User talk:Vassyana

Word of the day
Treeware. noun. /'triwɛər/.
An antediluvian method of publishing information on a portable medium created from processed arboreal macerate, often with decorative covers glossed by petrochemical solids.

"Reginald went to the athenaeum to peruse treeware with the assistance of an informatics professional."

Thought of the day: I am seriously and vastly disturbed by the proposals for increased bureaucracy and centralized committees flying about Wikipedia recently. I strongly oppose any such change, and will depart the community if it takes this well-meaning but vastly wrong-headed turn (as it is directly contradictory to the community I joined). It is a solution to a problem that only exacerbates the problem. The problems are being caused by rigid interpretations of the rules and excessive bureaucratic sprawl. Adding more of the same is not a solution, it's masochistic and foolish. 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Help me out.

Take a look over History of early Christianity and Apostolic Age and provide some feedback on the talk pages. Thanks! 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.

What I did today and thought of the day archives: 1
Talk Page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Help required

Hi, I am trying to develop Anekantavada as a featured article candidate and require your help for additional contributions and improvements. I have got it peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) and require additional independent opinion. If you have sometime, I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You accused me of violating WP:NOR here[1]. That is a serious accusation. Could you tell me if you read my sourcing, the Cramer and Olson paper, before you made your accusation? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been fairly clearly explained, but I will provide some additional feedback. However, I would first like to note that regardless of the NOR violation, it was pushing a controversial edit in a long standing dispute for which you and another person were recently blocked. That alone would be sufficient to justify further sanctions for disruption. That being said, this edit did commit original research. You present it as though government documents nigh exclusively discuss military service and that some few other sources provide other uses. The thrust of the paper itself is to argue that the historical roots of a right to bear arms is based in a broad usage of the right, including far more than military service, strongly ingrained in the common law and legal foundations of the United States. Avoiding arguments over the wording being cited, it's clearly an acute misuse of the source (and probably original research) to use it in such a fashion as to make it appear to support an opposite conclusion. To make a comparison, it would not be acceptable to selectively (and/or inaccurately) cite a paper that makes a forceful argument for special relativity to argue against (or using a phrasing implying invalidity of) special relativity. It is no more acceptable on the topic of bearing arms. Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to actually answer my question. Also, I guess, that determining "the thrust" of the Cramer and Olson paper depends on the reading, but in good faith when I read that paper I reach a different conclusion that you did. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to avoid being drawn into arguments of minutiae. Regardless, let's address your edit:[2]

The paper does not purport to "confirm" any such claim. On the contrary, the paper puts forward the possibility of selection bias for such claims from previous sources. It does say that it is "unsurprising" that government documents discuss governmental functions and uses. However, the paper also makes it clear that "military service" is not the whole of this discussion. The paper does not say that the scope was simply expanded to non-governmental documents. It states the search was more comprehensive and casting it as does your edit is extremely dishonest. Commentaries on the Laws of England can hardly be cast as distinct from government usage, for example, as it was 'and is considered the authoritative source on the state of Anglo-American common law in the late 18th century. Indeed, it is even cited by the United States Supreme Court for such purposes. Additionally, the paper makes it further clear that the broad interpretation was the standard of common law at the time. One can hardly state that common law considerations are independent from governmental concerns.

These are just a few points that demonstrate the inappropriate use of the source. The edit on a very fundamental level commits original research, cherrypicking and grossly distorting the source to advance a position. If you earnestly cannot distinguish sufficiently between the correct and incorrect use of sources in an area that you hold a strong interest in (which is very common and quite human), then I would strongly recommend editing unrelated topics to take advantage of your strengths unhindered by bias. Vassyana (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking to discuss the meaning of the Cramer paper, and I strongly disagree with your opinion and your accusation of bad faith, but I won't engage that discussion here on your talk page. I am questioning the appearance that you are taking sides in a content dispute. It appears that your criticism of my edit, and your tacit approval of this revert by Yaf has a poor appearance. Taking sides may not be your intent, and that is why I am asking. In any case your conduct has the appearance that you have taken Yaf's side in the content dispute, as Yaf has asserted here. You may want to clear up this appearance of impropriety, as I suspect that you did not actually intend it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This goes beyond a reasonable content disagreement. It's not "taking sides" any more than blocking someone for a personal attack, soapboxing or other issues is "taking sides". You blatantly and obviously misused a source, presenting conclusions in contradiction to the source, to promote your opinion. This isn't a debate about a murky meaning or content selection or anything of the like. If you seriously and honestly do not understand what was wrong with your edit, you really need to walk away from the topic. Vassyana (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Day

Wishing Vassyana a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Idontknow 610^TM 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuackGuru

Upon consideration, it would be best to let this issue drop. While some information may be available or even public, it doesn't mean that it should be raised here on Wikipedia. Unless it is pertinent to the purposes of Wikipedia, it should not be raised here. While it is certainly not "outing" (and shouldn't be called such), raising it against the person's wishes with no obvious purpose for the encyclopedia could easily be construed as harassment and/or simply being disruptive to prove a point. I would encourage people to avoid hyperbolic and inaccurate language such a "outing" to describe raising the public information. However, I would also strongly encourage people to not raise the information, as I cannot fathom the purpose of raising it on Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I agree. Even what is already in the ArbCom should only be raised with a reason. My original mention of his site was misjudged (or rather unjudged). To me it was only a passing reference, the first thing that came to mind when I cast around for a specific example of editors on that article (well, second). Nor did I know anything about any wishes of [user], as I had not had contact with him for many months (I didn't even know that the evidence page of the ArbCom had been blanked). People mention my ArbCom stuff all the time, it doesn't bother me. QuackGuru also emailed me for mentioning [user]'s site on your talk page, threatening to go to AN/I. I think that my original mention may have been a little off, but all this fuss has outed [user] much more than anything I would ever have done or thought of doing. It also caused me to do a lot of research on [user], which I'd never have done otherwise. I see you archived all that, so I'll blank his name. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been approached better by all involved, myself included. I was just dropping a line to everyone who commented in the section to note its archival and my thoughts after due consideration. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Yes, "outing" may not be the best term, but harassment and violations of WP:TALK and WP:POINT are probably more accurate. Unnecessary or irrelevant use of outside information regarding Wikipedians, especially when used to attack them, isn't constructive or conducive to a collaborative environment. Regardless of our differing POV, we all need to avoid personal attacks. I wish that policy included something about this. The closest I have found is the condemnation of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Using people's POV against them is also unfair, since that makes it seem illegitimate to have a POV. We should stick to commenting on the edits, sources, etc., instead of impugning each other's motives. -- Fyslee / talk 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim

Hello,

Regarding working on this page, I am wondering about the appropriateness of soliciting outside help in sourcing the information found in the current version of the article. I'm assuming it would not be OK to have uninvolved partied editing the Trim page itself, but would it be appropriate for others to post source information and discuss things on the Trim talk page? I myself am only marginally familiar with the subject of Kender, and can conclude that the other involved parties are either in the same boat, or don't have the time to put in to getting the work done. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that soliciting assistance for finding good references should ever be considered inappropriate. I would ask that you try to keep any observational or opinion-based comments from outside parties to a minimum, as that can easily degenerate into the general argument about the area (part 233 of a continuing series of disagreements *chuckle*). However, there should be no problem at all with people providing sources, offering suggestions about good places to find references, etc. Vassyana (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coolness. :) I'll ask around at EN World this week; people there seem to know more about what they're doing than anywhere else when it comes to RPG stuff. But yes, I know exactly what you mean - I know good and well that any amount of mediation will never stop all arguments, but we can always hope to come to some kind of understanding... and that won't happen if a dozen folks butt in with their own arguments. I will encourage people to post somewhere other than the Trim talk page. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, it doesn't take much to get just the principles arguing. :) We work together so well! BOZ (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Possible edit warring by logged-out editor

Vassyana, this may be a little bit of a long shot, but the pattern of behavior is just too familiar. Since you are familiar with the editor (I hesitate to actually name him/her without proof, but I think who it is may be obvious, please let me know if you want me to ID the suspected editor here or privately via email) that may be trying to dodge accountability for this anonymous/IP 72.197.197.215 revert, do you think you could look into it if you have the opportunity? I'm not sure yet if the information deleted in this edit appears elsewhere in the article (taking a quick look does not reveal the Cooke, or any other, source for that information), but I feel that controversial edits should be hashed out in the talk page, like the one that immediately preceded this revert. This type of behavior is really quite disruptive, since, if that information really does appear elsewhere in the article, this citation should have been added there to improve the reliability of the article per WP:RS. All we have now is a vague POV-based revert, the loss of an academic source, and no discussion on the talk page to learn if this citation was appropriately removed. Please accept my apologies if Wikipedia does not log the IP address of logged-in users and there's no way to track this situation. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely it is him. This anon IP uses Cox in Atlanta as their ISP. Yaf (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you review the IP's edits, including two made to the article at the end of May, the user seems to be attempting to edit in line with NPOV and related principles. It does not appear that they are supporting one view or another, or otherwise attempting to unbalance the article. Vassyana (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. --tc2011 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification; Christian worship; Gideons International; Transformative economics; Chancellor (ecclesiastical); Economic materialism; Robert Jungk; Cupcake; Jesuit Asia missions; International Churches of Christ; Folk Christianity; Pundit (India); First Satanic Church; Ruben Bolling; First Church of Satan; Tao Yin; List of Muslim Christianity scholars; Jim Torbett; Churchianity

Cleanup: Status of religious freedom in Sri Lanka; Demographics of New Zealand; Nisargadatta Maharaj
Merge: Taijitu; Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian); Spiritual desertion
Add Sources: Karma in Christianity; The Christian Century; Orthodoxy
Wikify: Taiko; Giles Corey; John Naisbitt
Expand: Sports injuries; Orant; Five Classics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic

I need help on chiropractic. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. What's the current issue? Can you provide some section links and diffs? Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the brevity, but thanks. This type of conversation with QuackGuru has been going on for weeks now and is getting very wearysome. We can't get anything done and it is very disruptive, especially with all the reverts and claims of consensus. He talks in circles and when we finally agree on something, he starts over at the beginning. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will adjust my way of doing things accordingly. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going have one of our solid volunteers from WP:MEDCAB swing by to see if it's just a miscommunication issue, personality conflict, et cetera. This may well be a situation that can reach a peaceful solution and I'd like to give that a shot. If even with assistance there's still problems with the attitudes or actions of some people, I can step in to mitigate any disruptive editors. Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than one editor disagrees with Dematt's version. For example, the WHO quotes are boring and are only suggestions. I explained this to Dematt.[3] I want the education section to be fully referenced and accurate. Accuracy is a good thing. NPOV is to be respected. QuackGuru 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bring this to your talk page, there's more on my talk page, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I appreciate more information. I understand the current situation and I think some help in reaching consensus might be just what the article needs. Let's see if some volunteer assistance can help get things on track, OK? If not, there are always other options to minimize disruption. Vassyana (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some help reching consensus would be great. So far we have multiple editors in support of draft #3, Eubulides supporting "either 3 or 7", and QuackGuru supporting draft #7 (and stating that he refuses to consider draft 3). It seems that OM has once again come by to edit war in QuackGuru's version. DigitalC (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. Read what Eubulides wrote about draft 7. Draft 7 has been improved and is far better than draft 3. This is easy to understand. Please read my comments. QuackGuru 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must be simpled minded then, as I don't see how draft 7 is better than draft 3, but that can discussed on the talk page of Chiropractic, rather than wasting space here. However, for the record, Eubulides stated here "I support either education 3 or education 7 as improvements over what's in Chiropractic now." While he is free to change his mind, I don't believe there have been any major changes to either drafts since then. What perhaps should be brought up here are the multiple instances of QuackGuru's disruptive editing on the respective talk page, mostly violations of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT guideline, which I have reminded him of ~~several~~multiple times([4], [5], [6]). DigitalC (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with either POV on this matter, one thing is clear - QG is once again pounding his edits through and around the objections of multiple editors. That's not collaborative and it's very disruptive and disrespectful of other editors. He needs to learn to back off, quit harassing other editors like Dematt, and actually just get lost. He's been an embarassment to skeptics for a long time and is the direct cause of much disruption whereever he edits. His wikilawyering is very tiresome. -- Fyslee / talk 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the previous version reverted to: 17:28, 27 May 2008 1st revert: 03:44, 12 June 2008 2nd revert: 18:38, 12 June 2008 3rd revert: 20:27, 12 June 2008 4th revert: 21:26, 12 June 2008 Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 12 June 2008 Please note: The block of WHO quotes were previously removed but Dematt readded them four times in under 24 hours. Despite the strong objections to the WHO quotes Dematt continued to readd them. QuackGuru 18:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the two drafts, and some of the discussion, and it seemed the differences are minor and do not involve POV. QG has obviously not been helping the situation much. I reverted him once to stop him from edit warring, and he went right to my talk page and started in on me. But he's not the only problem, and really I think it needs to go through the process. From what I can see, there is nothing much positive that can happen before then. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overly promoting guidelines/suggestions using a long end run of WHO quotes is POV. Fyslee claims I am a skeptic. I never was a skeptic and I disagree with most skeptics on a list of issues. QuackGuru 06:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV, it's just bad writing. That's a mainstream source. If you guys just explained the disputes more openly and fully, you wouldn't have to worry about such details so much. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether it is a mainstream source or not. Wikipedia should not be used to overly promote a guideline to become a world wide standard. QuackGuru 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we agree it isn't a POV issue, then we agree the quotes should be left out because you are right that they are boring. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are boring to us but some editors like the quotes. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. QuackGuru 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to talk

Heya, we need to talk sometime soon, I figure. Will you have time? (Please reply per e-mail). --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I leave a message?

Just to say howdy? :)

Arcayne has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you say howdy and spread some wikilove!! And with a cookie???? What if I'm diabetic!? What if I'm gluten intolerant? Did you even think to get me a rice flour cookie made with sugar substitute you insensitive brute!? :D Thanks for the cheerful thought! How're things with you? Vassyana (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its a poison cookie, stuffed full of electrically charged bits of glass, tinfoil and oil lobbyists. It wasn't meant for you to eat, but to fling at some miserable bastard who truly deserves the very life crushed out of them. ;)

I am doing pretty well, thank you. Been trying to fight the good fight, with varying success. You? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! *covets his newfound Ultimate Cookie of Smiting* This is the best gift ever! :)

I'm doing pretty well. Real life is a bit hectic, and wiki is somewhat frustrating at the moment, but really my life is good so I cannot complain. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(laughing at the Cookie of Smiting moniker). I do believe it is +3 vs. Ass-Clowns and POV-driven Feltch Monkeys. But yes, wiki is proving somewhat frustrating at the moment. Projects insisting that the rules don't apply to them and whatnot and some wacky crap regarding NFC#8. Someone should really knuckle that definition down, as it is pretty darn vague. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's vague about it? What problems are arising from it? Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user you have dealt with previously

Moved to AN/I here.

