Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 19 May 2007

If you speak to me over e-mail or IRC about an informal mediation, an article I am involved with as a neutral party or simply seeking advice, anything said within reason will be held in a strict confidential manner

Talk Page archives: /Archive001 /Archive002

Church vs church

Thanks for backing me up at Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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/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)

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)

Prem Rawat

You are or were involved in this dispute too. So please agree with formal mediation Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . Please compare that with the new version 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)

FoF

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

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 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Guinea pig

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

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)

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)

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)

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)