User talk:Vassyana/Archive002

I saw that you are a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Occult

I saw that you are a member of Wikiproject Occult; would you like to participate in my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah? I would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Lighthead 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

Please can you return to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat and help out again. I so badly want some neutral voices to comment on the discussions. NB. Your agreement/proposal has yet to be 'signed' because I and some others don't think you have read the arguments sufficiently to propose that we all forget the past and move on. To me that is burying a lot of valid discussion under the carpet - which suits some people just fine - but obviously not us. Come on Vassayana..be fair - read the discussions before you do this to us.PatW 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your info, no scholar or sane person has ever suggested Rawat claimed to be God. Rawat said on numerous occasions that "no human being can be God". Check Rawat's Wikiquotes from the 70s - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat . Rawat detractors misinterpret Indian analogies and ignore his clear denials. Thanks for all your help.Momento 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you make such a statement that can be proven untrue so easily when you know the sources and the subject so well? Read what scholars Kranenborg, Hummel, and Melton have written about Maharaji. Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2#Beliefs.2C_teachings.2C_and_meditation_techniques.2C_.22Knowledge.22.22. Andries 16:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your (not so recent) requests

Hi, Vassyana. I notice you haven't edited recently, but I see from your userpage that you're having computer problems, so I'm glad that you haven't left. I meant to say Happy Easter, but got caught up with things — I was out of the country for nearly a week around Easter time.

Regarding the food articles, I had a look, but they weren't actually about anything I know about. The project page is now on my watchlist, though, and I'll look in from time to time. I admire people like yourself who spend time reviewing and doing other similar work which is important for the encyclopaedia but is probably less immediately satisfying than editing.

Regarding the other page, yes, I think it's a good idea. You can tell from the page history that I've been there, as I fixed a small typo! I don't have much to say about it at the moment, but will definitely keep it in mind. I won't be editing much for the next few days, anyway. Hope you'll be back soon. ElinorD (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prem Rawat

Two issues on the table, Vassyana:

• Addressing the concerns of User:PatW and user:Sylviecyn, so that they sign their name on the ground rules;
• Assessing the Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal that has been edited by some of the involved editors, in response to your GA review.

Hope you have some time to address these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backmasking

Hello, Vassyana, and welcome back. I'd like to ask you to re-review Backmasking, as I've replaced many of the sources that you were concerned about. Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Christianity

Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For your intervention between me and Rev. Mike over in the Left Hand Path work group. I am too eager to argue sometimes. Praise The Flying Spaghetti Monster. WerewolfSatanist 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I was just voicing my opinion. And, the Great and Glorious Invisible Pink Unicorn will soon descend to cleanse the earth of your foul Pastafarian heresy. Her Colourful Unseen Majesty be praised!! :-D Vassyana 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, thanks for your good attempts over at the Prem Rawat page. Regarding the FSM, it has been revealed to me that a communication will soon be received from the Great Noodley Appendaged One Himself, concerning the composition of the meatball at the heart of His divinity. Clearly I must not preempt any of his His Divinely Pasta-ral Revelations but I can give you a hint...it is PINK. Rumiton 11:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Addhoc recommended you be the MEDCOM at Sprite (lightning) things are really out of hand on the talk page. The MEDCOM +tag is posted at the top of the articles talk page. Thanks EnviroGranny 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church vs church

Thanks for backing me up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) on the Church vs. church issue. I had assumed it was an issue that was already resolved and fairly non-controversial, and I wasn't really prepared for the backlash by one member when I made made changes that were in harmony with the stated guideline. I appreciate you and others coming to my support. -SESmith 00:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with religious page mediation

Hey Vassyana, could you take a peek at the Talk page of the FoF? The current mediator(Coren) has been absent for several days and I think he is having problems mediating a religious page. I though on you, since you have quite a bit of experience in that area. Any help is welcome. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 02:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vassyana, after reading Mario's request, I read about you, looked at your contributions, your reivew and such. If you are willing to devote even a little time evaluating the draft article and offer some suggestions on where we should go from here, that would be terrific. You also seem to have a good background in helping other editors work together to make WP a better encyclopedia. Your interest in religion will probably give a different perspective than Coren's. Even if he wishes to continue mediating, would it be appropriate for you to offer suggestions. thank you so much for your consideration.--Moon Rising 07:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Creator deity Fermanagh and Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency) U Peter Gandy East Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency) Poultry The Tao of Physics Bentley Layton Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Scottish Parliament constituency) Evangelism Khirbet Beit Lei The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex Gymnasium (school) Duke of Zhou Michael Mates Mid Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency) Ben Wallace (UK politician) Brent Bozell North Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency)

