User talk:Vassyana/Archive001

This is an archive. Are you looking for my talk page?

welcome to Wikipedia

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I felt that I had to revert your addition to the Nightlife section of the Buffalo article. It was very well written, but it seemed more like an Entertainment Guide piece than an encyclopedia entry. Especially parts like "Travel another 20 minute walk North on Elmwood Avenue from Allentown and find yourself on the Elmwood Strip." Encyclopedia articles just don't address the reader as "you".(See below). Also, they should generally be written to be true for the long term-- which bars are popular today are still going to be popular even five years from now? Finally, there is Wikipedia's ban on "original research". Content should be verifiable from objective, public documentation.

Anyway, I am sorry to do this so early in your history at Wikipedia. You write very well, and you could clearly make an important contribution here. Please don't take this as a personal attack-- we all face a pretty steep learning curve in getting involved in here. And understand, we're basically all equal here, so you can always put what you wrote right back in-- though I think eventually someone else would take it out for the same reasons I did.

Drat! Looking over the article again, I just realized that the "Travel another 20 minutes..." quote above isn't even yours, and I left it in. Tell you what... I'll see what I can do with the section, and if you want to work on it further, be my guest.

Please let me know if I can help you with anything. Happy editing!

Still o n e m o r e t h i n g. I did not know about WP:ANI before going to them. I sought advice regarding this situation, and she reccomended I go immediately to WP:ANI. I still don't understand the entity's significance. I just needed help. I suspect the other admin was influenced to suggest this because of Virgil and Franks baiting me to get me to reveal my identity. Maybe I was paranoid, but I really did feel threatened. Thanks for taking the time to help us and for enduring the unpleasantness involved!

-- Mwanner | Talk 14:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went back to your version and re-wrote and/or deleted anything that felt wrong to me-- mostly removing refernces to specific clubs. I also thought I should have a look at other city articles, to see how they handled this stuff, and, so far as I can see, they don't cover nightlife at all-- check out New York City, Boston, Miami Beach, Los Angeles. So we may both be working on a section that shouldn't be there at all!

Anyway, my apologies, again, for whittling down your addition. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

I am not taking it as a personal attack at all. Thank you for the advice and the explanation! I look forward to refining my wiki skills. :) No apologies are needed. I am very new to actually contributing and appreciate any corrections or suggestions. I want to help make a contribution, not a mess! :-P Vasssyana

That's great! A cooperative attitude is probably an editor's most important attribute here. Let me pass on the same sandard welcome I got when I started here...

Welcome!

Hello, Vassyana/Archive001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Have fun... -- Mwanner | Talk 22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chu

Glad to see another sensible person in ProjectDeletion. (smile)DGG 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :o) I've been trying to become more active in Wikipedia and it seemed like projects were a good way to do so. Vassyana 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God

Thanks for your opinion on [1] I am really troubled by how some editors abuse the Afd process. See: User:Travb/E I am glad other wikieditors see through this abuse. Travb (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Guidelines are good. Wikilawyering is bad. I try. Thanks! Vassyana 04:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate the wikilawyering argument... and have argued forcefully against it before. :) Travb (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common dreams

That's fine, don't worry about it. I wasn't as civil as I should have been either, so please accept my apologies too. I find that accusations of Wikilawyering by either side never seem to help, so advise care when using the term. Regards. Trebor 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thank you for accepting my apology. I will use try to use greater care in the future. Vassyana 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified statements

Vassyana, in order for the qualification to a generally true statement to stand, all that is needed is an explanation. If the scope is not sufficiently narrow to exclude weasel words, it is not sufficiently specific for the purposes of information. If the identifiable exceptions are manageably few, a footnote is sufficient. Weasel words like "many", "most", "almost all" do not convey information, they signal that information is incomplete, and reduce the quality and usefulness of the article. I suggest that you narrow the scope, so that the exceptions are few enough to be manageably referenced, but not so narrow as to understate (and thus falsify) the statement. While I'm taking a long break, I won't interfere; I'm sure you'll do the right thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think WP:AWW applies, based on its own listed exception:

When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth."

However, I will see how I might be able to rephrase it or further qualify it for greater clarity. Hope you come back soon, you have a lot of great ideas. Vassyana 14:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable application of the guideline. But the case might be closer to a different example:

"Most people in Western civilizations now believe that the earth is round, and revolves around the sun."

Do you see how the qualifier overwhelms the general statement? It gives the impression that the number of exceptions is so unmanageably large, that confidence should be greatly restrained. Furthermore, it leaves the impression that the case is different in non-Western countries. Compare this statement:

"Most people in Western countries believe in evolution, that is, abiogenesis."

Here the problem is an apparently uninformed equivocation, and this is why "most people believe" cannot be quantified. This complication infects the article if "reject as a corruption" is not sufficiently inclusive of the variety of non-accepting reactions - this was your stated worry.

