User talk:Sunray

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Note: Messages left on this page will be replied to on this page.

Talk archives

2003-2004 1 2005 2 3 4 5 2006 6 7 8 2007 9 10 11 2008 12 13 14 15 2009 16 17 18 19 2010 20 21 22 23

Where are we going?

Today's motto...

→ Magis
("The more")

Help

Hello Sunray, I hope you had pleasent hollydays and I wish you all the best for this new year. Not wanting to make you loose more time, I need your help. See, edit war: [1]. If this is not vandalism and total ignorance of all agreed on the mediation, I don´t know what it is then. FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, I do not understand your actions in this matter. In the edit war you refer to, you restored the edits of a blocked account. I do not understand why you would do this. Please explain. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting for the moment the fact that the Yugoslav Front article is not the subject of the mediation, or that this is obvious WP:CANVASSING, please note:

• User:FkpCascais has arrived on the Yugoslav Front article a few minutes ago and started WP:EDIT-WARRING to restore utter-nonsense edits pushed yesterday by a blocked Serbian sock account, User:Слободни умјетник (note their first-time introduction [2]). Fkp, of course, has no idea what he's doing, and thinks he's preventing my edits...
• The edits are indeed utter nonsense: they have nothing to do with the subject of the article and are typical sock vandalism, with a sprinkling of Serbian nationalism. They are essentially the merging of the Yugoslav Front article with the Invasion of Yugoslavia article, of the nonsense sock variety. Most importantly: they are contrary to some half-a-dozen sources.

Fkp's been 1) edit-warring to restore yesterday's edits from a blocked sock, 2) removing and altering very well sourced info without ANY discussion, 3) bothering you :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Fkp to explain his actions. Please note that I don't regard it as canvassing, nor a bother. Because it the interaction is between two participants in the mediation, it is in-bounds for him to refer to it here. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that he did that. Sunray (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit was donne, yes, by a blocked user, and the user is not anyones sock, just another unexperienced user that is simply incredule by seing the Chetniks and Mihailovic not listed in the Allied section. The removal by direktor of the Chetniks and Mihailovic from the Allied section of the infobox, the wrong naming of the lede "other languages" section ("Yugoslav Front" obviously doesn´t translate in all refered languages to "People´s Liberation Front"),, and the inter-wiki links, were all wrong. The interwiki links for exemple were purpously linking to the article direktor wants to move to, and the other user just corrected some of them. Can you please see the edit by itself and not give all the enphasys to the false and abusing acusations of "Serb... nationalism, sock´s", and all other sort of direktpors abusing distractions? FkpCascais (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. i am willing to look into the points you raise on one condition. The condition is that you take responsibility for your own actions. To get a successful result in the mediation each participant will need to take responsibility for his or her own actions. So this is a chance for you to demonstrate your ability to do that.

The inexperienced user apparently did not understand that major changes to an article (such as his changes to the lead section) need to be discussed with other editors. My question to you is how could you have intervened to improve the situation rather than edit warring? In your response, would you be able to address only your own actions, rather than those of other editors?

Yes of course, but obviously other users should also refrain from purpously editing articles in a certain way, despite knowing evidence. Also, I can´t really understand how can the other user isn´t warned about all that has been doing, and he can even ignore a question that you made to him regarding this issue (on the mediation page I had exposed to you this problem, and you asked direktor about it, and he ignored it). FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For instance, direktor insistance, editing and reverting when corrected of Mihailovic and Chetniks from the "Axis" section infoboxes it would be the same as if I suddently started denying any mentioning of collaboration. It would be exactly the same, but I am the one here being respectfull and not making any edits on those disputed areas, while direktor doesn´t show any consideration at all, and edits as radically as ever! FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to how you might have intervened without edit warring and I very specifically asked you avoid speaking about the actions of other editors. Sunray (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was/is ongoing in the articles talk page. (Was that your point?) FkpCascais (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is to get you to begin thinking about what you can do to improve the situation. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don´t turn this to me, direktor is edit-warring all users in that article for months. You seem compromised... FkpCascais (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it takes more than one to edit war. Secondly, if editors are not willing to take responsibility for their own behaviour, there can be little progress in mediation. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As to being compromised: Hardly. Please recall our conversation on a subpage recently. I will summarize: On talk pages other than the mediation page, I normally speak to one participant at a time. Right now I am speaking to you. When I speak to another participant, I will address them specifically. I try to make observations that may be helpful to resolving conflicts. Sunray (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well this one it isn´t helpfull, and we have already advanced way beyond that. Your pseudo "pedagogical" attitude would be usefull towards some new users, but both me and direktor are quite years long experienced editors. Yes, I tryied to restore a version that is more correct that the one that actually only one user insists in forcebly keeping in the article for months (yes, I can discuss point by point why is "more correct", want me?). And I was the one that in the middle of the process asked for help and a 3th party (your) assistance. And you were surprised??? Who are you? An underwear hello kitty specialised editor, so you were surprised, or the mediator of a very related mediation porocess in which we are all participating? You think I don´t read in between lines? And by the way, you asked direktor a question related to a complain of mine and you were ignored (and this was all you donne regarding a "compromnising attitude" complain that I made towards you, so if I recall a conversation on a subpage should I be convinced? Hardly.). If you really beleave in the things you are saying to me, you should know what to do. I will do things in my best interess depending on that. FkpCascais (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You say that you are a long-experienced editor; yet you seem unclear about basic behavioural policies. Your comment, using the term "psuedo psychological," is uncivil and unwelcome. You are right that I know what to do--that is, I know mediation. However, unless you are willing to discuss things in an open and civil manner, there is little that I can do to assist. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudo pedagogical", not "pseudo psychological"... FkpCascais (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now who's being "pseudo-pedagogical"? Sunray' attitude has been nothing short of textbook RfM. You should probably apologize rather than go on abrasively "correcting" the good fellow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: I have no clue what direktor said)Honestly, I think you are too proud, and you never want to admit you could have done better. For instance, other users ended up correcting the article in question exactly the way I was doing it (please see by yourself), but perhaps because it is me, direktor had the right to freely edit-war me reinserting the wrong information. In the process I asked you for help, but, again, got none from you. Sorry to tell you, but it becomes painfull to deal with you when you constantly give the impression of being something like a psychiatrist that limits himself to make questions, but never really solves anything. I´m sorry to tell you this, and I didn´t intended to be uncivil, but you really give me no choice because all complains I made to you were unsolved and I allways end up hurt in the process. And I allways end up assuming good-faith and give you another chance... You do have power of decition as mediator, you know? Anyway, we are way beyond this now, and the discussion there may have plenty of interess for the mediation process. FkpCascais (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for consistency of rough consensus with Quaker-style consensus