Cleanup Revelation 2nd millennium Chronology of Jesus Merge Olduvai theory Seattle Police Department Scottish representatives to the 1st Parliament of Great Britain Add Sources Aspects of Pluto Baptism for the dead Neale Donald Walsch Wikify Young Marble Giants Hate crime Battle of Mount Longdon Expand Atonement Power vacuum Little Lever

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 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the kind compliment over at AfD. I am glad to have left you with such a positive impression. How has the wiki been treating you lately? Vassyana 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Things have been well. I've found a collection of fun articles to work on to help balance the stress inherent at many of the discussion areas. It's all about finding that balance. After your nom I've added several of the 2008, 2009, ..., 20x6 articles to my watchlist. You definitely stumbled upon a problematic batch of articles. Articles like this almost need a "WikiProject: The Future" to help watch over them, centralize discussion about what is and is not appropriate, and keep them standardized and free of crystalballery. --JayHenry 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to books about Prem Rawat

Hi Vassayana. Since I've been encouraging you to check out the Downton and Collier books about Prem Rawat (that are used so much in the article as secondary sources) here is a link where you can read quite a lot of them if you so wish. http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/
Jossi deleted my link to this on the Prem Rawat Talk page for the reason that it was Copy Vio. I disagree with that opinion since a) it is fair use and b) there are only significant extracts reproduced there and not the entire book. Anyway, it would probably give you a good impression of those scholars take on Prem Rawat. (BTW this site is nothing to do with me) PatW 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you lend a hand?

Seems that there are objections to the new version that Momento, Rumiton and others worked on, and some editors have started editwarring, which is not a good thing. Editors (from both sides of the dispute) are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place... Could you make some suggestions on how to move forward there? Thanks in advance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

FYI cults in culture

Greetings. I see you're in religion and willing to advice new mediators. I'm involved with this case on cults in cultural works. I'll try to assist the assigned mediator (Mr.Z-man), who is busy. So far, after clearing my involvement with z-man, I checked in w/both parties via their talk pages and the case page. I then asked some initial q's to the one party who responded so far, jossi. If you happen to have a chance, I'd be glad if you looked over my shoulder and makde suggestions. Meanwhile, quick question. In this situation, would you advise that I communicate with them via their talk pages, or would it be better to do it all on the article talk page, or even the case page? Thanks. HG 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends

Heya.

It's likely I'm not going to have much time to devote to the FoF brouhaha until the weekend. You're most certainly welcome to give a hand.  :-) Coren 02:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vassyana- looks like your help is needed after all. Would you have time to add some neutral perspective to this article? It's become quite active. Thank you.--Moon Rising 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vassyana: I wrote this short comment on the FOF page, and Moonrising suggested me to put it in your page. So I do it, hoping thast you can clarify about this point:
More about the sensationalist writer, Captain Robert L. Snow can be seen at page 123 of his book, when he states that a "large number" of members leaving caused a "serious cash-flow problem." Then he states that "the trouble began for the Fellowship of Friends in 1995..." Here there is a visible contradiction: he quotes no active members of the organization giving their oppinion on the matters he denounces, but he is able to talk about their cash-flow problems? And did these problems start in 1995, or he is talking about something else now, without givin the reader a clue of how does he knows this? As I tried to convey in my contributions before, I do not think we can consider books of this sort as valid sources. Regards, Baby Dove 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends"

Thanks for the clarity of your explanation on "Reliable sources vs official sources" in The Fourth Way talk page. I hope it's ok to paste from one page to another, because that's what I did. Those comments seemed equally needed in the Fellowship of Friends talk. You clarified seemingly endless debate on the subject. Some of what you said may not support my personal bias, but it does support my desire to get on to more meaningful discussion and edits.--Moon Rising 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vassyana. First of all, I would like to thank you for helping with the mediation of the FoF page. I know how hard it is to understand all the subtleties of a religious page and to reconcile the differences amongst polarized editors. I called you because we needed a mediator with experience on religious issues and you are proving that you have it. Your help on the Fourth Way page is very useful also.
I am letting you this note because we need your opinion on 2 areas on the FoF page. Please check the Talk page, sections Effects on the community and Designation as a Fourth Way school and Predictions, and Responses. Thanks again. Mario Fantoni 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

You are or were involved in this dispute too. So please agree with formal mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat. You can also disagree, but I personally see no compromise in sight. Thanks. Andries 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw and see no merit in making exhaustive constructive criticisms on an inaccurate re-write. Why make exhaustive constructive criticisms when all I have to do is to revert to an old version to solves all the inaccuracies? Andries 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write that I should not make threats to revert without discussion, but instead should voice specific concerns. But I have already raised specfic concerns ad nauseam. I do not think that I should repeat the same specific concern for each revert. I see no added value in that only extra unnecessary work. Andries 19:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we are at a point that a user RfC for Andries will more applicable. Mediation, given the flippant attitude by Andries, will not be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not expect me to do all the work that you should do. First fix my specific concerns. Andries 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not prepared to give an exhaustive list of all the points that I think are wrong with the re-write for three reasons