Thank you for your efforts. You have made an improvement to the statement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I've tried to be accomodating in making it more clear who is more opposed and less opposed, in a light that demonstrates who is the majority and minority in those views. Thank you for the compliment and for continuing the discussion. Vassyana 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your friends are certainly making that article their own. Is that really what you want - a rehash of unresolvable arguments, conflicting interpretations, and futile accusations? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

Distrupting to prove a point? I have no idea what you are talking about. The text I and others have removed has so many problems that is should be removed and I am bringing it up on the talk for discussion. Why do you support it?Giovanni33 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is sourced. There is a lot of disagreement over its removal. Your disruptive editing has already gotten Christianity protected. Please stop that behaviour. When you've been reverted several times, it's past time to try and build consensus, and it might be appropriate to ask for RfC or mediation. Stubborn insistance will not build consensus or good will. Vassyana 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, all the text is not sourced. That is not true. I asked on talk for the source of statments that are clearly OR. The text is so bad that it can not stay on the article and must be removed until these serious issues are addressed on talk.Giovanni33 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then strike only the offending text and move it to talk page. Do not remove the entire section which includes sourced material. Vassyana 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vassyana, I reverted your restoration of a warning which Giovanni had removed from his page. While I disagree with Giovanni's edits, and would very likely have reverted him at Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs except that you got there first, it's not forbidden for editors to remove unwanted messages from their talk pages once they've read them. The subject often comes up at administrators' noticeboard, and admins generally feel that if someone removes a warning or other message from his own talk page, you know he has seen it, and it remains in the history in case you need the diff for an RfC or RfAr; so replacing it is has no purpose except to hassle someone. (Paraphrased from memory from something David Gerard said over a year ago!) Don't think it means I agree with Giovanni. I just feel editors should never be forced to display unwanted messages on their talk pages, other than block notices, or similar tags placed by administrators, and then only until such time as they are no longer relevant. Regards. Musical Linguist 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message and explanation. I appreciate it. I was under the impression it is considered at least extremely rude/dishonest to remove warnings from one's talk page, except to archive. Sorry for the misconception. Thank you again for the explanation. It is appreciated and I will take it to heart in my future edits. Vassyana 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. It is a matter over which there can be honest disagreement, and I've seen a lot of well-meaning editors as well as a lot of harassing bullies reverting users who remove warnings. There has been a lot of discussion about it, and admins are nearly always against it. The proportion of non-admins (to use a rather patronizing term!) who are against it is much lower, particularly among those who do a lot of Recent changes patrol, and leave {{test3}} and {{test4}} warnings for vandals before reporting them at WP:AIV. The general feeling among administrators is that warnings are intended for new users who may not be aware of policy, and are not meant to be used as black marks which a naughty user is obliged to display on his talk page as a punishment for his naughtiness! However, as I said, there is room for honest disagreement, so I appreciate that you didn't take offence when I reverted you. Thanks again. Musical Linguist 20:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I know you mean well and your good intentions (and effects in moving this conflict to a state of resolution) are appreciated.Giovanni33 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. That is a good question. I think you should make the statement about what conensus appears to be, and if that fails to generate any discussion, we might want to proceed with a Rfc. I think the whole section doesn't belong in the article, personally, but am leaving it in, after some essential fixing to discourage the edit waring while we proceed with a discussion. So even though I fixed it, it still have problems in that the POV it expresses from this historian is given undue weight, and more importantly the "Future plans of the Nazi regime" is quite a sepearate subject than the personal religious beliefs of Hitler, which the article is supposed to be about.Giovanni33 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for replying. I'll drop by and see if I might be able to help. I agree with you as my own view, but we need to work within consensus. Remember that consensus is not permanent, so perhaps views will change over time. Let's see what can we work out for the time being. Vassyana 08:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome

And thank you for moving this forward in such a considered manner. It gets lively on these pages and I've caused uproar in my time (!) but I have learned and I do respect and like the vast majority of the editors on the page - even ones at ideological odds with me. Sophia 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Fetus

Thanks for the kind words. I have typed a rather long, verbose reply discussing my current issues with the fetus article under the heading of "Major Deletions Without Discussion" on Talk:Fetus. Really, I could summarize it thusly: 1) I would like an uninvolved editor to review the first paragraph of "Size and Physiology" and make sure the sources meet wikipedia standard, and make sure that our wording is accurately representing the cited sources (i.e. no POV or undue weight issues) and 2) combine parts of "Size and Physiology" with "anatomical development" into one general section on "fetal development" while simultaneously working up the fetus section of prenatal development for the purpose of creating only a summary section of that content for the fetus article's "development" section.-Andrew c 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I butt in briefly. I think it's good that you're both interested in improving the fetus article, and I hope you will at least consider the slight possibility that I am not "POV pushing."

