Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 19 October 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 /Archive003 /Archive004 /Archive005

Re-direction of debates

Please see My response to your reply on the village pump suggestions page. Zantaggerung 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mentor

Hi VS, I am looking for someone to mentor myself. HS, suggested I ask you. Even I think you are the best option for me. But, are you interested in editing on religion. Again, do you have time?BalanceΩrestored 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes I may not be around much for a day or two at once. Life can be a little busy sometimes. :) But, I will certainly try to offer what help I can. Let me know when you are going to have some spare time, and we'll start off with a few questions. OK? Be well!! Vassyana 02:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not a problem, VS. You can ask me the questions. BalanceΩrestored 07:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am waiting for my questions. BalanceΩrestored 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Placing them on your page. Vassyana 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've answered your questions.BalanceΩrestored 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian religions

Hi Vassyana, IAF is once again editing thru IP although he is banned. He is accusing you of cohorting with me and banning him because you are a jain. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Indian_religions&diff=160215005&oldid=160206409

I suggest that this page be semi-protected. Unfortunately a lot of time and energy is being wasted on unproductive things like edit wars by IAF.--Anish Shah 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue and brought it to the attention of other administrators (see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block of User:IAF). I have also semiprotected the page and marked it with the appropriate template. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Vassyana 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!....hopefully we can make the contributions in a more positive manner after the unnecessary edit wars.--Anish Shah 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassayana, I couldn’t help reading IAF’s defence and appeal against the ban. I sincerely hope that he reforms and tries to arrive at a consensus rather than edit wars once he is unblocked. I would like to mention one incident wherein at the very outset, I had made a request to him for a consensus and truce and he flatly refused. This is just for your information. Cheers.--Anish Shah 13:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it legal to debate actual issues (that articles are written about) on userpages? Because, if so, I would like to discuss the invisible pink unicorn. Zantaggerung 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

~close look~ ... are you ... a Pastafarian!? :o) Vassyana 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is AB correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BalanceRestored&diff=prev&oldid=160634056 Kindly let me know. I am unaware that I cannot say that to DAB. BalanceΩrestored 05:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

the comment that AB's talking abt BalanceΩrestored 06:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This was more or less a general comment to what I'm doing about Setusundram (I voted at petitiononline.com etc). It was a reply to Dab's quote. Look, I sometimes feel, I am been very strictly treated. I know AB could be right about it. But, I like to know your view too. BalanceΩrestored 06:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to others like "soapboxing". That is, it appears like you are advocating a particular naming or name change. Does that make sense? Vassyana 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

email

FYI I sent you an email yesterday... Yilloslime (t) 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some issues accessing my mail. I have contacted technical support and the problem has been acknowledged. When my access is restored, I will review it immediately. Thanks for the notice in case I hadn't checked my inbox though. :) Be well! Vassyana 17:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey did you ever get your email situation sorted out? Yilloslime (t) 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I finally was able to review some mail today. However, other parties have withdrawn, so the case is closed. I am sorry I was not able to respond sooner or help the mediation further. Vassyana 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But I don't see where/when people pulled out--was this the result of a private discussion between you and one of the parties, or I am just somehow missing someone's statement of withdrawl? Yilloslime (t) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They withdrew privately. Sorry for any confusion. Vassyana 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK cool. Got it. I thinking to myself, "Am I crazy? How did I miss this?" Now it makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Yilloslime (t) 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts and for your assistance with the case. Chido6d 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring BR

That's great! I would love to see BlanaceRestored's enthusiam directed into some more productive content creation. If you are interested in catching up with BR's recent activities, you can take a look at the the RFCs he has started at Talk:Ganesha and Talk:Adam's Bridge. You may need to read the previous sections on the talk page to catch up with the extensive prior discussions related to topic of the RFCs. I have been involved with these pages for some time; so let me know if I can be of any help in providing specific information about the subjects or the discussion history. Cheers. Abecedare 04:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope to see some improvement in him. --Hirohisat 05:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VS, I will surely try my best to follow the policies here, I assure you I am trying them too. I think it will be very great to have you as my mentor. BalanceΩrestored 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ganesha