1. It is a lot of work because many points are wrong in the re-write

2. It is unnecessary work because the old version does not have these flaws.

3. It futile work because I have in the past given specific examples of flaws and nothing is done with it.

You may call my attitude flippant, but I call this practical. Andries 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this from talk:Prem Rawat because I changed my reply to you after you had already responded to my reply

Here is the old version [1]. Please compare that with the new version [2] and check the differences and you will see that the old version is in nearly all cases superior in providing context, accuracy of citations and attribution of opinions. E.g in presenting the writings by

a. Kranenborg about surrender is missing,

b Haan about the battle against the mind is missing

c. Melton about Rawat's claim to be an embodiment of God is distorted,

d. Hummel about Rawat presenting himself as the incarnation of the eternal guru Maharaj Ji is missing

e. Derks, Lans about the mind is missing

Why should I even bother to have a further look or give more comments when the re-write is so much worse than the old version? I created an alternative version that tries to combine the good aspects of Momento's re-write and the old version. See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2. Where do you think that the Momento's re-write is better than my re-write. What is missing in my re-write that is present in Momento's re-write? Where do you think that the old version is better than my re-write. Please leave your comments here Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2/talk.

Thanks in advance. Andries 14:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoF

This is might get ugly...we need some outside comments. Thanks Aeuio 22:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Occult

The categories were quite a mess, and I've cleaned them up and put them into a more or less standard format, which was a pretty big change. If there's anything I've done you don't like just go ahead and change it. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord High Steward of Ireland

Vassyana, Following your "stubcensor cleanup project" insertion, I have tidied up the one part of this article that remained in doubt, adding some more detail and reference, and removing the residual doubts. Please re-visit the article and consider removing your stubcensor insertion. Thank you. Seneschally 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea pig

Absolutely. Just been distracted and a bit time consumed this week. --Durin 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I quite understand. Just let me know when you're looking to make a go of it. Vassyana 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoF page needs you

We need your opinion here on the FoF Talk page. Thank you for your help. Mario Fantoni 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1. You are wrong that Sathya Sai Baba is related to Shirdi Sai Baba. The only relationship is Sathya Sai Baba's claim of being an incarnation which is not accepted by followers of Shirdi Sai Baba. Following the same way of reasoning, I could argue that Jesus (and Vishnu, and Shiva or all Hindu deities) is related to Sathya Sai Baba because Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an incarnation of Jesus and all those Hindu deities. (Sathya Sai Baba does not claim to be an incarnation of Einstein)
2. I did not endorse edit wars at talk:Prem Rawat. You greatly misinterpret my point of view
3. Basic and minimum courtesy demands that you should have informed me about your complaint about me.

Andries 19:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. One of Shirdi Sai Baba's main disciples claimed Sathya Sai Baba was foretold by Shirdi Sai Baba, and accepted Sathya's claims of reincarnation. That is hardly as tenuous a link as you would try to claim. This is an instance more related to the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh than to the flippant comparisons you made.
2. Your comments speak for themselves. Edit wars are never acceptable. Arguing that they are not only acceptable but preferable in some circumstance is certainly an endorsement, even if a limited one.
3. I apologize. I honestly thought I had left you a notice. Occasionally, I will click send on a message immediately before leaving. More rarely, such messages will not actually post due to my wireless connection resetting.

Vassyana 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1. I do not believe this. That is mere propaganda by the Sathya Sai Baba movement. No substantial relationship is accepted by the followers of Shirdi Sai Baba. Andries 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC

This false propaganda was added by user:Kkrystian who has a history of making unsourced edits Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:KkrystianAndries 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it taught that Sathya was the successor of Shirdi by the SSB movement? Did Shirdi's disciple (not generations distant follower) endorse Sathya's claim? Vassyana 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a succesor in this context? Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. This claim is as far as I know not accepted by the direct disciples of Shirdi Sai Baba. Of course followers of Sathya Sai Baba may think otherwise, but I believe this is false propaganda. Andries 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit difficult to believe that as a former follower of Sathya Sai Baba that you do not know the central place of Shirdi Sai Baba in the movement, that Sharada Devi spoke repeatedly of her time with both Shirdi and Sathya, that Sharada Devi was a direct disciple of Shirdi or that other direct disciples recognized Sathya's claim. Sharada Devi was a direct disciple of Shirdi. She is also hardly the only follower of Shirdi to recognize Sathya, a fact greatly explored and reported on by the Sathya Sai Baba movement. Vassyana 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I know that Shirdi Sai Baba is important in the Sathya Sai Baba movement, but so is Jesus and Vishnu etc. I do not remember the name of Sharada Devi. I think this story is false propaganda from the Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But even if Shirdi Sai Baba is of central importance in the Sathya Sai Baba movement then this is not enough to establish a relationship. Suppose I was banned from editing a certain article reg. a Church community in which Jesus is of central importance then I think I can still edit the article Jesus. Andries 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The organizations of the two gurus have always been separate, so in that way Sathya Sai Baba is not a successor of Shirdi Sai Baba. Andries 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/Mumbai%20Mirror.htm Andries 09:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Nik Wright2