Severa is an editor at Wikipedia with whom I have not always agreed (as Andrew C. knows), but I think she had a good suggestion at my talk page: "I'd suggest developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using fetal [i.e. prenatal] development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles (in this case, placing all the 'eggs' in one basket would be a good thing)." That's what I've had in mind doing, and it would be nice if we weren't working at cross-purposes (Andrew C. seems to have different ideas). Also, as I mentioned a few moments ago at the fetus talk page, medicine has for centuries recognized a distinction between physiology and anatomy, and I hope we can discuss the possibility that it might be useful to retain that distinction in the structure of the fetus article (again, Andrew C. seems to have different idea). I also hope you can see that these two concerns have nothing to do with "POV pushing". Nor is it "POV pushing" to try to acquaint readers at a fetal pain article with the very longstanding distinction (in both law and medicine) between pain and suffering, and to at least provide links to those two articles. Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Participation is Being Requested

In case you didn't know, an administrator named KillerChihuahua has "requested ... that Vassyana join us here."Ferrylodge 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Christianity talk page

Thanks for your note on my talk page, and apologies for ignoring it for so long. I have been (and still am) rather caught up with real life issues. I think everything has settled down at the Christianity talk page, and I personally wouldn't see any need for an RfC at the moment. I was sorry to see the insults being hurled around, particularly against Storm Rider and SOPHIA, both of whom conduct themselves very professionally towards those with whom they disagree. I suppose the thing to discuss now is how to expand on the Creed section, without reproducing the whole text, but still quoting relevant bits and reporting controversies concerning those passages. Anyway, I'll be less busy from next week, so hope to see you at the talk page then. Regards. Musical Linguist 20:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taoic Religions

I think you've written a great article. Other than expansion, I can't think of much else that could be done to improve it. Good Work! Zeus1234 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

No problem. We all makes mistakes. And believe me, your report was far superior to many that we get. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. Vassyana 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rush Limbaugh

I actually put in my edit summary that it was my third revision, so it would be known I was aware of the rule. I really hope this doesn't have to go to mediation, as there is already a mediation on this article, but I think there are good reasons not to include this as notable material, as I mentioned on the talk page. And I don't see much hope of an amicable settlement on this issue on the page. Lurker ^oi! 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my talk page. --PTR 21:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getaway's sock puppet

I thought you might like to know that Getaway is using a sock puppet by the name of BballJones[2] to circumvent his block and continue editing. If you look here[3] you’ll find that back in August 2006 Getaway was actually accused of being the sock puppet of BballJones. Shortly after the accusation BballJones disappeared. On February 22 at 19:48 Getaway was blocked for violating the 3RR on the Sam Brownback page. Exactly 2 hours later BballJones miraculously reappeared after a 5 month hiatus with a single edit to the Condi Rice article, one that Getaway edits frequently.[4] On March 8 Getaway was blocked by Woohookitty for edit warring on the Rush Limbaugh page. At 13:25 Getaway complained on his talk page about being blocked and just 10 minutes later Bballjones reappears again and makes two edits to the Sam Brownback page. [5][6] Next, Bballjones comments on the Cylonhunter’s talk page on how Cylonhunter can (get this) provide a reliable source for Rush Limbaugh’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination! [7] This is the very aspect of the Limbaugh article that Getaway was edit warring over when he was blocked by Woohookitty. This attempt to circumvent his block is a clear violation of WP:SOCK and should be dealt with accordingly. 66.213.29.242 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, but I will request a checkuser. Vassyana 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the sock for 48 hours and I also reset Getaway's block to 48 hours due to sockpuppet use. It was pretty obvious. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, no trouble. If you need any other assistance, let me know. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :o)

I'll make sure I pass on the smile! Sophia 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment

I see that you have been reviewing articles/ Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates#Philosophy_and_religion, article Prem Rawat? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reviewed. Vassyana 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my request, Vassyana . It is much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your neutral and comprehensive review of Prem Rawat, you have pointed out many of the issues noticed by editors over time, who seem to feel that some of the other editors actively engaged in the article tend to skirt violating WP:OWN, amongst other issues... Smee 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Need More Help

Thanks so much for your help on the emerging church movement article. I thought it would resolve our conflict. However, Virgil has left the radar screen, and a very emotional character named "Frank" has appeared, making edits on this article for the very first time in broad sweeping fashion, hurling hostile remarks at me all the while and refusing to let any of my edits stand. I really have tried to go out of my way to accomodate this editor, but he insists on maintaining a belligerent posture and tone. Would you please guide me to the next step in our getting some reconciliation or arbitration?Will3935 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY, I meant Brian McLaren article in my comment above. Thanks again!Will3935 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to look at your talk page and noticed this comment from Will3935, and his complaint is absolutely laughable! All you have to do is look at the history of both the article edits and the discussion page to see who is emotional, who is engaged in ad-hominem attacks and who is making "broad edits." Note that only after Will3935 made sweeping changes to the article he is willing to discuss and engage in arbitration. --Virgil Vaduva 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your most neutral and equitable Good Article Review of Prem Rawat, as well as your tireless work on reviews, neutrality and mediation. Smee 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (As an aside...) - You may display on your Userpage or leave on your talk page as you see fit. Thanks again for lending your impartial voice to the fray. Smee 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cool down...