I've started an RFC at Ganesha, I remember you suggesting me to do this. But, since I was new that time. I could not understand what did you mean by that. I can now understand the meaning of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. I understand that one should not argue after we see that there is a dead lock over a topic. It is better to involve a third view. Let me know if I am going right. BalanceΩrestored 09:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, AB, keeps quoting old things that I got blocked when ever he has to go for a dispute resolution. I do not think that is wise. I am sure people will consider going with an alternate ID seeing such old history raised, and get blocked when found with Socket puppetry. I am sure every one who wants to edit longer here should have been blocked some time or the other. BalanceΩrestored 10:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And now because of that I'd to explain why I got blocked etc. BalanceΩrestored 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that frustrations of mine. I hope you have an answer for this

"I am an editor with about 4 months of wiki editing, I've got blocked trying to rectify these errors as I hardly understood editing, I hardly understand where to pickup my points from and where to explain all these from. All, I have is Google Books. I request, some senior editors to look in to these problems. I feel, some editors are trying their best to edit here, but are not aware of what's crossing WP:NPOV. All, I know here is I've been hearing "Vakratundaya Dheemahi Tanno Danti Prachodayat", for all 11 days of Ganesh festival, and I've been today told here is that, What I am hearing is not true because I do not have a WP:V book to prove my points. Things are very difficult here. Also, what if tomorrow I do not find a WP:V book at google, will things here be the same? In-spite of knowing that the fact is something else?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceRestored (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We must make sure facts are verifiable by other editors. Putting in things you know but that cannot be cited is original research. Citing from reliable sources helps us make sure that Misplaced Pages is verifiable and helps us to avoid original research. Vassyana 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AB has removed the Secondary sources those I had put, I don't know why? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganesha&diff=160898599&oldid=160876603

BalanceΩrestored 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be because it was already cited, using the {{Harvnb}} template. Vassyana 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, Robert, L Brown at page 70 has himself mentioned about Ganesha's presence, in Ganesha Gayatri, and it's presence in Vedas, and AB has used this reference, in his reference list along with his statements. BalanceΩrestored 08:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is? It appears like that information is already presented in the article. Do you feel differently? Vassyana 13:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I quickly realised that I didn't have time for that (or indeed, any other mediation) and thought I'd done everything I needed to do to remove my name from it. Obviously I haven't... Sorry Chrislintott 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Vassyana 13:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only ever (a short lived) mediator - I don't have an opinion. Chrislintott 07:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Life

Hi, VS, I'm trying to find details about life and death. I getting around both with science and pseudo-science for this matter. If you can guide me where I can start with things, if you've already been around, it will be great.

I've found this great verse in Bhagwat Gita about life which sound very much scientific,

na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ na tvaḿ neme janādhipāḥ na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param

na — never; tu — but; eva — certainly; aham — I; jātu — at any time; na — did not; āsam — exist; na — not; tvam — you; na — not; ime — all these; jana-adhipāḥ — kings; na — never; ca — also; eva — certainly; na — not; bhaviṣyāmaḥ — shall exist; sarve vayam — all of us; ataḥ param — hereafter.

These verses go very much inline with

the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, such as when electrical energy is changed into heat energy.