One of your edits from May, 2006 seems to have introduced a claim that:

   Rough consensus is consistent with other models of consensus, 
   such as Quaker-based consensus.

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding appropriate sources for this claim. Can you help?

Thanks,

--Michael Stone (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mihailovic mediation

Hello Sunray. It looks that the mediation was cooled down completely. However, one side of the dispute has its version forcefully protected in the article for more than a year by now (actually, with ediut-warring, more than 2 years). This entire process begin in fact as edit war regarding the lede, as most important. Later came the other changes in the text. I mean, we started disagreing about one word, then a few more, and we ended changing the entire text. Could we facilitate things and return to the first issue, the lede. I was trying to help over an article about Ante Pavelić becoming a good article, and the case could be observed in comparison for Mihailovic one. I mean, Pavelic was the head of state of a brutal fascist regime, however the lede in his article sounds quite good without having any acusational tone in it. We had also agreed in the mediation that having a simplicist lede "D.Mihailovic, a WWII collaborator" is POV. Can´t we fix that at least? I mean, that is where all started, because I was not avaliable to analise the entire text, but I was sure about this (the lede) and that is how it strated. Enlarging the entire issue from the lede to the entire text is really favouring one side and making this issue to never be solved. FkpCascais (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me and for expressing your concerns. I would very much like to complete the mediation and have some thoughts about how we could do that. It seems important to make it simple, fast and effective. I will add something to the talk page within the next few days. Meanwhile if you or other participants have any more thoughts, please let me know. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. FkpCascais (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Allergies

Hi Sunray,

I do not understand why the link to sneezywheezy.com has been removed when it does not contravene any aspect of the following:

What can normally be linked Shortcut: WP:ELYES Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

I would appreciate an explanation.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentanandraj (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable external links "include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." The topic is allergies. The site you linked to does not provide research. It is a blog. Blogs are not permitted (see WP:ELNO #11). Sunray (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

2002 French presidential election as an example of abstention

I'm looking into Abstention for a project I'm working on and the lead example in the article is of the 2002 French presidential election. Looking into the numbers I'm not sure why it's a good example. In the first round of voting there was a 71.6% turnout and in the runoff there was a 79.71% turnout. The abstention article talks about 25% of people abstaining or spoiling their ballot which doesn't seem like a much of a movement when French elections regularly get between 70 and 80% turnout. Iacchus (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information available on abstention. The French example is interesting in that the left was advising people to generate a "white vote," i.e., spoiling of ballots. The number of spoilt ballots was over 5% which is, I believe, quite high. Statistics I've seen show less than 1% spoilt ballots as the norm, unless there is some malfunction in the voting process, such as the "hanging chad" fiasco in the U.S. presidential election in 2000. Here's some stats from the UK

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=20100

In Canada, I believe I heard that there were roughly 95,000 spoilt ballots in the last federal election, which would be considerably less than 1%. But, of course, it is illegal to intentionally spoil your ballot in Canada:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20060121/eating_ballot_060122/

So if you are asking whether I think the French example in the WP article is a good one, I would say yes. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Good luck with your project. Sunray (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mihailoviv mediation

Hi. I understand you are the lucky mediator on this article. You are probably aware that I have topic banned DIREKTOR for one month on all yugoslav/balkan articles, broadly construed. I must admit I didn't think about your mediation. I wouldn't want it to become invalid through the non-participation of one party. If this is a problem, please let me know.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Sunray

I would sincerely like to give the mediation one last go, as it were. As I explain on the mediation talkpage, I will not be able to participate fully, however, until after my exams (some three or four weeks). By then, I would like to get some preliminary work done. That said, I do consider these initial steps (i.e. affirmation of a number of sources) as absolutely crucial to any source-based dispute resolution in the future. If a source of that calibre can be simply "rejected" for no good reason, then what can anyone do? I would appreciate it if you read the new thread on the mediation talkpage and posted your opinion on the reliability of the source in question, with regard to the peer reviews and Wikipedia policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on your involvement in the mediation. I had understood from our previous discussion on your talk page that you were not supportive of the mediation. You made a further statement that you "have no intention at all of abiding by any conclusions drawn in the RfMY." I was unhappy about that statement because I value the time that I and others have put into this mediation and I would hope that the effort has been worthwhile.