Thanks for the advice, I truly appreciate it. Unfortunately I feel like I cannot just leave the article since the abusive user is bent on destroying it and modifying it with biased information to satisfy whatever agenda he has. Perhaps you can make an appeal to all contributors to stop making changes until they are further discussed in the discussion page. --Virgil Vaduva 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. :) Vassyana 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! :) --Virgil Vaduva 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am so very sorry

I know this will sound disingenuous, but I hope you will believe me. I did not see, for some reason, the call for a cooling off period. I remember you asking us to calm down and get a beverage etc. but I really did not see that message. I realize the fact that I made an edit causes me to look bad and I am embarassed by that. I understand your dissapointment. Please forgive me. The edit I made is one I think Virgil would have agreed to, if that is any comfort. I simply expanded a quotation he had already posted, giving the fuller context. Anyway, I regret the way things turned out. I surely would not have knowingly violated your trust for such a trivial edit! I'll try to be more observant in the future.Will3935 06:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiven. Vassyana 06:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more points: In fairness to me, if you'll go back and look at the discussion page your calling for a cooling off period became surrounded by other comments which made it difficult for me to see. A l s o...technically your comment was posted on the 11th and my edit was not made until the 12th (you might also want to see how fully I discussed this little edit first). Taking a cue from a former president I might, if I were the sort, say that it all depends on what your definition of "tomorrow" is. Regardless, I would not have made the edit if I had known of your cooling off period. Thanks for forgiving me. It seems that is a precious commodity here in Wikipedia sometimes.Will3935 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Forgiveness is part of WP:LOVE, an essay I strongly support. Vassyana 06:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still o n e m o r e t h i n g. I did not know about WP:ANI before going to them. I sought advice regarding this situation, and she reccomended I go immediately to WP:ANI. I still don't understand this entity's significance since I have never been involved in such a situation before. I just needed help. I suspect the other admin was influenced to suggest this because of Virgil and Franks baiting me to get me to reveal my identity. Maybe I was paranoid, but I really did feel threatened. Thanks for taking the time to help us and for enduring the unpleasantness involved!Will3935 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McLaren

I'm sorry it had to come to full protecting, but that edit history is astounding. Unfortunately, this looks like a classic case for a cooling down period. Thanks for both stepping in and your kind words . -- Avi 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Clan

Thanks for your edits and help towards neutrality on the Cave Clan article. Does this mean you'll be accepting the cabal case (I noticed you're a cabalist) or do you think 3rd opinion is a better place to get this sorted out?

By the way, since you have more experience here on wikipedia than I do, do you know of any concrete way to prove that I am not Panic? My comments are rather ignored as they take me to be him, and I'm getting somewhat fed up with the whole thing.

Anyway, thanks again. hibou 09:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Thomas

I blocked the user indefinitely. Definitely a sock/meatpuppet. I am always very suspicious of accounts that come out of nowhere to edit war. Major red flag. I did comment at AN/I as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just doin' my job. :) But thank you. I always like to help out. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thank you so much for the thought. I must admit that I have wondered about it when I see vandalism continuing and can only watch and report, but at my current rate of vandal fighting I am not active enough to justify giving me admin access. Also sometimes is nice to be a plain 'ol editor and keep away from the political wranglings that go on on WP:AN and its subpages! Sophia 17:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Holt

Sorry to double-post, but I feared this would get lost in the AFD discussion. Can you provide a source for your claim that Ms. Holt was nominated by a group of academics for the Pulitzer Prize? I can't find anything on Google or Lexis-Nexus that supports this. Thanks! Skinwalker 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have new questions at Editor review

The Transhumanist   04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Vassyana 13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WILL3935 Again

I made some conciliatory remarks on the Brian McLaren discussion page (as well as on Virgil's talk page [apologized for my inexcusable conduct, asked him to pray for my current severe health problems, and even expressed wish that we could make up over dinner at my expense]. I have decided to defer to Virgil's content preferences and only am offering suggestions regarding arrangement of the content which seems just a little stream of consciousness. I have conceded he was right on some significant points that I have reconsidered.

Mysteriously though, my conciliatory comments have dissappeared from the talk page while Virgil now accuses me of wanting to "rape" the article. I really only wanted to help. If Virgil wants the poor structure to remain in this article it only discredits a subject that is apparently quite dear to him. So be it. I'm a little concerned, however. The deletion of my comments seems selective. I believe the comments deleted are from sections both before and after comments of Virgil's that remain. The history trail should help there. Could you please look into this? I would appreciate it. I will leave my conciliatory comments off the time being. Thanks in advance.Will3935 07:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never Mind! The conciliatory comments have reappeared. Must of been a technical glitch and I must of been wrong about the selectiveness. Sorry.Will3935 07:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hassan Dispute

Hello Friend,

I see you are mediating a dispute with another member and I. I took the weekend off from most computer activities to relax. Anyway, there is another member who was involved in this issue, BabyDweezil. John196920022001 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey dude, I ran across some members that are having the same issues with Tilman that I have. They have been here longer than I have so I would like them involved in this mediation. They are Justanother and Fossa. I was going to invite them

Have pledged to make ammends

I think it only right that I revert the edit I made during the time you and Virgil had agreed to cool off. I have pledged to do so on the Brian McLaren discussion page. I should have known about the cooling off and it meant that Virgil and I were playing by different rules at the time. It is a trivial edit, but it seems to have symbolic importance for Virgil who continues to complain about it. Perhaps this move will help establish peace and restore your broken trust in me.Will3935 13:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fantastic idea to show good faith. Vassyana 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Frank