and so far I've not found anything better than that. Kindly guide me about the same. I'll try to get details around this topic and contribute if I find anything good. Right now at wikipedia we only have what the popular religions in the world say about these. I will find out what other un-popular religions too say, I've got some details here Creationism. I've seen your interest in Occult. So, I assume you should have gone around these too. BalanceΩrestored 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What aspect do you wish to study? The life-force? The wheel of life and death? There are many things that could appeal to you. Vassyana 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What's after life? This is what I am trying to find. I've known a 100% non-believer (i know him for years) telling me his experience with a ghost. So, I have a rough idea that these are 99% true. He just said this to me, "Look buddy I saw it with my own eyes, I know no one will believe, but it has happen. One will only believe it only if they experience it, I've seen a person reducing his size to that of a toy, and then it grew to a big giant and after some time I saw a drunk man walking by". But, again I've never experienced these ever in my life. So, I do not believe in it's presence. This person whom I talk about will never fool around. But again I do/do-not believe him because it's 100% unnatural. But, again there were 2 of them to have experienced this incident and the other person did suffer a critical brain haemorrhage experiencing that incident. So, I need to believe that there's something after life. BalanceΩrestored 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am 100% positive that life is clearly contradicting the current laws of physics. There's a line between life and physics. I've had a big debate before in 2004 were no one among the best educated scientist could answer the following, "How am I a living-soul (Non-Physical entity) moving my body that's made of physical elements." Isn't that a clear voilation of the laws of physics?BalanceΩrestored 04:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone started to explain right from "central nervous system" to everything that science till today has found. But, then no one knew what made the central nervous system trigger the events that a living being performs? This soul of ours trigger these events. But, how?BalanceΩrestored 05:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything in religion explaining this? BalanceΩrestored 11:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Those are some heavy questions. :) We all ask those "large" questions at some point or another. A lot of people have talked about, and debated, the answers to those questions throughout history. I personally am religious, though often private about my faith. However, I see no conflict between faith and science; no contradiction between life and physics. The philosophy of mind addresses the apparent conflict between mind and body. (See Dualism (philosophy of mind) and Mind-body dichotomy.) Some faiths believe the contrast is explained through multiple souls, such as a "body" soul and a "spirit" soul. Some scientists and philosophers in arguing there is no distinction speak of a bodymind. In some mystical practices, the mind has its own "body". From a scientific angle, you may find the idea of the quantum mind interesting. Cheers! Vassyana 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting and informative reply. I did try to read and understand Dualism (philosophy of mind) before. I guess I should re-read it this time. I am sure everyone reaches to these questions some or the other time in life. BalanceΩrestored 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

You suggested that WP:PORNBIO be merged into WP:N, which is not likely to happen; however, it does look like WP:PORNBIO has a chance of being merged into BIO. Your opinion would be valuable in evaluating consensus. --Kevin Murray 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

See Talk:William_Schniedewind#Some_friendly_advice_to_Critical_Reader. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends page

Vassyana, I am an editor of the Fellowship of Friends page. Things are pretty confusing there, with edit wars and multiple reverts (the page is protected at the moment). I was reading the archives and noticed that you successfully worked with editors in the past to obtain consensus. Could you take a look? If you are too busy, could you recommend another mediator with experience in this kind of situations? Thank you for your attention. Love-in-ark 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, Looks like another editor had the good sense to contact you already. Until today, I had hopes of working things out on our own, but the situation is growing more contentious. Hope you have time. I could list the reasons why, but they might sound like sycophancy :-). Regards, --Moon Rising 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana - Your help is needed over at the FOF page, please familiarise yourself with the COI disputes and sock puppetry recently uncovered. I would hope we can avoid another edit war with mediation. ThanksWantthetruth? 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Maybe you want to weigh in on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely blunt, I couldn't be interested less. Taking a look, it's hardly more than a retread summary of the past couple years of WT:RFA. Is it an issue I care about? Surely. However, that RfC is utterly useless, except as a convenient summary of the long-term dispute. Until the three main sides (those demanding complete rebuilding, those demanding a recall system and those claiming it is the least of evils/"ain't broke") can attempt to understand and compromise with the other parties, nothing is going to resolve the dispute. I would note however, that the RfC does indeed demonstrate a lack of consensus and full faith in the current system, which is highly problematic. Vassyana 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am for supporting progressive improvements to the RfA process, but its seems as stated that It is an all or nothing proposition what is behind the RfC, and that is a pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think many parties from both sides have an "all-or-nothing" approach, as expressed above. I believe such an atmosphere makes rational discussion and gradual changes both highly improbable. I also tend to think you have the right idea with progressive improvements. To me, the system is obviously "broken" even if it "works". A loud smokey car that shakes violently at 105kph will still get you from home to work and back. That doesn't mean it's not "broken". However, since it has some functionality, the best approach in a wiki is to fix it one chunk at a time. Cheers! Vassyana 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Unblocked