I am banned

Moved to AN/I here

Your comment on WT:NOTOR

I enjoyed your comment on Wikipedia_talk:These_are_not_original_research#Neologisms. Your comment seems relevant in the context of current issues over neutrality in the titling of circumcision and female genital cutting. I believe that contradictory criteria are in fact used in determining the titles for these two articles. If you're interested, one comment of mine addressing this is here. In any case, very interesting stuff. Blackworm (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want the page blanked

If we can courtesy blank the page, I'd be appreciative and would not object to closing the MfD. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will blank the page immediately. Please hit up WP:RFO to request removal from the history of the diffs you feel libelous. Vassyana (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directing your attention...

A comment has been requested of you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim#Undue pressure - is mediation working?. :) BOZ (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering how to best respond and help you all reach an agreeable point. I will be responding within a few hours. Vassyana (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - there seems to be a lot of tension particularly between Sam and Gavin (and others with Gavin, outside the mediation), most likely stemming from past and ongoing disputes; this is the difficult stumbling block we are trying so hard to overcome. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an uncommon situation in long running disputes. The trick is finding a way forward where everyone can focus on the content instead of each other. ;) Every case is a bit individual, so I am trying to make sure I approach this in a thoughtful manner. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you've done the best you can so far, given the inherent difficulties involved - I have faith that you will continue to do so. :) BOZ (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some family matters that need attending and so I will be heading out for a few hours in a short bit. When I return this evening (it's midafternoon here), I will post in the discussion. Just wanted you to know I'm still on top of this. :) Vassyana (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mid-afternoon here as well. I'm sure tempers won't flare enough to encite murder while you're gone. ;) Thanks for your attentiveness! BOZ (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everything's OK! :) Things have quieted down at the trim thread, but I fear what's bubbling beneath the calm exterior. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin has suggested a different approach, which sounds like it will be a lot easier to work with: [7]. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems perfectly fine. WebWarlock's motivation and interest in finding sources will probably be very helpful and a net positive to mediation. Vassyana (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will do my best and focus only on the sources, leaving the rest of the discussion to the active parties. Web Warlock (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'd like to thank you for your work on this rather horrendous case. I feel confident you acted with good faith, and appropriately in every way, and given the circumstances with remarkable patience.(olive (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's very difficult since nearly any action is going to make most of the involved users unhappy. But I try, even if I fail on occasion (silly human fallibility). Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and you will see on my talk page & on the Mfd the way a fair decision is treated: both sides complain. DGG (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people are each side are convinced it's unfair to their side, it's probably fair to both sides. Vassyana (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I replied to Martinphi on the page, if both sides complain it's probably a damn good proposal. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks really go to you on that, by the by. I just ran with a slightly modified and expanded version of your proposed fix. It was a very insightful recommendation and very well-targeted to the problem. Vassyana (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

Thank you for providing evidence about SA. That's all I really wanted. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I tried to just provide a few quick examples that clearly illustrate the problem for each of them. I am glad that they work well to that end. Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War on UFO article, its talk page

I'm just a IP and have noted that a nasty situation has developed on the article, a nasty situation has definately developed on its talk page. According to Wikipedia policies, I have got some Admins enroute to the affected article and the talk page to put a end to this war before it gets out of hand. I am not trying to disrupt, etc. anything at all, just trying to put a end to this war, no more, no less, so that editing can resume without someone backbiting someone else, worse. I hope I have done the right thing. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to see what is going on there, especially on the UFO article's talk pages. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you've got over there is Kwamikagami striking out comments from Davkal (a banned user and sworn enemy of ScienceApologist), a few editors wondering who struck them and why, and 65.173.105.243 running around stirring up trouble against ScienceApologist. In other words, 65.173.105.243 = Davkal = ignore. If not Davkal, then 65.173.105.243 = wrong + personal attacks = ignore. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they're at it again

sigh* It's another one of those Martinphi/ScienceApologist things.

I have spoon bending on my watchlist – along with a large number of other magic-related articles – because there is a tendency for the articles to be vandalized or redacted by amateur magicians attempting to stuff the cat back in the bag.

I saw a little while ago that Martinphi had edited spoon bending to remove references to Uri Geller: [8]. ScienceApologist partially reverted the changes about twelve hours later: [9].

Neither has edited the article before, and neither used the talk page. I can't see any obvious route to the article for SA other than through following Martinphi's contributions. From a purely editorial point of view, SA has probably struck a reasonable compromise — Uri Geller is arguably the most famous of the spoon-benders, and deserves mention in the article. The portion not restored probably went into too much detail, may have been an unreliable source, was mostly redundant with what followed, and didn't read well anyway.