Can you email me about this? I didn't know him well (he died when I was quite young), know he did some work with HUAC and testified at the Alger Hiss hearings, but am curious what else you found and where. Cheers. -- TedFrank 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Vassyana 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing One's Own Work

Hello friend,

Another issue I have is about Tilman's delleting my own citation from an academic article that I presented at a conference. I know there is a conflict of interest issue here, but I feel that Tilman deleted the citation based on my affiliation with CESNUR and his opinion. He says that the article is not of academic caliber, but I had some well-know scholars like Eileen Barker present when I presented my research, and none of them said anything about the academic caliber of my article. The fact that he says that my research article is not of academic caliber is his opinion. I am not quite sure how to handle this particular issue. The delimma I am having about this is even though this might a conflict of interest issue, what do I do if I feel that Wikipedia policy was not followed in determining whether or not to remove a citation? Let me know if you need clarification on this point. Thanks John196920022001 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done!

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your help in wikipedia and your contibution to user reveiws, well done! talk to symode09's or Reveiw Me! 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Does it matter if the Jains believe that Jainism predates the Vedas or not ? It is incorrect. Incorrect statements and that too just assumptions or beliefs are un-admissable in articles in wikipedia. If you have something against the Jains or want to humiliate them, then let it be. IAF

• You changed an agree-upon edit that has been around for nearly a year, on your own without consulting anyone and did so repeatedly when I reverted it back to what it originally was. Before accusing me of an edit-war, you should note have done just the same thing and that too without proper consensus.

Please note that the Dharmic religions page is on the watch-list of some 10-20 members and if this edit were wrong as you claim, you should allow lengthy discussion to ensue before editing out comments lest accusing others of an edit-war. And its not that I haven't provided sources. I have given all the sources and my rational/reasons for reverting your edit back. IAF

Inappropriate warning about edit warning

Your warning against me of edit warring was inappropriate, because you reverted twice, though I reverted only once. Andries 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted in the sense of WP:3RR three times. I have responded to the below comment on the article talk page. Vassyana 19:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not revert three times in the sense of WP:3RR. You reverted as least as many times as I in the sense of WP:3RR. Andries 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Resolution

Hey dude,

My undergrad work involved studies and classes in conflict resolution and building community in organizations. If I have a proposal, whom do I speak to about that? I have observed way to many edit wars in the short time that I have been on Wikipedia. If we have a high rate of bans on editors that could reflect badly on Wikipedia. Thanks John196920022001 04:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism Request

I have added the necessary citations. Please remove the citation tag. --Anishshah19 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

I hope that you can at least answer the following question

What is the term that the cited source ("A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion") use when it compares the number of adherents of Taoism with other religions. Does it use "dharmic religions"? If so, then I will drop my objection. Andries 23:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until now I did not make "demands" on taoic religion; I made requests and comments. I even wrote down some of my comments in a rather humble tone, by explicitly stating that I do not know much about the subject. Andries 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my tone was harsh. I will check the books this evening and provide the wording used. It does not used the exact phrase "Dharmic religion" but rather an equivilant. However, the use of equivilant phrases is acceptable, so long as the essential meaning is not changed. We are not required to provide exact quotes or use the exact language from sources. Vassyana 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree to a great extent, but staying very close to the source is in practice a requirement for editing controversial articles. Andries 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some of my comments are inane then you are free to ignore some of my comments that come out of ignorance of the subject; I know too little about the subject to start editing the entry, except for some peripheral statments in the entry. Andries 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for my rude comments. I struck them out. They were not assuming good faith and thought they were not, they came too close to personal attacks for my taste. Again, please accept my apologies. Vassyana 08:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agpologies accepted, but please do not again remove {{fact}} tags without providing sources. [8] Andries 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman Hasherr

You need to be informed that I am sick of Tilman's personal attacks. He just did it again. Since this issue has started, Tilman has accussed me of propaganda, lying by omission, and misleading representation (this specific incident was posted right on the Mediation Cabal, the archived version). In his latest attack Tilman makes several inccurate statements. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tilman_Hausherr to see for yourself in the section "Annoying Edits." Tilman's style is personal attacks. His own web site will verify this (http://home.snafu.de/tilman/index.html#cos http://home.snafu.de/tilman/prolinks/index.html#cos_dudes and http://cgi.amazing.com/scientology/tilman-paper.html). Something needs to be done. I am thinking of ending the mediation over it, and pursuing other avenues John196920022001 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your frustration. Please see my suggestions on the article talk page. I would hope that both of you would continue to give mediation a chance. I truly understand that we all can get very irritated and frustrated sometimes with other editors on Wikipedia, but escalating issues by trading barbs, refusing to continue mediation and other ways of ratcheting up the "heat" will not solve the issues for either you. On the contrary, they will cause more stress and grief. Please take my suggestions. Vassyana 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been very kind in this issue, but thinking I am going to end mediation. Smee just had to esculate the issue after your comment. I am not going to try to reach a solution with Tilman and Smee while Timan and Smee are also accusing me. I have talked to Smee several time about discussing content and not personalities. It's just not working. Thanks for everything John196920022001 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have been fair so far during this mediation, I am just wondering how much Tilman is allowed to get away with before something is done? He has been nothing but incivil to me and I cannot engage in arguing personalities any more. I just want to empahsize that the mediation is definately finished. What do I need to do to make it official that I no longer accept mediation? John196920022001 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taoic Religion