Hi, I would just like to point out that a another admin has over turned your justified indef block of Tallum ExtraDry 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no proof (or even evidence) that the user was engaged in anything in contravention of WP:SOCK, which requires a certain level of abusive sockpuppetry (I agree for the record that the two are clearly linked - that much has been established). The user has been blocked for some time as it stands, and the local admins are watching the articles in question closely and will definitely impose blocks if behaviour we have seen there already continues. You should also be aware that ExtraDry is himself a reincarnation of a user with an extensive block record and a bad history, is obsessed with Newington College, and has been calling "sock" at anyone who disagrees with him on that article since his second week editing on this account (i.e. since early June). This in itself is an abuse of the right to vanish clause, as it has meant he has evaded blocks for disruption for quite some time, and I have explained the details here. Orderinchaos 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: restoring the block - no. I accept that the block was placed in good faith, however, I did check with a couple of neutral parties before taking the action I did. I believe this sort of thing encourages gaming the system, and I encourage you to look at ExtraDry (talk · contribs)'s contributions as I did earlier today, alongside those of DXRAW (talk · contribs). Orderinchaos 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Dear Vassyana, I was so glad to see you show up on the Alice Bailey page! There are a few good sources but a lot of them are things that would never see the light of day in other wiki articles. Many good editors have been run off by the tendentious editing (with the stated purpose of showing Bailey in a negative light). I have faith in Wiki and hope that reason can prevail. Please stick around! Renee 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than add a section, I'll just add my vote: yes, thanks so much for your opinion on Cumbey. I am of the opinion her work is useful a source that does nothing more than demonstrate that alternative (if bizarre) interpretations have been published (which I believe it does satisfy), using only enough material from it to establish Cumbey's apparently unique viewpoint. However, if you want to argue the source should be removed entirely, I certainly won't be fighting for it's inclusion.

In regards to the person you're arguing with, however, it has been my experience that this editor has an unceasing insistence on "getting the last word", that he virtually never responds to you, only at you, and that it is entirely futile to discuss anything with him. But, best of luck! lol (And Hi! Kwork, can't wait to read your reply below!) Eaglizard 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here. If the two of you are going to characterize a particular person's behavior on the article in question, it would be appropriate to explain the entire history of the extremely contentious situation.

Kwork is not the cause of the problems with that article, he is one element in a complex story. The story includes, for example, a post on a Yahoo message board asking Alice Bailey followers to come to Misplaced Pages to clean up the article and remove comments about her antisemitism.

So let's play fair please. If you want to invite a new editor, an administrator with a lot of experience, great, please do.

But if you want to talk about tendentious editing, there is a lot more to say about that topic as relates to the history of that article than just Kwork's name.

So, I suggest that you not try to poison the well, and instead trust that Vassyana will be able to see personally what's happening. If there is disruptive editing, it will be apparent, but you don't need to try and get a jab in in advance about one person, who has a somewhat gruff personality but, as a matter of actual fact, has been helping the article not degrade into a Bailey-praising POV memorial which is what would happen if he and one or two others would stop editing.

I am not accusing either of you of POV-pushing on the article, I am speaking in general, so please don't take those comments personally. But I am addressing what appears to be an unfair advance characterization of one editor who may have some flaws but who, from what I've seen, has the best interests of an accurate article at heart.

There are many causes for the problems with that article, the most important of which is that there are almost zero reliable secondary sources who have written anything about Alice Bailey at all. That's why the marginal sources have appeared. She does not have enough presence in secondary sources to provide the needed information to support the depth of article that exists on that page.