Hi, I have removed the speedy deletion tag from this user's talk page. Just to make things clear, I don't think that summarily deleting this will resolve the situation and is likely to cause more problems that in sorts. I would recommend you take this to a higher level of authority. Mallanox 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct might be a good place to start. Dispute resolution is a step by step process so this may not be a way to end it but it will attract attention of people who can do something about it. Mallanox 10:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think trying to remove contents from user talk page will only make things worse. Nothing is gained except that you will make Nick Wright2 very angry. In addition, Nick Wright2 is right that he writes there is related to Wikipedia, so it is not clear violation. Andries 11:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least, names of people that he mentions need to be removed as these violate WP:USER. I will do that myself unless someone else does it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please only remove statements that violate WP:USER. The majority of the statements on his talk page do not violate WP:USER, so please do not remove them. Andries 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I did not revert three times. In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article. I made an edit to a long standing section based on "exceptional claims" and "BLP" which Andries immediately reverted to a previous version. Andries made another edit which I allowed and after discussion in the talk page I again removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP". Andries reverted a second time and added some more material which I again allowed stand. I then checked and translated the original source material and found evidence that Andries had deleted crucial material from the quote and after discussing in tallk, I removed only the material that I believe contravenes "exceptional claims" and "BLP", Andries reverted for a third time. But thanks for your intervention anyway.Momento 02:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysteries of the Universe

I'm not sure if that even classifies as Wikiholism anymore, I'd just say you're a true devotee of the Church of Wikipedia, or the Ultimate Journalist! Is there a barnstar for either of those? Whiskey in the Jar 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoF

Could you see the fof page. Baby Dove has ignored the talk page and is consistently combining all of the criticism sections under a title called "Opinions", and he is saying that that is according to what you suggested...? Please clarify on this Aeuio 00:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the time, thought and energy you're putting into this article. The draft you recently created shows true committment. You are an impartial, knowledgeable and dedicated mediator. Hopefully other editors will agree and we can work to create an excellent article, true to the subject and in accordance with all WP style guidelines. Thanks again. --Moon Rising 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About that edit I made to Dharma

Or whatever it was. I hardly remember making it, as I was fairly intoxicated. So...no harm done? CyberRaptor 04:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adminship

Your RfA

As per your response to my neutral stance here, I have switched to support. Your eloquent and honest answer is a model of what an admin should be, and I wish you well in your RfA. Pedro |  Chat  12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was just about to leave you a message about running the test beginning on Tuesday, since this is a holiday weekend in the United States. :/ --Durin 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a holiday weekend in the UK!Pedro |  Chat  14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry WikiProject

There was a WikiProject (WikiProject Geometry) proposal which you deleted. You left no reason as to why you deleted it. Can you please give me the reason you decided to delete it?--eskimospy (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I posted a message on the WikiProject proposal talk page. I removed the geometry proposal here.[3]. Reviewing the removal, it was an obvious mistake since you were recently active in the proposal. I have restored it here.[4] I apologize for the error and any inconvenience. Vassyana 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The protection expired at 20:57, May 25, 2007. Marskell 07:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite as far as I know—the notice is irrelevant and only the actual protection matters. The notice is frequently not placed during protection (on, for example, BLPs...).

As far as consensus goes, there are certain editors who will, literally, never support a strengthening of that policy (such as Jeff, who like generally but disagree with strongly here). But in terms of general wiki trends, the stance of Jimbo and the Foundation, and the preponderance of admins and long-term editors, I'd suggest there is in fact consensus for something like this. Marskell 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Likewise, Vassyana, there is nothing personal here at all. It reflects my direct understanding of real people's experience of Wikipedia as a platform for libelous attack which continues until consensus is reached to stop it, and the fact that this often comes far too late. In the end, the community usually arrives at the right decision, but during this time significant damage can be done; a civilized and lengthy debate for us can last months, can be a nightmare for those under attack, and potentially a foundation-level problem for the project. I am saying that 1) we should refrain from publication while it's being debated, and restore only with consensus, as opposed to 2) going ahead with publishing the material while it's still being debated, and delete only with consensus.
It's not so much about whether process and consensus-building is valuable or not - of course it is - but that the default scenarios while process is underway give conscientious admins very good reasons to cut these processes short. Were it otherwise, there should be no legitimate reason not to let the debate continue for as long as necessary to arrive at consensus. I'm not sure, but I wonder if we might find agreement on that.Proabivouac 10:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

You wrote

"The article is a complete mess of pro and con back-and-forth."

