of Wikipedia standards. I have raised a NPOV through the Depleted uranium entry. I hope you agree that is constructive. I have similar concerns for this Gulf War syndrome entry.

At least one reference is misleadingly summarised in the sub-section on Signs and symptoms:

"In a study of U.K. troops, 'Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs.'[18]"

In stark contrast the paper actually concluded:

We found no evidence for a link between paternal deployment to the Gulf war and increased risk of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or congenital syndromes. Associations were found between fathers' service in the Gulf war and increased risk of miscarriage and less well-defined malformations, but these findings need to be interpreted with caution as such outcomes are susceptible to recall bias. The finding of a possible relationship with renal anomalies requires further investigation. There was no evidence of an association between risk of miscarriage and mothers' service in the gulf.

Depleted uranium is bought into the Signs and symptoms section, pre-empting the general discussion in the sub-section on Causes.

The sentence: "The three studies most representative of Gulf War era veterans in the U.S. and U.K." is not and cannot be justified.

Unverified grey-literature claims of birth defects in the Basra region are confused with Gulf War Syndrome. These are separate issues. If this ‘information’ is to be included here it must be with a caveat that the birth defect data has never been independently verified and that there is no evidence, except anecdotal, to connect these to depleted uranium exposure. The graph needs the caveat unverified data attached to the caption.

The section on depleted uranium lacks balance in reporting and assessment:

The most recent independent expert reviews on Gulf War Illnesses amongst veterans are from the VA Association and the IOM. These have not been referenced in either this section or the main Gulf War syndrome entry. These independent expert panels comprehensively reviewed all of the available literature and reached different conclusions to those that might be drawn from the selective referencing of this Wikipedia entry.

"Other wartime exposures are not likely to have caused Gulf War illness for the majority of ill veterans. For remaining exposures, there is little evidence supporting an association with Gulf War illness or a major role is unlikely based on what is known about exposure patterns during the Gulf War and more recent deployments. These include depleted uranium, anthrax vaccine, fuels, solvents, sand and particulates, infectious diseases, and chemical agent resistant coating (CARC)."

For the health outcomes discussed in this chapter, the committee concluded that exposure to uranium is not associated with a large or frequent effect. Nevertheless, it is possible that depleted-uranium–exposed veterans will have a small increase in the likelihood of developing a disease. Typically, extremely large study populations are necessary to demonstrate that a specific exposure is not associated with a health outcome. The committee’s evaluation of the literature supports the conclusion that a large or frequent effect is unlikely, but it is not possible to state conclusively that a particular health outcome cannot occur.

References on the urine analyses do not acknowledge that the Military Medicine article has been disputed. The Health Physics article refers to a cohort of veterans with known and well-documented DU exposure (mainly friendly fire incidents), and are not representative of Gulf War Veterans in general. Elsewhere McDiarmid et al. have shown that this cohort are not suffering as a result of DU exposure e.g. . The UK's DUOB, using published methods, found no evidence of DU exposure in a larger (and more representative?) cohort.

I've presented some of my concerns about the article, which I hope will convince you that my contributions will be constructive. I apologise that I have not identified myself, however experience shows that those who seek balanced scientific discussion on depleted uranium are harassed by activists.

--Du spécialiste (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fancy closing an RfC?
Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking has now been open for 32 days; with only four comments in the past 10 days. RFCBot ran off with the RfC tag two days ago; it's easily time for it to be closed. Due to the nature of the issue, no administrator is truly "uninvolved", but one who is especially well-respected by the community, such as yourself; are the closest thing we've got. Fancy making a close? For reference, I'm contacting former arbitrators who hold admin tools but no other bits. Cheers, Happy-melon (talk) 19:05, February 11, 2010