I've been asking for weeks now for people to stop arguing and look for references. I've added a handful of them, but they are hard to find and don't say much. That's where the energy should be going, not into trying to stop one editor from keeping the article from tilting too far into the love-fest direction. --Parsifal _Hello 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on BD

Vassyana:

He is telling the truth, since it is a building where some of the offices belong to the Fellowship, who also owns the T1 connection. They rent spaces with this internet connection. Love-in-ark 21:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:IAF

I have reviewed the block of User:IAF and found it was too harsh. An indefinite block is a ban, and should only be given once longer duration blocks prove to be useless. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends Protection

Is it possible for the Fellowship of Friends page to be protected indefinitely. IF you look at the recent talk it seems unlikely that any progress can be made. Unimpeachable sources (like the LA Times) are being obstructed. If the page is protected, any changes could be agreed by editors onthe talk page and then submitted to administrators. Also, I have no argument with Fellowship members editing from home, but it does seem inappropriate that they can edit from the Fellowship offices. Waspidistra 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that a person editing Misplaced Pages from the FoF connection is a case of COI but the same person editing from anywhere else is not? Misplaced Pages should block editors, not IP ranges, so I am asking for the IP block to be released. Mfantoni 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that COI applies regardless of editing location. Please see my talk page for the serious concerns I have about WP:COI and Fellowship of Friends. --Yamla 17:31, 16 October 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 21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion

I closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. You also might want to review Recent single origin hypothesis, Origin of language, Steven Mithen, and Fred Wendorf. -- Jreferee t/c 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I have decided to seek informal mediation on the case. If you are interested the case is open at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-17 Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV is not a second AfD, please do not treat it like one. Mediation is not a solution for when you disagree with how wiki-processes have worked. Please stop forum-shopping. Let the DRV run its course. I will not take part in mediation. Vassyana 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and fringe

Dear Vassanya,

Before making unfounded accusations on user talkpages about what is or is not consensus, it would help if you looked at the talkpage of the guideline in question. Have you been involved in the discussions there? Have you taken note that Martinphi is currently the only person who has objected to the stylistic edits (not substantive changes to the content of the guideline)? Are you also aware that the "respected admin" in question has a history of reverting my actions and having his actions overruled? No? Then I suggest you start doing your homework before going around making proclamations.

Best,

ScienceApologist 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have missed something. There is a discussion at talk. Consensus was acheived. Do you see any evidence that it wasn't? I see only one editor who objects (User:Martinphi) and he categorically has refused to discuss the matter instead appealing to meat puppets and simple obstructionism. There are plenty of other editors who have commented in support of the changes which are basically stylistic. I ask you again to show evidence that you have actually looked at the discussion. List where any other user other than Martinphi has listed an objection to the changes he (and now you) continue to revert. ScienceApologist 14:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're totally clear, the two talk sections in question are Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories#Comparison of versions and Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories#Stable version. The section below that (Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution) is about a substantive content change I am proposing and discussion is still ongoing. That is a different discussion. ScienceApologist 14:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavy-handedness

Your comments today have been particularly problematic in the light of your tacit assumptions regarding your position and my position:

1. You are obviously good friends with User:Jossi. This is fine, however, in the past User:Jossi and I got into some altercations where he engaged in some shady administrator behavior at Plasma cosmology which were (thankfully) overturned by another sysop. Since that time, the various pseudoscience POV-pushers who I have come across have delighted in asking Jossi to undo my edits which he does without so much as a simple evaluation of discussion. Instead he may or may not remark in the relevant talkpages with authoritative announcements about a need for "discussion" or "consensus" in which he invariably does not involve himself and then leaves the disputed ground with a simple revert to a "favored version". This kind of behavior is most unfortunate, but thankfully he has held himself at arm's length enough for me to have enough leeway to resolve disputes without his administrative heavy-handedness.
2. Now you are coming in with a similar attitude. Your reference to "two sysops" I believe was meant to infer some sort of authority to the sysop status you currently enjoy. As you should be aware since you yourself are an admin, a sysop is a janitor: not an authority figure. I am equal to you in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community and you have no more authority over me than any other user. You simply have a mop and bucket which can be used to clean up problems that the community agrees need to be handled in a certain way. Your handling of this particular situation smacks of unreasoned favoritism in jumping on Jossi's bandwagon and is outrageous since you have assumed an authority which you simply do not have.
3. I encourage you to look into this issue more in-depth. In particular there is a current arbitration relevant to these problems.

I hope that you take this criticism seriously. I do not like having to brush down people, but I was not pleased by your handling of this matter.

Regards,

ScienceApologist 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)