You've since talked to Faintes in the context of whether a topic ban would affect your participation in the mediation. My understanding was that you still had a concern about participating. You said: "I will only participate in debating Draža Mihailović's (and the Chetniks') collaboration..." I think that we have discussed that at length and I told participants that I saw a lot of common ground. I've always said that sources are the key. I think we need a focused discussion on what to include.

If you plan to return to the mediation, I would like you to sign the Groundrules on the Mediation talk page. We should be rolling by the time you are finished your exams. Sunray (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Moved DIREKTOR'S further comments re: WP:UNDUE and my responses here. Sunray (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

????

may I intervene in mediation about Mihajlovic? On which page of project? Regards,--Tiblocco (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record I oppose the inclusion of any further users, with poor English skills, most probably canvassed from srWiki by User:FkpCascais. The end result has always been a long, tedious discussion that serves only to debunk ingrained preconceptions, bring the inherently biased users up to speed, and dispose of unacceptable "sources". Lets get this over with, further participants are completely unecessary. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: I understood that you were not participating in the mediation at present. Can you clarify this? Sunray (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, now this is out of limit! Where did you get the idea of me being involved in this? This was the silliest attack I had seen lately. It is quite easy to see that Tiblocco is not Serbian and probably never even visited sr.wiki. He asked me about this, and I answered him. It is not my fault he oposes your POV. Your observations on this are provocative, and you are demanding/oposing too much in my view after your behaviour. If this is your way of asking to return, it is quite disapointing. FkpCascais (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@Fkp: Statements such as: "Your observations on this are provocative..." are personal remarks. As we continue the mediation, will you be working at not making such statements? Sunray (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

personal attack against FkpCascais is childish very much! Obvious I am Italian.--Tiblocco (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sunray, I supose Tiblocco noteced the unfair remark Direktor made about us first. Our responces were basically reactions to provocation. I think we both understood that it seems unnecessary to respond (athough not responding may leave a wrong impression), but the origin of the problem should also be adressed, because nothing of this wouln´t happend if direktor didn´t made the unfair comment in first place. He can opose, he can do whatever, but he can´t acuse me of canvassing (?) and Tiblocco of being "Serbian biased user" (??) and expect to not have an adequat answer on that. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, DIREKTOR'S comment about "poor English skills" was also out of bounds. As to the remark about canvassing, I agree that it was provocative if you weren't canvassing. DIREKTOR is topic banned and he will need to modify his behaviour if he is coming back to the mediation. I think that you should keep in mind that what DIREKTOR does is not justification for you breaking the groundrules that you have agreed to. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. FkpCascais (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Tiblocco: You ask if you might intervene in the mediation about Mihailovic. What did you have in mind? How would you see yourself being involved? Sunray (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I do not see personal attacks (or any personalized comments) as useful in talk page discussions, and especially not in mediation. Calling another editor "childish" is not helpful. If you continue the discussion here, I hope you will refrain from that. Sunray (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

allergies

Hi Sunray,

Thanks for your explanation.

The blog actually contains Q & A with top pediatricians from Singapore and is more relevant than research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentanandraj (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take another look at it. If we decide to use it, there should be justification on the article talk page. Editorial decisions are made by a consensus of editors. Sunray (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

About mediation

Hello Sunray. I just wanted you to know that I certainly never made any canvassing anywhere about this issue. First, canvassing is something I have never done on wp on any issue, and secondly, because I obviously know I would be reported inmediately. The only thing I did was to inform Swift and Cлoбoдни Умjeтник about the restart of the mediation, hoping they will return. Now, direktor seems to want to wrongly present that as canvassing.

Regarding Tibloco, I met him when he edited Mihailovic article recently, and I contacted him at his talk page explaining him that the page was under mediation. You can see his talk page. I don´t opose neither support his inclusion because I don´t know what he pretends, and because it is not up to me to judge that.

Thank you for the explanation.

Now, and most important SUnray, I know we had our divergences in past, but I hope you know that I am able to admit my mistakes and change and addapt my behavior when necessary. Also, I really hope you noteced that all my remarcs you critisized in past were allways preceded by a similar comment from the other party, it is not an excuse, I know, but it is a constatation. I hope you know that I am able to try to have a perfectly normal debate with people oposing me, and I really don´t mind so much loosing, but I do mind about the way the process will develop.

Yes, you have been responsive. I think it would be helpful for you to remember that I am not an arbiter who divides everything in half. As a mediator, I respond how and when I think it will be useful for the mediation.