Please help about accusations.
Hi! I was recently accused of linkspamming by a user called history2007. Anyone that will check this manually will see that I linked every single wiki article to the specific topic on the site called catholicrevelations.com I was reading on where I found the different works. They say that "it seems that it's linkspamming." IT SEEMS? I read the wiki rules carefully before I started adding info and yet the user Beetstra removed my additions without even checking the pages I linked to. Anyone that will take the time to watch them can verify that I am following wiki rules. I am swedish so I hope my english is understandable. I hope you can help me and resolve this situation so I can continue adding relevant info without being called "linkspammer." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humilityisfine (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help.
Hi! I was recently accused of linkspamming by a user called history2007. Anyone that will check this manually will see that I linked every single wiki article to the specific topic on the site called catholicrevelations.com I was reading on where I found the different works. They say that "it seems that it's linkspamming." IT SEEMS? I read the wiki rules carefully before I started adding info and yet the user Beetstra removed my additions without even checking the pages I linked to. Anyone that will take the time to watch them can verify that I am following wiki rules. I am swedish so I hope my english is understandable. I hope you can help me and resolve this situation so I can continue adding relevant info without being called "linkspammer." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humilityisfine (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Vassyana,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,Matt Lewis (talk) 10:04, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
I would just like to alert you that, since yesterday, the article has been the target of some rather persistent but dubious non-NPOV editingby single purpose account in conjunction with, who I suspect to be the same user, logged-out. I have attempted to discuss on the talk pages why I believe the changes are not warranted (thus my rationale for making several reverts), but the arguments are not soundly based, IMHO. Obviously, I am immensely proud to have got the article to FA, and would hate to see it go to the dogs like the other Falun Gong articles, I suspect that the editor will persist if no action is taken. I do not wish to continue reverting for fear of breaching the article probation. Kindly take a look there. If you feel that the current action is as I describe, I would ask you to lock down the article temporarily. Kindly advise. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:51, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Notes for reference. --Asdfg12345 (talk) 05:15, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Please help with disruptive editing
I'm talking about the article about the Lancia Beta. There is a "Legacy" section, in which part of the car's history is documented, with some references to books and car magazines articles describing the history of this particular car, as well as the way it received bad press due to an issue with rust. keeps deleting this section claiming it has NO citations and that it's POV. He keeps arguing ad nauseam and acts like a complete troll. This, in my view, constitutes vandalism. If he was acting in GOOD FAITH, he would IMPROVE the section by checking the sources, doing a little more research and providing more references. Instead, he denies even the existence of the given references and proceeds with tendentious editing. Please look into the matter. Elp gr (talk) 23:55, February 21, 2010  (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip (talk) 03:32, February 24, 2010  (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP
Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of .--Asdfg12345 (talk) 01:11, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Mediation advice
There has been a ongoing dispute at Talk:Bollywood about whether to include Nastaliq script in the lede sentence of Bollywood film articles. Although the issue has been simmering for years, over the last two months it has literally taken up the Bollywood talk page and all the time and effort of involved editors. Worse, the arguments have gone around in circles and devolved into personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, over-the-top rhetoric, edit-warring etc. Recently the two main editors were warned following a 3RR report and told not to add/remove Nastaliq script till the issue was settled. I don't think continued discussion between the editors by themselves has any chance of reaching a consensus, and am skeptical that an RFC would help at this stage. I, and others, have adviced the involved editors to try mediation, and they have tentatively agreed (although that has not stopped the sniping itself). Since I have no experience with mediation I wanted your advice on what forum (Medcab or Medcom) would be most suited for this dispute and how to set the ball rolling. Do the disputants have to initiate the request, or can disinterested parties like me start the process ? To be clear: I myself have no stake in the dispute, and don't care which way consensus goes (I don't plan to participate in the mediation process, though I can provide my 2c if the editors'/mediators desire it). My main interest is that the involved parties are long term and good contributors to wikipedia outside this dispute, and the heat being generated over a minor point is liable to drive them and others away from wikipedia. Some recent links (don't expect you to read them through): Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Bollywood (essentially the whole page!);
 * 3RR report;
 * discussion on my talk page between "outside" voices, on how best to intervene;
 * my request to the two main parties and their response.
 * You can also check the two user talkpages for all the mutual warnings.

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship    proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming
Your wisdom would be appreciated... AJRG (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help AFD - B2CJ Deletion
Recently an article that I updated was deleted. If you can help me with that, it will be great.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need advice on mediation or other measures
Vassyana, I wonder if you are still taking an active interest in Falun Gong or related articles, and how they are being edited? Whether you are or are not, if you could provide some advice here it would be welcome. There are a number of pages with escalating disputes, both related to content and editing behaviour. These include Mass line, Propaganda_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China, Thought reform in the People's Republic of China, Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China and perhaps some others. You can just click through and look at the editing. My problem revolves around the editing practices of. I started an RfC in an attempt to resolve the issue, but it turned into a giant food fight. It may be a good idea to get a mediator in to make sure people are playing by the rules in their edits. I'm unwilling to spend more time on the pages without another set of eyes making sure things are being done in a kosher way, but just not exactly where sure to go to get that set of eyes. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 08:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 12:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Help at WP:NPOV
For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth."

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, please strike all of your false statements you made against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Three-legged bloomers


The article Three-legged bloomers has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable, unreferenced for three years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Response from you required at arb case
Hi Vassyana, a response from you is required at [] in relation to Shell's statement and the clarification that you posted in relation to Offliner. Either Shell is incorrect, or the clarification is incorrect. This absolutely needs to be clarified. Because it goes down to the crux of the issue as it actually does exist. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary!
'''Wishing User: a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Shannon ♫  (talk)  19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Shannon ♫  (talk)  19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Christianity
In light of this comment, would you take a look at Origins of Christianity and provide your thoughts at Talk:Origins of Christianity? Thank you. --Richard S (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy
Since I've quote you here, I thought I should pay you the courtesy of mentioning it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi there Vassyana. :)

I see that you are still involved in the Mediation committee, and since I feel we worked well before on Mediation with the Kender case, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Galactus case. We have now been waiting two weeks for a mediator; if you are up to a challenge, you might accept it yourself. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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, 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) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Private mediation.
As a member of the Mediation Committee, I wonder if you would mind giving some attention to this subject , which I posted on the policy discussion page some time ago. Please note that I am no longer involved in any mediation process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Neo-humanism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neo-humanism. Since you had some involvement with the Neo-humanism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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, 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, 8 July 2010 (UTC)