I would also add all the Taoic religions as categories to your article. The article does address them all, after all.Zeus1234 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not yours, but I certainly don't like it when other people add silly things to articles I have written, and so if I am in communication with someone else abotu their article, I prefer to make suggestions rather than doing.Zeus1234 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter Character Articles

Hi, I was taking part in this debate but haven't looked at it in quite a while, I went back today and it seems as though it has been closed. Here is the section I missed that you typed:

In addition to the "column A vs. column B" options, it's been suggested that common names be adopted, with the clarification that a character's "common name" is the one used to refer to them during character selection, including an announcer's voiceover if any. This means Street Fighter characters' names would be the so-called "common names", while other characters such as those from Samurai Showdown & Virtua Fighter, would retain their full names.

   * Compromise reached?

It seems as though a consensus has been reached. Full names should be used when they appear in-game, otherwise common names should be used. Is this correct? Vassyana 07:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man swept in to try and get the articles named the way he wants and didn't correct you. You said that "Full names should be used when they appear in-game, otherwise common names should be used. Is this correct?" - it is not entirely right - the argument was to use names if mentioned in the games, but only in easy to reach places - such as the character select screen, voice over or underneath the energy bar. Kung Fu Man, in an attempt to hurry up and end the debate, said that we were only arguing to use the names if they are mentioned anywhere in the games. This is not a good way of determining common names, for example - Dan Hibiki's full name is only visible if you select the character and happen to come across his specific win quote where he says his full name, and Morrigan Aensland's full name is only visible if you happen to complete the game and read her ending. With most of these articles, such as E. Honda, the name is far less common - Edmond Honda is mentioned once in his bio in one game, whereas E. Honda is written in every single place (and in about ten different games) bar that one, most people will not know the full name as it is only mentioned in outside sources or in one place in one game, it's enough for this extra information to appear in the page text and not in the title. That's where the character select screen, voice over or underneath the energy bar format came from - which is the method for finding common names me and 2 other users (including the mediator) agreed on.

Kung Fu Man was the only user that was adamently opposed to it which is why he tried to brush off your mistake in an attempt to hurry up and close the debate before I saw your question. I don't think it is right that this debate has ended unfairly simply because I had more important things to do than chack how the debate is progressing after the last few days. If it remains closed, his underhand tactic will have worked. After all this long serious discussion, it wil be a waste of time to end in this way, especially seeing as most of debate was leaning towards the common name proposal.

Thank you for reading. Hope you can help. Mr.bonus 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my opinion on the matter. Sorry if I'm late, I've been busy. I feel this is an important matter, however. Coolgamer 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Hold on Conatus

I believe I have address all of your objections now. Thanks again for the review! -- Rmrfstar 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Taoic religion

The article Taoic religion you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Taoic religion for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: informal mediation

While I feel that there is still some resentment over this, you are indeed correct, the discussion has died down on that page, so I don't think mediation is needed any more, not at this time anyway. Thank you for taking the time to contact me! Smomo 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren mediation

I don't think we need mediation any longer. The only problem we seem to have now is another editor (Dave Green) that, although I think he may have some legitimate insights on McLaren, is apparently on some personal vendetta against Virgil Vaduva. Apparently they have crossed swords over another issue previously. Virgil and I have patched things up almost miraculously. He is taking a short leave from the article (he actually said he trusted my judgment regarding it during this time) and I am concerned to keep Dave at bay. A new editor has shown up on the page whose activity causes me to suspect he is old Dave but that has been a few days. If Dave will keep away I don't plan to do much there until Virgil gets back. Anyway, Virgil and I are fine as long as Dave behaves himself!Will3935 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hi, as per my last personal comment to you I have decided to stop mediation. Tilman and Smee continue to impute bad faith actions. I refuse to engage them unless they are civily talking about content. If this were an actual job that they were editors at, they would be fired for this behvavior. I might have even been fired for some of my initial comments. I am a graduate level academic, and this is the way I am now going to think: like a professional editor. I will continue the mediation once Tilman and Smee stop imputimng bad faith motives to me on certain discussion pages. Until then I do not accept this mediation. You have been very helpful with this issue. If these incivility issues continue ( Not just with Tilman and Smee, but also with several other editors unrelated to my issue) I will be contacting the Wikipedia Foundation Trustees to tell them how there is a civility problem that is hurting Wikipedia's reputation. I refuse to engage in these rude edit wars any more. Anyway, once Tilman and Smee decide to stop imputimg wrong motives to me as a response to my posts about content, I may decide to accept mediation again. Thanks John196920022001 04:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wanted to apologize for putting my comment on the user page rather than the discussion page. I did not realize this till I went to reply to you comment, and found out I posted my last comment on your user page. Sorry about that, dude. That was not intentional.