I see no problem in using a multitude of, sometimes divergent, sources in the article Prem Rawat.

Or are you referring to back-and-forth edit warring? I would agree with that.

Andries 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both. One is caused by the other. It is a problem because the presentation is not neutral. It is the obvious result of POV edit warring. Vassyana 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not see a problem with differing or divergent sources. That is what I would call WP:NPOV. It may not always yield smooth reading but I think that smooth reading is less important than retaining accuracy and Wikipedia policies Andries 15:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC) amended 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with a variety of sources. Presentation is non-neutral and the obvious result of POV conflicts. Vassyana 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for the prompt reply. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.2 on a Win XP 5.1.2600. I not sure why, in the sea cucumber article, the "edit" link for section on "Sea cucumbers as food and medicine" isn't appearing as it should, such as in the Sea Urchin article. The "edit" link is rendered somewhere under Indonesia, which i believe should be the case, as the "edit" link should be along the same line as the header. The wrapping in the sea urchin article appear correctly rendered, but something just seems to be wrong in the sea cucumber article.
Best Regards,
Zuff 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hi, Thanks again for the prompt reply. It's displaying correctly now, however, i think one image of a man holding a sea cucumber is missing. Did i do something wrong?

Best Regards,

1. Ok. Thanks for the help and explanation.

Best Regards
Zuff 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Zuff 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wise people

You might want to talk with David Gerard and/or Doc Glasgow at earliest opportunity, and try to understand what they are saying on your RFA. Both are also available on IRC, (real time communications are handy when learning) --Kim Bruning 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Tao Yin Peter Gandy East Cushitic languages Omnibenevolence Brent Bozell Cazzago Brabbia Bentley Layton North Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency) Common Latter-day Saint perceptions Creator deity Gymnasium (school) East Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency) Mid Tyrone (UK Parliament constituency) Cahuenga Pass Wing Duke of Zhou Khirbet Beit Lei International Churches of Christ Religion in India

Cleanup Reydon Revelation Chronology of Jesus Merge Exegesis Olduvai theory Scottish representatives to the 1st Parliament of Great Britain Add Sources Wu wei Names of God Judith Church Wikify Young Marble Giants Battle of Mount Longdon Pauline McNeill Expand Chinese philosophy Moral realism Little Lever

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. -- ForteTuba 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Vassyana, could you revert my last edit of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21 Landmark Education; my browser has shredded some comments by the parties involved and isn't letting me revert. Thanks. I'd vote again in your RfC if I could. Addhoc 21:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vassyana 21:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old WikiProject proposals

Do they only have a limited time period before they are deleted? Simply south 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I was cleaning up the list. Please check the proposal talk page. Old proposals that had not yet gained enough support for a launch and had little activity were removed in the interests of cleanup and manageable list size. That you're the first person to raise the issue (besides an error I made), demonstrates how little attention has been paid to most of the proposals I deprecated from the list. If I removed one of your proposals, or one you expressed interest in, I will restore it if you wish. There's no set time period for listing, so I'd have no objection. Again, I was just cleaning up old and neglected proposals. Be well! Vassyana 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think i might just launch it anyway and hope it gets enough people. I can think of a couple who might be interested. Simply south 16:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Do you want me to relist the proposal? If so, which one was it? Best of luck with your endeavour! Vassyana 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, its Hertfordshire. Thanks.

Separately, do you know how to get members of another project to get more involved with that same other project? Simply south 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to hit the talk pages of WikiProject London and WikiProject UK geography for advice and possible interested editors. You may also find the UK geo project's advice about settlements helpful. I have restored the proposal.[5] If there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Vassyana 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will prob try UK proj and others.

Do you know how to get people more involved in the setting up of the project in which they are already members of? (This time, i'm not talking about Herts). Simply south 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To-do lists are always good. It may also prove helpful to ask specific editors for help with specific tasks you think they might be suited for. Vassyana 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOF - Original Research?