I don't know enough context to censure either editor here, but I'm pretty sure that someone ought to call shenanigans. (Unfortunately, I'm short on time at the moment and can't get up to speed.) Since you took charge at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi, I'm hoping that youI know which wrists ought to be slapped here. It looks like SA was stalking Martinphi, but I also don't know what other restrictions Martinphi may be operating under with regard to magic/pseudoscience topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither has edited the article before." Well, I haven't either, yet I have it on my watchlist: ("You have 2,812 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)."). A bit of good faith would be appropriate here. OTOH, since Martinphi is an editor to watch, it is perfectly legitimate to correct any tendentious editing he may be engaged in, and watchlists are designed to track articles and editors. Now if he had made a legitimate edit and SA showed signs of reverting them for no good reason, apparently only because they were made by Martin, then wikistalking would be the proper charge, and it should be addressed, but that's not the case here, is it? -- Fyslee / talk 05:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were really both across the line on this one. I left a reminder for SA about the disengagement restrictions and left a reminder for Martin about his ArbCom restriction. I logged this and surrounding circumstances at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. Thanks for letting me know about this. Vassyana (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a note at both ANI and AE. I have both psychic and spoon bending on my watchlist and I don't care who makes a bad edit: I simply try to change to better edits. I make no distinction as to who is editing what article. I simply change violations of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT when I see them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filtered Wikipedia diff-view so that I no longer see who has made the previous edit. This way it is impossible for me to know whether I'm reverting Martinphi or someone else (unless they indicate it on the talk page or I look at the history of the page). I believe that this safeguard makes your editing restriction of me irrelevant and a bit absurd. I'm noting this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin removes a great deal of content without discussion here, again here, again here. Don't worry, though! As he branches from article to article you will dilligently follow and stop him from inserting his POV, right? It's not like your remidy provided him with a first-mover advantage given the total unwillingness of most to deal with his disruption. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll believe it when I see it. Ban him from those three articles. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this one. The others could be construed as legitimate style edits or removal of unsourced claims. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I want no complaints that the problem was not made clear, as people involved on both sides of this broader dispute have used that tactic. Therefore, I making it very clear what edits are a problem and why they are a problem, so that any further action cannot be discounted on the basis of a lack of clarity. Vassyana (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fully clear then, you are announcing your intention to ban Martin from any article in which he changes a "weight" word (believes, claims, states, alleged, is, apparent and so on) without first discussing it on the talk page and getting a clear consensus for that change? You are announcing your intention to ban Martin from any article in which he makes changes to "improve" NPOV without first discussing on the talk page and getting a clear consensus for his change? Just for perfect and complete clarity. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, removing sourced information based on claims of bias without discussion or explanation is specifically the current issue as I see it. Vassyana (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request that you also add my prohibition about changing "weight" words without discussion. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me as it has been a red thread throughout his career here. He loves to play with those words and has made big waves based only on them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me with a good example? I'd like to see how he goes about it and how he had dealt with responses to those actions in the past. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a question? Red thread? Whose career here? Who loves to play with those words? POT? SA? Martin? I'm confoozed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken entirely, but I believe Fyslee is referring to Martinphi altering words and phrasings such as "claims", "alleged" and "apparent". Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana is quite correct. -- Fyslee / talk 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I am not interested in MartinPhi's field of expertise, but I have seen one instance in the past where he was accused of altering a weight word, and there is one on the table right now. The current one has been described as "Martin's worst edit" and as the only recent edit among a list that could not be "construed as legitimate style edits or removal of unsourced claims". But replacing the "weight" word was absolutely necessary to turn nonsense into a reasonable definition, and if I remember correctly the previous one was exactly the same kind of situation. I already explained why in the ANI thread, but it was ignored. Here it is again.

Martinphi changed "Retrocognition […] is the alleged transfer of information […]" to "Retrocognition […] is the apparent transfer of information […]". Does it really take a mathematician (or an occultist) to see that if we define retrocognition as "alleged" nonsense we can no longer deny that it exists? ScienceApologist is one of a group of editors who are 1. pushing disparaging language into articles on controversial science related topics, and 2. doing it in a sloppy way that degrades the articles. I don't have a big problem with 1 other than that it undermines the articles' credibility, but I don't understand how anyone can think that 2 contributes to building an encyclopedia and reverting instances of 2 is an offence. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the edit you mention (just like so many other edits of this type that Martin has made during his career here) is that it tends to suggest to the reader that it is an "apparent" reality, when there is no evidence that it is. Without RS and research that conclusively proves it to be reality, we need to make sure that readers don't get the wrong impression, and we can do that by going where the RS lead us. We can no doubt find many RS that indicate that believers consider it to be reality (IOW they "purport" and "allege" it to be fact), but those beliefs should be stated as beliefs. This is just another attempt by him to subtly insert the believers' POV as fact, since there is nothing "apparent" about it to anyone other t han believers. His edit has been fixed in a very neutral manner. -- Fyslee / talk 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's getting into an area where I am at a disadvantage as a non-native speaker, but I am not convinced that replacing "alleged" by "purported" solves the problem. Does it really make more sense to deny that there is "purported" hocus pocus than to deny that there is "alleged" hocus pocus? It sounds to me as if "retrocognition is the allegation of [something very unlikely]" has been replaced by "retrocognition is the report of [something very unlikely]". To prove the existence of retrocognition in this sense it's still enough to find someone who claims it exists. I can see only two reasons for giving such an incorrect definition: Because you want the article to sound negative but you are not interested in getting any details right, or because you want to push an occultist POV using semantical games:

"While scientists and even skeptics generally agree that retrocognition as defined above exists [citation of several articles from ethnological journals and the Skeptical Inquirer, which all agree that people make such claims], they generally deny that this is due to any paranormal phenomena." --Hans Adler (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a pointer to a previous list of MartinPhi's POV "weight word" edits I would be happy to go through it and correct my opinion as appropriate. Unfortunately I could find no such thing in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purported isn't much better. All of those are weaseling or peacocking. A NPOV wording would attribute it to those who purport it; Retro-cognition as defined by "parapsychologists" (or whatever) is the paranormal transfer of information... but that is just one editor's opinion. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note about future warnings

Hi Vassyana...

In the spirit of WP:DTTR and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Note_about_technology, I will be reverting all future warnings you make on my talkpage. I would ask you kindly to refrain from making them as they are insulting.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have already been warned and reminded, further warnings will not be necessary. Vassyana (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you're taking for patience, can you send me some? :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're all over it, right?

You must have noticed Martin's most recent edits. I thought I'd bring some to your attention:

Spoon Bending. Accidentally (?) removed the first sentence, innacurate edit summary (the JR paranormal challenge was date capped in 2010, and still exists.) Discussed after the fact on the talk page.
James Van Praagh. More weight word changes. Neglects to remove unsourced possibly defamatory information about a living person (JVP states/asserts that he is vague, and often misses his own meaning?). No talk page discussion.
Psychokinesis did you know that "Anecdotal evidence ... is usually considered to be insufficient evidence to firmly establish ... scientific validity" "usually" was added in by Martin in this edit, which was not discussed on the talk page. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin continues to edit Spoon Bending, but has not discussed his changes on the talk page of the article. You're ALL OVER THIS, right? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This uncivil badgering is not helping anything. If you continue in the polemical fashion in which you have here and on ANI, it will be dealt with in whatever fashion is needed to make it stop. Please reconsider your approach and tone. Regardless, addressing your specific concern, the situation seems to have worked itself out just fine. Martin was not removing sourced text and only removed the text once. It appears as though Martin did raise the issue on the talk page to explain his objection.[11] The article statement was moved by another editor and expanded per a reliable source by Martin.[12][13] In the end, Martin had a objection about a picture caption, another editor simply moved the interesting and relevant factoid to the main body of the article, and Martin provided a citation and better detail. I really fail to see the problem or disruption in this. Vassyana (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin removed the caption with false comment here (the prize is not open only to celebrities, no where is there anyone that says it's open only to celebrities, and I doubt Martin would defend that statement going forward). The fashion needed to make it stop is for you to take the active role you promised when you imposed the restrictions - It's all talk, talk, talk. SA violated the terms presented, but you let him get away with it. Martin violated the terms presented, but you let him get away with it. You expect me to take a threat that my "tone" is poor seriously at this point? If you have suggestions about my "approach and tone," I suggest you suggest them, rather than threaten - or, you could just do what you stepped up to do, you know, police the shitty behavior of both of them? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA received a clear reminder and warning about the restriction. Martin received a clear reminder and warning about his ArbCom restriction. SA raised his complaint about the restriction on ANI, as is his right, and the restriction was confirmed (with some people advocating for even stricter conditions). I think the best thing I can do is have a bit of patience. Make sure anything potentially unclear is clarified. Let people use the forums for review and appeal available to them. If a problem still continues after clear warning and confirmation of the conditions, it becomes very easy to impose sanctions as indicated under the restriction and get them to stick. A little patience can go a long way towards making things easier to deal with in the long-term. Vassyana (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer that I notify you of future terrible behavior from either of them, or should I just report back on cumulative results over a defined time period (of your choosing, not to exceed 3 monthS?) PouponOnToast (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice a current problematic pattern or something particularly egregious, please feel free to leave a message here or send an email my way. Vassyana (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eyrian

I have started a follow up at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tottering Blotspurs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message removed

I notice a short message from me was removed from this page. If this is due to any mistake of mine, or there is something I do not know, please let me know. Otherwise - please let me know, I suppose! Redheylin (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have happened here: [14] Jayen466 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note for u

there is a note for you here [15]--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are BANNED from my talk page.

Hi Vassyana,

You are hereby banned from User talk:ScienceApologist. Thank you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still under restriction and the article ban is still in place. I will post to your talk page again if it is necessary to inform you of enforcement actions. Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for notification.