I am saying this mostly because I must complain on direktor. After his defiant attitude regarding not wanting to participate, I noteced that all his comments from then on included provocations and attacks. Instead of direktor behaving in oposite way and entering this time in the mediation with the acertive attitude, unfortunately that is not what happend. I´m not sure if the reason for that is panic of not knowing where he stands, or what, but it becomes extremely hard to discuss in this environment. And notece that the debate hasn´t even begun! I know you allways somehow demanded a bit more contention from me than him, but lately that situation has been quite painfull for me. And the worste thing of all is that he did all this completely unnecessarily. The discussion didn´t even started, I didn´t said anything yet and we were even starting to create the perfect (at least the best possible) environment so this mediation comes to an conclusion. Since it is his version protected by now, I even dare to think if this is not some intentional sabotaging of the mediation, or some way of making pressure for his POV to be accepted by force, but I must say that he created an enormous amount of completely unecessary problems in just few days without even anything strating yet, so I think he shot his own feet totaly unecessarily. Also, and I find this very important, direktor said to me in his talk page that he´ll somehow refuse to accept the decitions of the mediation in case "his version" is not accepted. I asked him about a serios compromise on this and the final result, and that was his answer. I find this all very disturbing and unhealty. FkpCascais (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the complaint department. I have made two requests of DIREKTOR: The first was that he consider a facilitated discussion with you (which he declined). The second was concerning his further participation in the mediation. I am awaiting his response to that. I would prefer not to discuss these comments by you unless he responds positively to one of my requests. Sunray (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean. Thank you for your response. FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi Sunray, For your information, you've been mentioned a few times at WP:AN#Sanction warranted? concerning edits by DIREKTOR. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen that. I usually stay out of ANI requests involving participants in a mediation, unless there is a need to explain why I have taken a particular action. Your analysis of the situation is spot on, IMO, and several others have provided their input. The issues seem clear. Sunray (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have notified you, except that the original subject of the thread has virtually nothing to do with the mediation or yourself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions and doubts

Hello Sunray, I just wanted to clear out some questions regarding the mediation. It is not urgent, but tell me when you find time. Best regards. FkpCascais (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, please go ahead with your questions. Sunray (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest events took me the time I thought to spend around mediation issues, however this may be even more important, since it is related.

DIREKTOR has started heavily editing the same old rethoric on the same and related articles. He has openly being criticizing and disregarding the mediation, including inviting me to abandon it (!). He is being highly disrputive, and with the help of few "friendly" users, he has been pushing his same old edits. Now, I have reverted his edits on several ocasions, however, he menaged to convince User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that I was edit warring (while restoring the previous versions of the article, and some images case where direktors insensitivity comes again in evidence) and he put me under sanctions (!) ANI report. I have obviously challenged this sanction, and I hope FPS will understand what happend (specially because I was´n´t even warned about the ANI thread by direktor, so I didn´t had the chance to even defend myself (?!).

However, what is important is that the articles (including all related ones, and exactly about the issue under mediation) are being heavily edited by DIREKTOR, and all this disregarding and opelnly critisizing of the mediation which is actualy being very disturbing. Something should be done, otherwise this would give an extremely wrong perception about the policies, conflict resolutions, the mediation, and basically respect. Here is one of the recent exemples: [3] where you can see me trying to bring him back to the mediation, but you see his ideas... and on Talk:Yugoslav Front you can see several recent exemples (just see at bottom, for exemple). Everywhere I reminded him about the mediation (which is often, because I beleave it is the only way of solving this dispute), this was the responce in front of the entire wiki community (!). For that, which is total lack of respect towards you and all of us participants, and because he unilateraly decided to ignore everything and just returned (worste then ever) to his POV, I really think something should be done. Because I defended the mediation, I defended the return to mediated discussion, I restore previous versions, but unfortunatelly I ended up being punished clearly opening the highway for his disruption and lack of respect. I apologise by my long comment, but I let myself write this because I am really outraged with all this. FkpCascais (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well since the user is talking about me I wil take the liberty to respond. The sheer amount of wrong information present above is staggering.

Firstly, as can be exepected, my edits are not those of a year and a half ago. Indeed, if you recall, I was the one OPPOSING new edits by User:FkpCascais. This time, I've carefully taken the time to source every word, and followed the sources almost verbatim. I've posted my proposed edits on the talkpage and discussed them before introducing them, requesting that contradicting sources are presented, and waiting for someone to do so. As things stand now, the original version of the article has already been massacred beyon recognition, and towards FkpCascias' view. Needless to say it now contains utter gibberish. Fkp did not complain even when some user entered imaginary events such as a "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia" into the article.

I do not have the help of "friendly" users, I am essentially editing alone. I did not say a word to old Future Perfect, he merely noticed Fkp breached 3RR in removing some long-standing image from the Yugoslav Front article and sanctioned him for it - lightly. Next, I am not "heavily editing" articles. All I added were two, rather short, paragraphs, etc.

As for the mediation, allow me to demonstrate how User:FkpCascais uses it to push his POV into the article. When numerous editors sympathetic to User:FkpCascais' position edited the article beyond all recognition - he did not say a word. But when another editpr enters immaculately sourced facts contrary to Serbian nationalist propaganda, Fkp comes here demanding that the mediation (somehow) does something about it.