Hi Vassyana - when you have a moment, would you look at the talk page discussion on "Other beliefs"? There is a suggestion to add material to round out the article from personal knowledge, since there are no documented sources. Is this ok to do? Thanks for your help, and good luck on you RfA. --Moon Rising 00:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who requested original research has rescinded his request. You can ignore this. Thanks anyway. --Moon Rising 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Vassyana, please note that I have removed my opposition to your admin. While I still believe you need more experience before becoming an admin, I feel the continual defense of my opinion is distracting from your RfA. I hope you will understand that I think you're a really good editor who merely needs a bit more experience, especially with editing actual articles. I have nothing against you and, as I have repeatedly said, would have supported you in the near future.--Alabamaboy 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. The problems with RfAs today is that one is unlikely to know a lot about the different candidates. I made a good faith effort to analyze your ability to be an admin and came away feeling you needed more experience. This may be a mistake--Lord knows I've made enough mistakes on Wikipedia. But all RfA discussions are based on personal opinions, nothing more. Being attacked over an opinion in an RfA is not appropriate and not something I intend to waste any more time with. I wish you the best in your future admin duties b/c it appears you'll be approved.--Alabamaboy 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarot and Project Occult

The article Tarot has been split for NPOV and clean up purposes. The article Tarot handles the history of tarot cards and I don't think this article is directly related to the occult anymore. The article Tarot reading has been created to deal with the esoteric applications. I think Tarot reading rather than Tarot should fall under the Project Occult umbrella.Smiloid 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOF - comment please

Dear Vassyana, we have come a long way since you're first involvement: the article is much more brief, the criticism is integrated per your example, and most editors are being respectful towards one another. Thanks for your help getting us to this point. We still have some areas of dispute, but I doubt they are out of the ordinary. Would you be able to look at the article and comment on it in terms of what we would need to do to upgrade the quality from a "start" to a "B"? Thanks again. --Moon Rising 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I spoke too soon. There is a bit of an edit war brewing (I don't pretend to be innocent here). Would it be better for your review if we all agreed to stop editing for a 'short' period of time? And thanks for encouraging me set my goals higher - to aim for GA status, not a "B". --Moon Rising 00:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Could you comment on the mentioning of Alex Horn (read from Eric's comment on the bottom). The FoF website states that he was a student of Pentland, while many others that write about Gurdjieff state that he wasn't. How should this be written? Aeuio 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I asked this on the talk page:

Question to Vass - is it okay to reference the 2nd suitcase concerning the fof with the images that Rick Ross uploaded.[[6]][[7]][[8]]. I know that his opinions can't be referenced, but this picture is a court file and I don't see a problem as it is a picture and it doesn't reflect RR. Aeuio 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vassyana, Over the past few days, the article has seen a lot of editing. This comment was posted today by a new visitor to the page: "The Fellowship of Friends is a small weird religious group and this page has zero interest for the general public. It is a miracle that the article hasn't been deleted already (it may be soon, since it is on the AfD list). There are thousands of religious groups the size of the Fellowship that don't have a page on Wikipedia. Why does the Fellowship have a page then? Because it is an arena for bitter ex-members, devoted members, and occasional hard-line orthodox Gurdjieffians to try to destroy each other. Administrators, if you are reading this, please do the Wikipedia community a favor: delete this page and end this non-sense."

What do you think about what's been happening? --Moon Rising 08:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)p.s.: the talk page has been even more active.--Moon Rising 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your successful nomination. I am sure you know all about this, but it is a good reminder: Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators. If you need any help with the new tools, let me know. Be well! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Vassyana. Your cool-headed and thoughtful responses provide a textbook example on how an RfA candidate can succeed in the face of a very serious vein of criticism. In all other respects you seem to me as fine a candidate as we can hope for. If you move forward with the reflection that the BLP debate was the only reason why support wasn't virtually unanimous, I feel that I have accomplished something with my oppose.

Congratulations again; you've earned it.Proabivouac 21:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on becoming an administrator, best of luck for the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done :-) I will indeed get back to you about living bios. Probably pointing you at what I'll be writing for the current arbitration on the matter - a history of WP:BLP and why IMO it hasn't changed in meaning or intent in the eighteen months since its inception; that is, why the recently controversial actions under it are entirely within process. Of course, the arbitration case may determine that I'm wrong ... - David Gerard 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And congratulations from me too. For the record, my own position on BLP is similar to the the positions held by many of the people who opposed you; but from what I've seen of you on article and user talk pages, I felt absolutely confident that you would never jump in and undelete a rather iffy article that had been deleted by an admin citing that policy, so it never occurred to me for a second to change my vote. I hope you won't think it very pompous and patronising to say this to an administrator ;-) but I think it's quite likely that you'll find your views changing a little bit on that issue in time. Anyway, I'm very glad that the people whose views I share on BLP didn't manage to make your RfA fail. I'm confident that they're going to find their fears were misplaced. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, patronising!? I'm no different today than I was yesterday. Besides, you've probably a better grasp of the nuances than I do! So, when are you going to let me nominate you for adminship? :)