As I did stated before about mediation, the incivility towards me by Tilman and Smee must stop. Then I will reconsider mediation. I don't think you know that Tilman knew me before I joined Wikipedia. I did not relaize Tilman was here either when I first joined. I feel like this issue with Tilman started before I joined Wikipedia. I am sick of the character assassination I am seeing (towards me and others) on this board. These edit wars I am seeing in some areas where certain incivility is allowed while other incivil editors are banned is ridiculous. Incivcility should not be allowed under any circumstances. These and other people are hurting Wikipedia's reputation. I refuse to be apart of the problem by engaging in these rude edit wars. Again I emphasize, the incivil comments towards me must stop. I don't deal with rude people from now on, and I don't engage in rude behavior with rude people from now on.

Here is what I specifically want done before I reconsider mediation: Just as I deleted all my posts that appeared incivil towards them as an act of good faith, I also want them to delete all incivil appearing posts towards me. If they do this in the spirit of good faith, I will reconsider mediation. I do thank you very much for your concern in this matter, I really do.John196920022001 06:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friend on this site suggested proposing formal mediation if this informal mediation is not going to work. I awaite your reply. Thanks John196920022001 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted the terms of the truce, but I would propose one more thing: Define the length of time the truce will last. I would like it to last indefinately. I don't really want to edit war with Tilman any more. Thanks for your help John196920022001 09:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LFA Mediation

I skimmed through some of the mediations you've helped with and I've gotta say, I don't know how you do it. Thanks for your patience, even as the Looking for Alaska mediation got increasingly unproductive. Although I had hoped we could all come to see eye to eye and that didn't happen, I'm still pleased with the mediation process. Once I've had some more experience it's something I'd like to perhaps help out with. --JayHenry 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edits to the controversy section on Looking for Alaska that I thought followed the initial compromise proposal. Also, does the template on the talk pages for John Green (writer), Looking for Alaska and Printz Award need to be changed? It says the articles are currently the subject of mediation. Is there a "was the subject of mediation" template that should be there instead? --JayHenry 15:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is progress being made?

Can you take a look at the Prem Rawat article and let me know if in your view progress is being made in response to your review? This is version your reviewed, and this is the current version. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Techniques of Knowledge, still waiting for an answer

Excerpts from threaded discussion.

2. "based upon reports they received from others."

ad. 2 Redundant, because this is true for everybody.

Andries 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2. This is not redundant, as it distinguishes what they learned from others as opposed to first hand knowledge. [..]Vassyana 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ad. 2. Do you have soure for that? Kranenborg does not write how he knows about the techniques of Knowledge.

2. I will double check this, but I believe when I looked into it, due to joining this discussion, that both Kranenborg and Melton clearly use sources outside of their personal experience.

2. I believe it too, but I learnt not to write down what I believe, but only what the sources state.

I am still waiting for a source from you. I would be very surprized if you were able to find one, because I know the sources quite well and I have not found such a source. Andries 10:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attribution

There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:

• "a broad community discussion on this issue", (now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), followed by
• "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results." (now being drafted at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll)

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for providing a 3O in the Tirghra case

Thanks for providing a 3O in the Tirghra case. Your opinion has not be accepted - rightfully, in my opinion - but i appreciate your well-documented opinion, to which i, too, ascribed previously. Itayb 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

map taoic religions

I see you simply reverted my edit about the map supposedly showing taoic religions. But your explanation simply does not hold. Where in that map's legend is bright yellow stated as a separate option? Please explain how you read that legend, as far as I can see, one coordinate shows absolute concentration of the religions covered, the other shows relative concentration of two options - one in its extreme yellow, the other in its extreme purple. Theres simply a lack of a coordinate to cover a third option such as taoic religions, hence theres no possilibity of it being represented on that particular map. Have you contacted the author of the map in question to confirm the claim? I will.--83.131.139.104 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Alaska

Thank you for mediating. I'm sorry we weren't all able to reach an agreement. Czolgolz 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgellons article