Indeed, the article is now a Serbian nationalist love-fest, completely detached from real history. As I said, the article now talks about completely imaginary events, such as a "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia". This example is particularly descriptive of the political nationalist, Balkans POV of the users in question. While the Serbian President has recently thanked the Russian president for the Soviet assistance in the liberation of Belgrade, radical nationalist see those events as a "Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia". And Wikipedia supports them. The situation is simply intolerable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Was there any single page where you haven´t chased me direktor? FkpCascais (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My offer to mediate some of differences between the two of you still stands. Sunray (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Sunray. You know that I allways favoured a mediated discussion. Sunray, I am having a different problem. I got sanctioned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who was competely unaware about the mediation, or basically anything on the dispute, and got me a sanction reliying only on direktors version of facts and without me even receving a ANI notece so I could defend myself (not first time direktor does this to other users). The thing is that my reverts (I still dispute if 3 or 4, but anyway) consist on revrting the direktors "Chetniks collaboration force" lead resume, while the issue beside being mediated is also rightfully restored to previous stable version. Direktor also opened a discussion on the issue that was also not finished, so by that side he also fails to insist inserting his version several times. Obviously direktor failed to inform any of this to the admin, claiming "I was removing sourced info". I tried the explain the WP:UNDUE problem, and why direktor is proceding wrong in insisting in that edit while ignoring mediation, however I think I need help to clarify the issue. The discussion is User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#FkpCascais. I reverted him over that twice, and reverted him over a pictures issue, which basically consists about this discussion: Talk:Yugoslav Front#Images. As you can see other users are "allowed" to add or remove pics as they feel like, however, despite agreement from other users (they didn´t opose neither revert my edit for days), I was edit warred over it by direktor, who finds perfectly reasonable to have 2 pics of Chetniks in the article, both posing with Axis troops. Sunray, I know we had our disagreements on the past, but I stood along all the way, and I really need your help in this situation, speacially regarding the first issue. Could you please help me to clarify this, at least to explain why this or this is wrong, or why reverting it to previous version is right. Notece how it is exactly the same lead situation as in Mihailovic, and direktor knowing perfectly well how we discussed this already at mediation ignores it completely and insists on it.I am sorry to drag you into this, but it is related to the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading correctly that you did break the 3RR rule? Sunray (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I´m not sure Sunray, and 2 of the reverts were about the lead change on behalve of direktor, exactly the one describing sucintly the Chetnik movement (direktor already broke 3RR when reverting mediation related edits and he allways said that those reverts are rightfull, remember? It happend more than once I beleave). His editsin this case are exactly what we are we discussing on mediation and direktor should not have changed the previous version. Even if we forget that, he opened a discussion on talk page, however he insisted on his edits without the discussion being complete, so by any side I beleave he shouldn´t have edit warred over it, which I reverted, so 2 reverts are on that. I also made one revert divided into 3 separate edits, so I could explain in edit summary each, but I could have done it in one, so I am not sure if it counts as 1 or 2. On the other side I´m counting on direktors behalve 4 reverts in less than 24 hours, so I don´t understand why he wasn´t punished as well. Anyway, direktor provided his version where he totaly failed to explain everything involving the issue, and Future didn´t even took me in consideration, he took decition against me. Have you seen the edits in question? FkpCascais (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC) About your question, well I don´t really know, and that is why I asked Future to be specific but he simply refuses to. Really. :( FkpCascais (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, my problem is that because of reverting direktors lead edits ("Chetniks collborators") I was acccused of "Battleground mentality" and "disruptive behavior" (it is what it says on ARBMAC!) because direktor purposly didn´t informed in the report (to which I wasn´t notified to, so I couldn´t explain it myself) about the mediation and the complexities of the case. He just presented it as "insistent removal of sourced content". I need you, as mediator, please to explain to the admin that the case is not that simple and that his edit is the exact reason why the mediation started in first place. I need that because otherwise a totaly wrong impression is left. If I was, for exemple, glorifiying them in leads, as much sources as I could add direktor would certainly claim that he is rightfully reverting to the previous version. I think the admin doesn´t beleave me, or something, and i am planing to appeal the decition, however I do hope that with someones clarification it wan´t be necessary, or at least the unfair observation will be removed. I was definitely not disruptive neither it was me having a battleground mentality, but rather direktor who knows those edits must be discussed and would be reverted, that is for sure. The admin seems to think that Direktor was making fine sourced contributions, and I was the one being desruptive, which is definitely not fair, and was a situation created actually by direktor to punish me. FkpCascais (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to comment on what you have said, but you must understand that in my role of mediator, I cannot take action, other than to facilitate discussion between participants. Sunray (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that, don´t warry, I´m not asking you to take action, just to help me clarify this unusual situation to the admin that took action unaware of it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do. Sunray (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed seems so hard just confirming the collaboration issue is under mediation. (???)