Regardless, I wouldn't just jump in and undelete something. I'm pretty sure the closing admin would have at least a talk page available to ask them why they did it. If I disagree strongly, I can always raise the issue for discussion in the appropriate forum, instead of reverting another sysop. My opinions regarding consensus expressed in my comments about BLP slice both ways. And, what can be undeleted today can still be undeleted next week, if it should be. I don't plan on going rogue yet. :D Vassyana 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere condolences at your becoming an admin. Now you are stuck with one of the most horrific jobs known to mankind, and for a year, no less. ^^;;

Try and be nice to the OTRS folks! :-) --Kim Bruning 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the congratulations and well-wishes. :) Vassyana 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and I strongly second what Kim said (although I have no doubt you will be a sensible administrator). If you're on IRC now, or have a chance to get on shortly, I'd love to talk with you about helping out at RfM, if you're still interested. Again, congrats! Daniel 09:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too. Good luck. —Anas ^talk? 14:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Vassyana, you will make an excellent Admin. And, please, stay close to the Fellowship of Friends page - we need you there. Mario Fantoni 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wikipedia:Spam

I've restored your presumably mistaken deletion of WP:SPAM. Let me know if it was intentional; otherwise, don't worry about the "new admin" mistake. :) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I tried to restore it myself. :P It was an error in script usage. Sorry! *hides head in shame* :) Vassyana 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative religion

You might find this interesting. --Ideogram 09:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you so

I told you what would happen on the fof page. Mario is slowly delting everything from me, Wine ark, Nix.. saying "clean up" or "irrelevant" I commented on Mario's deletion of every negative fact on the fof under the subtitle "this isn't working out", and Mario has replied "You (Aeuio) are not working out"[9] and went and again deleted the info - which happens to be negative - which he feels "is irrelevant". Can you take a look at this please. Aeuio 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a yes or no (and a reason) for whether or not it is relevant that this Robert Burton, stating that he was receiving guidance from higher beings, is said to have predicted a world-wide depression, an earthquake which would destroy California, and a nuclear war. be changed to this Robert Burton, stating that he was receiving guidance from higher beings, is said to have predicted a world-wide depression for 1984, an earthquake which would destroy California for 1998, and a nuclear war for 2006; in which cases his school would survive. I personally think that the second is more precise (and it is part of the sources given). Others say that it is "irrelevant to the reader". Aeuio 01:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Congrats on becoming and admin. Hope you enjoy your new role. Simply south 21:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True or not?

Vassyana, do you think that the following statement that I removed is true?

Dear contributor: The paragraphs in the introduction of this article reached their form through heated debate and careful wording via the contributions of many editors over an extended period of time. Please do not update its text without first placing your proposal for a change in Talk:Prem Rawat to allow discussion for at least 24 hours.

If not, how is removing this statement disrutive? If yes, where is the "heated debate and careful wording via the contributions of many editors over an extended period of time"? You cannot find it for this version. Andries 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007 Wikiproject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Volume I, no. 1 - June 2007
Project News Four articles are at FA level and sixteen are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic. There is a lot of work for this Wikiproject. Go to tasks to find out how to help. Please help with the Destubbification Drive. John Carter created the template {{Christian list}}. There are currently five article being peer reviewed by the peer review team. Please stop by and see if there is any way that you could contribute to those articles. It has been proposed by John Carter that the various other projects which relate to Christianity ought to all at least tag those articles which fall within their scope. That way, this project would have a better idea which articles do not fall within the specific scope of any of the other related projects. Articles can be "tagged" by placing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} in the articles talk page.	Current proposals and discussions We're sorry if you did not want to receive this newsletter, but this is sent to all Wikiproject Christianity Members as it is the first newsletter. If you would like to recieve this in the future, or if you wouldn't, you must add your user name accordingly here. If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – July 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Contributors to this Issue Nswinton\^talk Wikihermit • Talk HermesBot
Christianity Articles by Quality Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Christianity articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 10 9 38 127 4 1 189 FL 1 14 20 35 FM 211 1 212 A 1 1 2 GA 21 16 191 451 36 3 718 B 224 263 806 2,252 398 236 4,179 C 348 807 2,312 6,830 1 2,505 648 13,451 Start 221 222 1,306 18,725 2 10,487 1,036 31,999 Stub 10 256 14,645 8,264 489 23,664 List 13 39 702 1,011 2 80 30 1,877 Category 22,645 1,369 24,014 Disambig 328 18 346 File 881 34 915 Portal 374 1 375 Project 171 19 190 Redirect 6 41 108 692 1,777 601 2 3,227 Template 2,281 120 2,401 NA 12 3 15 Other 2 110 112 Assessed 844 1,408 5,733 44,756 28,795 23,940 2,445 107,921 Unassessed 1 1 4 17 23 Total 844 1,408 5,734 44,757 28,795 23,944 2,462 107,944 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 369,840 Ω = 4.98
We couldn't do it without you!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

June 2007 Automatically delivered by HermesBot

Congrats

Congrats on becomeing an admin. I know you will do good for Wikipedia!