You told Martin "Communication via edit summary is not sufficient." Whilst this is not "Removal of sourced information," which was your direct admonision, in this edit Martin makes POVness clims in his edit summary, which I believe leads to edit warring. I have not evaluated the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the edit. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On brief review, it doesn't appear to support either version very clearly. The relevant part of the source states: "Scientists have been investigating PK since the mid-19th century but with little success at demonstrating that anyone can move even a feather without trickery involving something as simple and obvious as blowing on objects to move them." I have plans for this evening and I need to get ready, but if I have time before I leave, I will look at the situation more thoroughly. If not, I will look over things when I get home. Vassyana (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that no one can source what "all scientists think." If you make a statement which isn't attributed, (or can't be sourced as with "Scientists contend") it's Wikipedia making statements which are impossible to verify- or else making a judgment that all "real" scientists say so. It really ought to be attributed to Robert Todd Carroll, but the way I phrased it is self-evident: all X who are skeptics of the paranormal will ipso facto say that psychokinesis does not really exist. Not controversial, so doesn't need better sourcing or attribution. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that is not what the source says. Stick to the sources. What does this source say about it? That is what should be reported in the article. Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the debate. It's not about what the source said. It's about whether we can make absolute claims based on a source, without attribution. This is a clear case coming under WP:Reliable sources#Claims of consensus. We don't say "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist" because we can't source it.

We could say "According to Robert Todd Carroll Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist."

(Of course maybe the source didn't say that anyway, not sure).

As an aside, "Scientists contend" means that all who do not contend this are not scientists. That's what the reader would assume, since the reader would expect that otherwise we'd attribute. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to rephrase as "scientists contend" isn't the right phrase. Parapsychologists contend (against opposition). Scientists "maintain". It's not a matter of stating absolutes in consensus. It's a matter of stating levels of acceptance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a nice job looking up the words, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to, ah, maintain nor contend that parapsychologists aren't scientists. Nor that "Scientists" all "maintain." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be (using your sentence) "According to Robert Caroll, scientists -maintain- that psychokinesis doesn't exist". According to Robert Caroll, they aren't contending anything. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, right, I see what you mean. When you put in the attribution it's fine. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the quote I cite above. That is the relevant portion of the source in relation to the claims being made. It's not Wikipedia's job to relate an editor's opinion or extrapolation of a source (WP:NOR). Stick to the source being cited. It doesn't say that scientists or skeptics assert what is being said in the article. Misusing a source to make claims it does not present itself is dangerously close to disruptive, and it doesn't matter if someone else did it first. Instead of changing it to how you think it should read, check the source and stick to it. I believe this principle has been explained to you in the past and further rewriting to reflect a POV instead of the source will be treated as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see why you're so harsh about it. I basically just trusted that the source said what other editors said it did. Yes, I should check, but we -editors- have to trust each other sometimes. Granted this wasn't one of those times- my mistake. But I don't think I was disruptive. Vassyana, you have to give me some room to be human here. There is a limit to how careful I can be. I can't review every source all the time to make sure the former editors weren't misrepresenting it. Remember the edit was fine if the source in fact said that "Scientists contend" [16]. Principle: "I ain't lying to you if they ain't lying to me." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As I mention above, I do not believe either edit is accurate. My point was, and is, that changing a statement based on opinion of what it should say isn't the best way to go about things. Stick to the sources. I apologize if I came across harsh, I simply trying to be to the point, so as to be clear. I am not taking any action to sanction you, but rather simply a making an attempt to be very clear about why such edits are problematic. My approach to that is to be blunt and forthright about the issue and how it is perceived. I apologize if that sometimes comes across as cold or harsh, but I really feel that pussyfooting around the issue in any way will not be helpful at all to the situation. Being clear, to the point and explicit about the problem, without window dressing or superficial niceties, is the best way to approach it and avoid any misunderstandings in my opinion. I do believe the edit was well-intentioned and made in good faith, but I also believe that it was a POV-push at the same time, as I explain above. If you cannot review the source, I would strongly recommend not rewording things that change the emphasis and impact of sourced statements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me with them. Vassyana (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try to take what you say in an analytical manner. I agree the edit was problematic, though not a POV push. I'll review sources better. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] By that logic, it's not Wikipedia's job to contend that people who think the moon is made of green cheese are wrong, or that evolution is scientific and creationism is not. Nonsense. Go have a reread of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV/FAQ, and WP:FRINGE. There may be a tiny fringe minority of scientists who think parapsychology is scientific and valid. But it's undue weight to treat that tiny minority as the majority, or as evidence that we cannot present the majority view. This is entirely typical of Martinphi's modus operandi, however Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. We don't contend or argue that the moon is not made of green cheese. As to parapsychologists, no one argued for doing, or did, what you say. Minus the mistake which Vassyana pointed out where I trusted other editors to have been basically in line with the source, you're right that this is what I do a lot of the time: basic attribution, and elimination of sweeping unsourced claims. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV Here, MartinPhi seems to be trying to push an edit to policy in order to further his position in this dispute. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What dispute? It was against policy as it was. Most everyone agreed on that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danger: quick sand ahead

I am relatively concerned by the recent accusation of disruption against Martin by POT.