Hi. I'm not so sure that Mukrkrgsj (talk · contribs) is really helping - if you read the talk page, they are insisting that I stop editing the article because I know about delusional parasitosis. The evidence and statements from the scientific/medical community are universally treating Morgellons and delusional parasitosis as synonymous, and the article MUST reflect this. I haven't examined Mukrkrgsj's edits of this past weekend in detail yet, but they seem to be twisting things to the pro-Morgellons stance. If you read my edits, the article does not come out and SAY the medical community is right and the others are wrong - and there is nothing wrong with pointing out that the other side has little or no credibility, due to conflict of interest. As long as the other side's viewpoints are presented, the neutrality of the article is preserved; nonetheless, it's an asymmetrical controversy, like bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. There just needs to be someone other than myself who can explain things to editors like Mukrkrgsj who seem to feel that the goal is to give both sides EQUAL weight - which is simply not how it works. Thanks, Dyanega 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would politely but urgently request that you compare the introduction of the Morgellons article as of this past Friday or so, to the proposed introduction that Mukrkrgsj (talk · contribs) has given on the talk page and claims to wish to insert in the article if no one opposes it; he suggests removing ALL of the citations from medical professionals, and goes on to accuse the University of California of calling people mentally ill and recommending that they be given antipsychotic medication. This is an egregious example of twisting the truth, and malicious innuendo, and I cannot imagine that anyone involved in WP would approve of how this editor is attempting to manipulate the article. I cannot POSSIBLY be the only person who thinks this editor is acting in bad faith, and should not be allowed to continue in this vein. I do believe this will require mediation, and soon. Dyanega 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, if mediation proceeds in this formal a manner, you might want to consider if there needs to be a new mediation case page set up to accommodate - after all, this is no longer exclusively between myself and the same editor that prompted the request for mediation originally (which was now several weeks ago)! They have reappeared at a new IP address through the same dial-up service, at 80.135.102.52, as of today, though they have not yet re-edited the introduction (they added a video linking Morgellons to Chemtrail theory). I'm sure that Mukrkrgsj must be quite confused to read the case page, since it does not actually apply to them - at least not directly. In a practical sense, I'm just looking for someone who can offer a third-party perspective that might carry some weight with editors who object to having the article's introduction focused on a delineation of the controversy, summarized via citation of primary sources. The previous anonymous editor objected this way, and Mukrkrgsj also is approaching it this way, and I maintain that this is inappropriate. The controversy surrounding Morgellons is not fully resolved, and a journalistic approach to presenting the controversy (who is on which side, and what do they say) is preferrable to what Mukrkrgsj is offering. Thanks, Dyanega 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution, keeping you in the loop

It's been ages since I did really large scale mediation on en.wikipedia. *phew*.

So I've gotten Slimvirgin and SMcCandlish talking on skype now. I next need to talk with Rednblu and Coppertwig, as both Slimvirgin and SMcCandlish were worried about them for different reasons, and by taking that over I can remove that worry.

I also need to talk with Jimbo Wales, to find out why he wanted to do certain things in certain ways, and to hear how set he is on them happening in precisely this way or that.

Finally, I've managed to delay the poll by a little while.

Are you still around to help me out with this particular mediaton? :-) I could use help with searches on background information and such, among other things. There's also quite a large number of people involved. If someone could help me out with that too, that would be wonderful. :-)

--Kim Bruning 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation

Is informal mediation still required as requested here? Please let me know. Thanks! Vassyana 13:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vassyana, I am not sure why everybody uses handles on Wikipedia, it detracts from the credibility of their contributions. Since I feel my credibility is important I use my real name, which is Charles Radley. As for mediation, well I seem to be in a minority of one, and I find none of the arguments presented to me to be compelling. In fact they appear to be simply manifestations of political agendas. I also resent the excessive use of inflammatory language which I have been subjected to, and threats of having my account cancelled. At one point I was told that newcomers are treated with sympathy, but I have learned by experience that is not the case. Wikipedia is run by a lot of vicious people with zero tolerance for newcomers. If you feel you can change my mind, knock yourself out. Best regards, Charles 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply on my talk page. A couple of follow-ups: I shall attempt to contribute from time to time, but I still have serious reservation about the fanatical opposition to anything commercial.

• 1) I have been falsely accused of "advertising". When I pointed out that I was not advocating any products or services in which I have any personal financial interest, critics continued beating on me saying "it makes no difference". That is complete nonsense, and that took the debate to an irrational level. There is a clear definition of the word "advertising" in the dictionaries of Webster (USA) and Oxford English (UK), nothing I did constitutes advertising by any generally accepted definition. If Wikipedians decide they are going to distort the English language to suit their own prejudices, then that takes the debate into the realms of lunacy.
• 2) One editor compared advertising to "sewage". That again is ludicrous. Western society is based on private commerce, societies who attempt to eliminate private commerce always fail. Advertising is a fundamental and worthwhile aspect of public commerce, there is nothing unethical or negative about advertising, the fanatical opposition of Wikpedians to any form of commercial discussion represents extreme socialism, which I had thought would have died with the USSR. Apparently not.
• 3) Anyway, I do not have the time nor energy to debate this any further. Just do not expect me to start calling everybody "comrade".Charles 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion

while i don't understand the policy since he is arbitrary deleting comments instead of blanking or deleting the entire page... you are the 3rd opinion. thanks for educating me. MrMacMan 08:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it strange that what you posted about was on the user page guidelines and not the WP:TALK page guidelines... i mean i don't believe that he was changing the 'subpages' since he was deleting my comments on his usertalk page and it didn't seem like WP:RTP... anyway thanks for the opinion. Also should i assume that my comments were vandalism/(trolling?) because thats kinda how I'm reading it... I'm sorry about all this -- i'm still a relatively new user here, but i didn't think i could be mistaken for a troll. Anyway - keep up the good work and thanks for the 3rd opinion, I really appreciate your input, thank you and thanks for your great work! MrMacMan 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Thank you for your help. MrMacMan 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help is needed

Seems that editors there get into each other nerves from time to time... I have warned PatW for persistent PAs (see this comment), but probably will be not accepted in good faith. A cooling word from you may be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help I'm being driven mad!

Please help on the Prem Rawat page. I'm feeling very unfairly treated there by Jossi and Momento. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_RawatPatW 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review request

I am looking for a reviewer for the article Textual criticism. See Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates#Other_5 if you are interested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]