Anyway, the questions I raised at the mediation page are serios questions. The fact that an outside editor has entered and cluttered the discussion with his own issues has no matter with the issues I raised there. Should I expect at least for you to unswer the issues raised by me (an actual mediation participant)? FkpCascais (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If they are questions about the mediation no problem. If they are questions about someone who is not currently a participant, no. Sunray (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you´re right, apologies, I didn´t noteced some of the actions you took recently. Well, direktor derailed the conversation on the mediation, where I was basically asking how will the issue procede afterwords, and what will happend if direktor tries to push his same old POV into the articles? I mean, I am the one trying to solve things under mediation, and he seems to have been left with the impression that he will just wait for the mediation to finish and then he´ll just add what he wants (note that he had already announced it, so I am not making "predictions" as Nuujinn stated). FkpCascais (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be unwise for someone to add something against a consensus. In any case, the current proposal is to move the mediation to the article talk page before we close it. Sunray (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you are basically asking me to think positively despite evidence and knowing that over this issue none good faith on part of some users was showed in past, but ok, let´s see how it goes. The question then is: do you consider including the discussions with outside mediation participants that happend on those talk-pages (direktor, for exemple, has been very active and enthusiastic there lately) or only the in-mediation discussions are the ones that count? FkpCascais (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the information. I am not even going to try discussing with Direktor (especially after my further interactions with him there where he actually outdid himself). I am not entirely adverse to discussing with Nujinn, though. When the article is unlocked, I might work on the former draft/new article if time permits. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, the annoying guy quoting all the sources is the problem.. Without me you'd all be free to simply agree to ignore the refs and reach a "consensus" pretty damn quickly.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Make that misquoting, misreading, etc. As I said, I am not going to try working with this guy. IMHO, his contributions are unimpressive and his position amazingly weak. My only problem is that I find him so unpleasant that the mere thought of his existence tends to ruin any enjoyment I might feel on wikipedia. Hence, I do not believe in a mediation, or in any kind of productive interaction, with this person. Working with other contributors is not a problem for me, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please see the Perpetual Mediation thread on WP:ANI. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A little confused

Hello, this comment on my nomination confused me a little. Were you referring to my comments as observable neutral facts or requesting I make my comments more neutral and factual? If I need to clarify my response I'm more than happy to, but could you clarify your comment a little, as I am slightly confused. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, your comment here clarifies your comments. Please disregard the above. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Making WP:Mediation meaningful

Please consider how you might assist Feezo, who you will know is the mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.

As context, please scan "Hands off" mediation plan.

Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did communicate with Feezo following your note, and note that other mediators have had a look see. Sunray (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent refactoring

I'd like to request you please apologize for your removal of this edit. According to WP:RPA "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." This post was not directed against you, or anyone for that matter, and far from being an obvious true "personal attack", it was not a personal attack in any sense of the term as defined by WP:NPA. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, the statement is untrouth. I dare you to present one diff, anywhere, where I said what you claim, and also, your adition of "collaboration" in the lead was never neither long (a couple of months) neither standing (you were reverted at least 10 times in that short period of time). This intentional missinformation must end. It is a mediation, and Sunray has all the right to remove provoking inacurate comments towards other users, which beside that, are completely useless. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor: Your statement strikes me as wikilawyering. More importantly, it is entirely beside the point. The mediation is still in progress and we are attempting to establish terms for discussing the new draft article. If you continue to make personal comments and argue with everyone, it will not aid your cause. I strongly recommend that you stop this race to the bottom now. As I said in the mediation and have repeated to you, the only way to interpret WP:NPA in a dispute of this nature is to follow the statement "comment on content, not the contributor" to the letter. Please do so from here on out. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that, as far as I'm concerned, you are taking far too much liberty with other people's posts. Or to be more accurate, with my posts, since actual personal attacks laden with expressions of unbridled hatred on the part of User:Jean-Jacques Georges have gone completely untouched. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I deal with each individual in a manner appropriate to the situation. Right now I am speaking to you. I want to be sure that you understand what I have said above, and will act accordingly. Would please confirm that now? Once you have done that, if you wish to raise a concern about another user's actions, by all means do so, (with the appropriate diff). I don't always catch everything. Sunray (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, if by "commenting on content and not the contributor" you understand that I am not to post things like

• "User:FkpCascais, claiming that Draža Mihailović did not collaborate at all, started repeatedly altering a (long-standing) statement to that effect from the article's lead."

then I must refuse on the grounds that I will be severely restricted in my ability to prove any point. I would suggest that you sanction actual personal attacks as opposed to any and all "comments on the contributor", and as I said, I believe it is clear that is what WP:No Personal Attacks policy is all about. I would like to know whether you are still behind the removal of statements such as the above (which are not personal attacks by any definition)?