In my mind, we must clearly delineate an action that is a deliberate disruption from one that that can create disruption. If a comment in an edit summary for example is considered to be a deliberate disruption then a good faith comment is made and the discussion moved to talk. An editor meaning to deliberately disrupt is unlikely to try and explain his point as Martin did here. In my experience deliberate disruption is usually a response to an imminent consensus-based change, which bogs down in some way ongoing editing. Such editors are generally not interested in real discussion.

Any comment at any time can adjust the flow of editing in a new direction. This is also disruptive if you will, but is part of the normal evolution of an article. Such comments must not be judged as disruptive to the ongoing collaborative environment of the encyclopedia, which is what I assume Martin must be careful of. Any editor must feel that they can comment and edit in a way that is appropriate to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Using a single comment in an edit summary as a case for disruption can only breed fear, is a slippery slope leading to an overly, complex, muddled environment and is inappropriate in the environment we need here.

Martin's edit summary was completely appropriate. At no time on Wikipedia, as other editors have stated above, should we be using statements like "scientists say, or as another example art critics say," unless we are willing to line up every scientist/ critic in the world and start to hand out questionnaires. Such wording must be considered a generalized, blanket statement and is WP:Weasel wording.

If weight in an article must be shown to create the proper sense of how scientists for example "weigh in" on a topic, then first the comments must be attributed to specific scientists or reliable, verifiable articles on the topic, then the article itself can contain subheadings under which the appropriate, attributed comments can be placed. If multiple scientists weigh in against a topic as opposed to one or two weighing in for the topic, then these sections will and can indicate the weight of each those opinions and will create an appropriate NPOV article. Although we all may agree that most if not all scientists have a particular view on something, to say so in this way is an article is OR and synthesis since I as an editor must find some' who feel this way and then make a jump in logic to assume that those some represent all. This is not an encyclopedic standard. Martin's comment stated the obvious as per guidlines and policy(olive (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The action Martin took is certainly a POV push, well-meaning or otherwise. Weasel wording is not an absolute forbidden, but rather a red flag indicating we should review the statement. If a source states "some scientists", "almost all skeptics", or a similar 'weasel' statement, that is what we should report. That said, replacing OR/SYNTH with more of the same from another slant is not the solution. I believe his action was well-intentioned, but there's that saying about intentions. Part of the negative aspect of Martinphi's editing reputation is the perception he is a fringe POV-pusher. Edits like this, which just replace one POV with another instead of consulting the source, are deeply problematic and reinforce that view. Please note that I have not sanctioned Martinphi in this instance, but rather have made sure that the problem is explained and made clear to prevent any misunderstandings. Vassyana (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana , this was not directed at you in anyway. You are the admin. here and as understand your position your job is to be neutral, and I saw that in your comments. My comments above are more general, and is really about all of us looking at an edit summary, unless its completely foul in some way, as disruptive. I reread Martin's summary and I really do disagree with you . He is I think in somewhat circuitous language asking for a NPOV reading of this, and is saying what I have just said above, but by explanation rather than by citing policy as I did. I don't read it as POV. and although the way to anywhere may be paved with good intentions ... that good intention here it seems to me is called good faith. I call into question any of us that don't initially "read" that way. Weasel wording may be a red flag but it also in this case is OR. going to a source is an obvious move in the right direction, but not seeing that and asking for something more general is not an ianppropriate way to proceed . One is specific one more general There are lots of ways to skin a weasel.....Anyway I do stand by my comment by respect yours as well.(olive (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It wasn't the edit summary so much as the edit itself that I thought problematic. Replacing one POV OR statement with another is not a solution and only perpetuates conflicts and the problems of inappropriate source use. Even though I obviously disagree, I respect your opinion, because it is well-thought out and civil. Please always feel free to express your opinion in the polite and well-thought manner that you have consistently used here. While I may not accept the opinion or may not agree, I will always give attention and thought to polite and well-considered messages. Vassyana (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Its obvious I am trying to support an editor on this, but also what brings me into these frays is a sense of something larger lurking in the wings. If certain things pass us by, and we don't stop them, examine them, and judge them we miss opportunities to prevent possible problems later- quicksand- , and as well the potential for growth . Wikipedia must be dynamic and grow to meet the challenges that will arise. If it doesn't, and we are Wikipedia, it can't work. A final thought. Famous last words.;o)(olive (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin - again

In this edit, he invents a "disagree about the strength of the evidence for RV." One scientist says "it's pseudoscience." The other says "more evidence is required." This is not a disagreement - there is no source documenting a disagreement, just two people saying things that are, fundamentally, the same. PouponOnToast (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This (not so) subtle twisting of words by skeptics and then synthesizing a different meaning somehow favorable to Remote viewing is disturbing. His editing of the Fringe policy at the same time is also disturbing. -- Fyslee / talk 13:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm looking over his contributions right now. Vassyana (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]