Yasya

Portal:Russia

Hi there. I see that you edit Russia-related topics. Come check Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Ukraine

Same applies to Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. Cheers, --Irpen 03:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavian activity theory

Thanks for letting me know - I'll give it a proper look over when I'm slightly less busy. Apologies if this is too basic, but I think that the Scandinavian 'school' should still be included in the main Activity theory article - as the work of Engeström, for example, is very much what people think about when they think of activity theory, as well as that of Vygotsky, Luria etc. But, like I said before, I'm still getting my head around activity theory - just got a book out from the library yesterday ;-). Cormaggio ^{is learning} 15:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vygotsky Circle

Thank you for creating this interesting article. In the future, please consider adding inline references (see WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE) and nominating your work for front page exposure (see WP:DYK and T:TDYK). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adolf Meyer and Transnational (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Lev Vygotsky

Dear Dr. Yasnitsky, thanks for your attention to the article on Vygotsky on whose work you are obviously an expert. Nonetheless I have removed the section you inserted, because it was entirely based on your own work. It is generally frowned upon for scholars to cite their own work in articles, and in this case you basically declare a paradigm shift based on a number of recent articles by written by yourself. In doing this you give undue weight to a very recent viewpoint which untill now can not be shown to represent the majority of Vygotsky scholars. In order to not get ahead of the debate wikipedia would prefer to wait untill such a paradigm shift is well entrenched in the literature before we declare it in the article. Please see the policy WP:SELFCITE and WP:COI for an explanation of the policies regarding this issue. Your articles can of course be used as a source for the article, but they should be inserted in a neutral way, and preferably by someone else. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss it.--Yasya (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good, idea. I've started a discussion on the talkpage, please don't reinsert the material before there is a consensus to do so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Counter-sggestion: please do not erase the material before there is a consensus to do so. Also please consider multiple references to sources by a wide range number of authors other than the one mentioned above. Personally, I am fine with removing references to publications by this specific author if only it makes any sense. --Yasya (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the policies of wikipedia challenged material is to be excluded untill a consensus is formed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to agree :). Spefically, my reason is: No rational explanation provided. Please address the following statement that can also be found on discussion page: the section is almost entirely based on very recent articles by A Yasnitsky and R Van der Veer -- Not correct, which is obvious to anybody willing to inspect the references to the sections in question, namely, 5 Criticisms of North American "Vygotskian" legacy & 6 Criticisms of available Vygotsky's texts. Please feel free to remove any or all publications by Dr. Yasnitsky if only it makes any sense.--Yasya (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Also I just want to make clear that I am noty trying to suggest that your scholarship is not important or relevant, I am not an expert on Vygotsky studies and therefore cannot be the judge of that, but I do want to suggest that it is not usually considered reasonable to publicly assess the merits of one's own scholarship.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is what I would propose: I will revise this section and downgrade it to mere "criticisms of available Vygotsky's texts". Also, I will try to minimize references to the works of Yasnitsky wherever possible. Unfortunately, several of these came out in collaboration with some distinguished scholars of fairly high reputation, so it would be really undesirable to remove these. Does this look like a compromise solution?--Yasya (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, you are certainly right: peacock must go. The whole thing already seems to look better I believe: feel free to check out recent changes.--Yasya (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lev Vygotsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mechanism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Wertheimer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Frankfurt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Lev Vygotsky does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!  Rebbing  talk  14:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yasya. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yasya. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yasya. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sofia Kovalevskaya Award, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enrique Jiménez and Yan Yu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Jaan Valsiner moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jaan Valsiner, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – bradv🍁 02:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jaan Valsiner has been accepted

Jaan Valsiner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

– bradv🍁 03:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Kharkov school of psychology

Hello. I came across you because I was pointed to the Lev Vygotsky article. On both that article and Kharkov school of psychology, you are editing with a conflict of interest, which, as explained in WP:COI, is not a good idea. Anyway, I am still thinking about whether to submit Kharkov school of psychology at WP:Articles for deletion, but for the moment, I've removed your additions of your own publications from it. As I say in my edit summary, feel free to add some of them back in (1) as sources (2) with inline citations (3) and making clear in the text that the source is someone who is affiliated with the school. Kind-but-a-bit-frustrated regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear colleague PJvanMill, -- if you really consider adding references to own published work as a case of conflict of interests (!?), please feel free to keep it this way as it is now; I certainly would not argue. Having removed all references to my work in 'Kharkov school' entry also please feel free to submit it for deletion right away since it would make absolutely no sense since then, given the state of contemporary scholarship on this matter. Best regards--Yasya (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The conflict of interest is not so much in including the inclusion of your work as in editing on that article to begin with, given that you yourself are a part of this school of thought. Including your own works on a list of "selected publications" is self-promotion. The reason I also deleted the sources is that they didn't appear to be actually used, in which case they would also be self-promotion. Of course, if there are actually statements in the article text that are supported by your publications, you should add citations, while making it clear that the source is published by someone involved. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Quote: "given that you yourself are a part of this school of thought" in Kharkov -- very questionable statement, and I strongly doubt any support to it can be found; if by any chance interested in my bio (and affiliation with any school of thought, if any), please feel free to check out my UofT (Toronto) academic profile, here: http://individual.utoronto.ca/yasnitsky/ . Anyway, like I said, I do not mind and would hate to argue.-- Good luck!--Yasya (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you listed your own works as publications of the school, didn't you? If not part of the Kharkov school, you are someone who has published in the Kharkov school. PJvanMill (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: "you are someone who has published in the Kharkov school". -- This is a very unclear and highly problematic statement. What does it mean: to publish IN the school? -- This is not a request for clarification, I am just stating the obvious: the utter vagueness of the claim. Then, RE: "you listed your own works as publications of the school". -- Here, we have two mistakes. First, logical. Confession does not count as a proof, equally in logical and legal sense. In Stalinist Russia or in North Korea, perhaps, but not in the civilized world. Second, factual. The references were listed under the general heading "Selected publications OF and ABOUT the school". The sources by certain Dr. Yasnitsky (an established researcher from Canada) were meant as the publications and authoritative sources ABOUT the school (in Ukraine), obviously. Yet, it is virtually impossible to argue with you, furthermore, I fully agree with you and by all means invite you to realize your initiative and proceed with the nomination of this entry for deletion, with my full endorsement to act. Please consider making a move at WP:Articles for deletion. Good luck!--Yasya (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, I had misunderstood. They were there as publications about the school. Thanks for clarifying. I suppose that makes it not even a conflict of interest. It is still self-promotion, though. Please don't say that it is virtually impossible to argue with me just because you had to clarify something before I understood.

Given that the works you cited there are about and not from the school, it would be perfectly acceptable to use them as inline citations in the way one would use any other source (though not in excess), if you think it will make it a better article. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)