Concerning the terms, they are your proposal, and I do not see how it is just to label me as the guy who "argues with everyone" simply because I do not support your proposal. To me it seems that the proposal itself, or to be more accurate, the conditions which you are using to force it through, are the element that has frozen the (previously ongoing) discussion in place. Why not post the draft in the article? What use is there in stalling that universally agreed-upon edit? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for your avoiding answering any of the above inquiries? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I did answer. But briefly, I will add that you did not pay much attention to what I said, which was, in essence: There have been continual behavioural problems with participants. Therefore a strict interpretation of policy is necessary in order to meet their spirit. For people who are have a hard time meeting WP goals, it is easiest to say something simple like: "stick to content, not the contributor. Period." That is what ARBMAC is all about. Sunray (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR's recent edits

Sunray, here DIREKTOR undid a section that I created, could you ask that he not do this again. It muddles the discussions, I think. I'd rather have that be a separate section but it is just to complicated to piece out the bits now. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nuujin, I thought you wouldn't mind and I wanted to keep the continuity of the discussion. I do apologize if offense was taken and I certainly would not mind you restoring the title of the section. But.. why do you think we need another section about an edit conflict? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One reason is I had to fight through four edit conflicts to get that comment in, I wish you all would learn to think about what you're going to say and say it instead of constantly tweaking what I regard as giant walls of text. The other that any break aids navigation and helps one figure out where an edit occurred when walking diffs or looking at the talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't call the recent exchange "giant walls of text".. apart from the sources quotes the posts were rather small. But Nuujin you must grant that it is the right of both of us to tweak our posts to best present our meaning, not to mention fix typos. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To maintain order on the article talk page, the only refactoring should be by a moderator. I am still considering whether I want to be involved in that capacity, as are other mediators. Nuujinn has raised another concern that I consider significant: excessively long posts. This was raised by Fainites on June 9 and some editors have refused to limit the length of their posts. Talk page guidelines set out a number of good practices, including: "Be concise". My other concern is the frequent ad hominem on the talk page. I no reason for remarks directed at the individual, rather than the content at issue. I will make a statement about behavioral expectations by the end of the day Monday. Sunray (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should let this go, but I think DIREKTOR is today in violation of the three posts per day restriction, even loosely construed. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And again today. A slip here or there is understandable, and I appreciate the relative brevity, but I find that the pushing of the established envelope of this and other terms of discussion tiring and unhelpful to discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've now pointed that out in response to a query by Direktor on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for the barnstar Sunray - but without your steady persistence it would not have happened ... so you are part of the barn star - I'm not sure how to award them or if I have the authority to do so - but you probably have a fine collection already! Quite an endurance event that Sustainability one.Granitethighs 00:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks too

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For a long, exhausting, but ultimately well worth while effort to bring "Sustainability" to GA standard Granitethighs 08:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

General Draža Mihailović

Serbia is the fortress of the Templars. It has always been in history. I have no time to waste with the Jesuits. Read this Anti-Freemason Exhibition. Even an the latest war in the Balkans it was a Serbian uprising against the Holy Roman united of Europe, founded by Otto von Habsburg.Thanks.--213.137.116.21 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability

Thanks Sunray - yes, I can fit in some time whenever you are ready. The page has been very stable since it was upped to GA which is reassuring. Only thing is I've never had anything to do with any FA articles so I dont know what is involved. I will read up WP:FA and see what needs doing. If you could tell me what you think are the main areas that need addressing I can make a start - there's no rush is there - we can just nudge away at it when we have time. All the best.Granitethighs 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good GT. I will get back to you with some thoughts. Sunray (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Check your email please. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, thank you for your comments on the flag carrier page. I have replied to your post. If you have not already done so, I invite you read the discussion on the [Project Aviation page]. On this page I had already addressed some of the suggestions that you made on the Flag Carrier talk page, specifically those listed under your dot point number 3. Gfcvoice (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions

A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

Is at six posts today already by my count. Just a head's up, this is getting a bit ridiculous. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving?

If we're done with Karchmar, could be archive that section, or any others? The load times are pretty bad again. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

First draft

I put up the first draft at Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts, just a head's up since my quiver's empty for today on the talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Advice

Hi Sunray,

Thanks for the advice on writing wiki articles. In a recent post, you noted that I may have a conflict of interest. I just wanted to let you know that I have no such conflict. Currently, I'm pursing my doctorate in philosophy with an emphasis on environmental philosophy and agrarian ethics and I enjoy writing about this topic. I noticed when reading wiki articles that some did not adequately deal with current developments and current figures and I wanted to rectify that. I didn't intend to give the impression that I had a particular agenda other than providing up to date information. In the future I will be sure to ask an editor to proofread any new articles to obtain feedback and to limit the possibility of deletion. Thanks again and enjoy your weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyname42 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Your edit about the ethics of sustainability in the Sustainability article (which I reverted) raised some concern with me as your arguments were all sourced from one book, Sustainability Ethics: 5 Questions. Then I noticed that most of your recent edits were about various of the authors of articles in that book. What is going on? You say there is no conflict of interest. Does that mean that you are not one and do not know any of the editors or authors you have cited? Please do not continue to reinsert the edits to the Sustainability article without first discussing them on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an author of the book nor have I met the editors of the book. I am just a graduate student. However, I know that sustainability ethics is a developing field that is hot right now in the same way that development ethics is. I thought that the book I cited was the best one to use in this instance because it has articles from several leading authors working in the field. As it is a new field, the amount of literature specifically devoted to it is sparse. However, I can rewrite the section using several different sources and have you look at it. Would this be OK? As a person who is interested in this topic, I think that any article on sustainability would be lacking without having at least a mention of sustainability ethics. Especially, since the concept of sustainability itself is rooted within the normative frameworks of those who both coined their conceptions of it and who have tried to use it. Also, I would be happy to help update or polish any articles connected with this topic or on philosophy in general that you might be editing to make better. I'm not here to push an agenda, I just want the information on wikipedia to be correct and the most up to date that it can be. I noticed last year that many undergraduates use wikipedia without question and so, with a summer of time on my hands, I thought I would add to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.112.63 (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all good. Writing for an encyclopedia is rather different than academic writing. One thing the two genres have in common, as you have already understood, is the citation of reliable sources. Broadening a topic by using various references is a good idea. There is one other thing that is characteristic of Wikipedia: collaborative editing. Editorial decisions are made by consensus. That can be challenging, but, for the most part, I find it rewarding. The article on sustainability is a good example of collaboration. And because it is rated as a good article, major changes will need discussion. I appreciate your willingness to do that. Granitethighs and I have been talking about improving it to featured article status. To do so would require the efforts of several editors. BTW, don't forget to sign your posts by adding four tildes, ~~~~ thus. The mark-up language will add your username, talk page link and a time/date stamp. How are things in Lansing these days? Hot, I bet. Sunray (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sustainability