Politics rule 11:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Personal Attacks?

I have already presented a great deal of evidence that Vision Thing is a meatpuppet of RJII. It took a lot of time and effort to put together that evidence, and it was completely ignored. I am not the first or only person to suspect Vision Thing of being a sockpuppet, in fact there are five distinct cases of different editors stating such a suspicion User:Aarons, myself, User:MastCell, User:Crotalus_horridus and user:Nikodemos and user:infinityo often for different reasons. The RJII account stated the following, "most of our edits were not done through the RJII account but through multiple "sockpuppets" (from a seperate IP(s) for increased security against detection)... In the meantime, the "sockpuppets," who evinced a somewhat amiable personality did not engage in personal attacks and other such disagreeable behavior that may have risked blocks by adminstrators, went about editing the encyclopedia." [10]

So we have an individual whose edits fit those of two previously banned sockpuppets perfectly, and whose previous sockpuppets explicitly admitted to using other accounts which less blatantly violated wiki policy, and who has been recognized as a sockpuppet by multiple users over a period of more than a year. Yet nothing is done because after being banned many times he learned the trick of using a proxy and the admins are too busy to take the time and sift through the evidence to confirm the fact that over and over again VT inserts the exact same edits into articles that his sockpuppets once did.

You said if I had any questions to feel free to ask. So my questions follow: Why am I expected to treat VT like a normal user when he clearly isn't? Why should I be extra careful not to step on his toes when his behavior has driven many wikipedians off the project while he gloats about it (We were successful in driving several individuals off of Wikipedia, or away from particular articles, who through their hands up in disgust probably literally) [11]? Why should I pretend he is not a sockpuppet when all the evidence points against such an assumption, when everyone knows that RJII/Anarcho-capitalism creates new sockpuppets regularly [12]. Regardless of his ability to mask his IP address there is unambiguous and overwhelming evidence that VT is at the very least a meatpuppet, but nothing has been done about it despite numerous requests by numerous people, and I'm supposed to pretend that VT is just any other editor? Wiki policy explicitly says to treat meatpuppets the same as sockpuppets. Given this, why can't I simply ignore VT and continue to improve wikipedia without relying on overworked and unresponsive admins who appear powerless to solve the problem? Etcetc 10:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a sockpuppet violate wikipedia articles without remediation is also distinctly unhelpful to the editing climate. Its appears to me that you are a strong believer that following policy will resolve all issues regardless of the particular circumstances. I respect that belief, but I don't have the faith in policy written by human beings or enforced by human admins that you appear to have. This faith is especially hard to have since I and others have already taken steps to resolve this issue using the methods you have suggested with no result. Out of respect for wikipedia and your comments I will refrain from any further posting that you might regard as "uncivil". However, because I believe this is a serious issue that should be taken seriously by the wiki community I have no intention of removing the comments I have already made on the anarcho-capitalism talk page. As the page already indicates, the overwhelming presence of sockpuppets has already created a highly unhelpful editing climate, if my comments alert wiki editors to the continued abuse of wiki policy that is ongoing around the anarchism articles then I firmly believe they will do more good than harm. Etcetc 11:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I embedded, in my first message to you, in addition to the message I posted to the anarcho-capitalism talk page, all the instances (that I know of) in which I or others have sought remediation via admins. I'm surprised you did not take the time to glance over any of this before replying to my comments and taking action.

I suppose your strong "encouragement" was more of a polite way to tell me that the comments were going to be removed one way or another. The carrot before the stick? Perhaps, if I had been more reasonable concerning your request-turned-demand you wouldn't have had to engage in such distasteful behavior as to censor remove repair the comments yourself? Its good to know that admins like yourself can be trusted to follow wiki policy to the letter when it involes dragging and cutting with a mouse, rather than wasting time on the cases that require reading and thinking with a brain. I'm sure these sorts of important actions will do a great deal to improve wiki problem articles any day now, even if it appears, to short-sighted folks like myself, that you've merely maintained the status quo while the trolls continue their free ride. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would skip the flowery advisements, they don't provide much of a cover for the brass knuckles you wear, and I'm not going to apply your standards of civility for you. Etcetc 11:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if the steps I and others have taken don't add up to enough in your determination of what constitutes a worthy effort. I suppose we will just have to try harder to merit the time of admins who can solve the problems we are not allowed able to solve ourselves. Given that you've already provided plenty of advice and taken the action you intended on taking, I would appreciate it if we could cease contact until such a time as you've determined there are other actions on my part that absolutely require your remedy. Until then, good luck with your faith and the application of the power you've been invested with. Etcetc 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]