Thanks for keeping me in the loop Sunray: it would be great to lift the article up a notch. Just on the various points.

• On “infinite sustainability”: as I understand it the heat death of the universe (i.e. entropy) will spoil the party for absolutely everything. I’m not sure how productive or meaningful it is to pursue this point. But perhaps I’ve missed something?
• I agree that life-cycle analysis should be mentioned in the article – I thought it was … it certainly was at one time.
• “the economic and engineering analysis of such manufactured technology tends to be ignored”. I thought the article addressed, however briefly, both the economic aspects of sustainability and the environmental and other impacts impact of all technology, from an “engineering” or any other perspective. However, again the point here is lost on me a bit. Perhaps a way forward is to collectively consider potential changes to the existing text?
• I still do not follow what is meant by using the article for “political purposes” – this will have to be spelled out in simple terms for me.
• "... while sustainability has become a prominent topic and popular buzz word within the past two decades, there is little consensus on its exact meaning." My thoughts on this are simple. Yes, a precise definition of sustainability would give us something firm to hold on to, a foundation stone on which to build. Unfortunately people approach sustainability in so many and diffuse ways that it is, to my mind, just not possible. To provide a definition would create more problems than it would solve: better to present some of the major attempts at definition to give the reader a taste of the different approaches. I think the “Definition” section actually does this about as clearly as could be hoped for, but I suppose we can look at it again.
• On “Sustainability ethics” I think we have a tantalizing topic, especially as D says it is becoming “hot”. But then, on reflection, I cant help thinking that people will and “should” (sorry to be normative) also approach sustainability from the full gamut of belief systems, values, ethics and so on. Anyway – I’m in ignorance on the topic, very willing to learn, and if it is relevant, it should be mentioned in the article.

I’m painfully aware of article “ownership” issues which I am keen to avoid, but maybe some of the above seems uncooperative. Perhaps it is best to simply propose changes on the talk page so that we can discuss them as we go along?Granitethighs 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. My remarks were just the result of a first glance at the article. But it was interesting to see that some fairly key issues were moved to subarticles. That would be something to be addressed. I certainly will come back to the talk page with further comments. I just didn't want to get into more discussion about infinite sustainability, which I thought you handled just fine.  :) Sunray (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Granitethighs, I agree with you about defining "sustainablity." The purpose of sustainability ethics is not to give one definition of this term. Rather, what such ethicists do is critique and make visible the positions from which the different usages or conceptions of sustainablity come from. Often, people have conversations dealing with sustainability and they are actually talking about different things. In addition, there's often debate over which action in a particular context is sustainable. Looking at the different conceptions of sustainablity helps people within such debates find common ground. Much of the literature on the subject actually deals with conflict resolution and policy making. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy reading the material as it's applied or practical philosophy. It's why I thought it should be included in the sustainability article, as it honors and makes visible these diverse positions. Dyname42 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Draza Mihailovic mediation etc

Just to notify you that I topic banned DIREKTOR today for 6 months under ARBMAC.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cover for MedCom chair

There's been no response to my mailing list post, so I've boldly named you the temporary chairman at WP:MC#Chair. If you're willing to cover my absence, could you do the usual: keep an eye on WP:RFM and accept/reject requests per normal procedure (check my changes to the recently accepted/rejected cases if you need to know how the templates and paperwork works); monitor WP:RFAR and delete then use WP:Mediation Committee/Chair/Privilege to blank the case, talk, and archive talk pages of any cases that are named in the course of a request for arbitration. I'll try to keep an eye on my wiki e-mail and forward any messages sent to User:Mediation Committee, so that doesn't need monitoring.

If you can't take these duties on until 31 August 2011, and somebody else can, please pass this message along. Thank you, and see you in just over a week! AGK [•] 11:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Have fun! Sunray (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation rejected for Vulva

There was no reason left as to why this is rejected. Please post a reason for the rejection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circle3382 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that the other party did not agree to mediate. That would seem to be a strong reason why the mediation did not proceed. Sunray (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Email question

Hello, Sunray. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Qwyrxian (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian. I am considering your question will get back to you shortly. Sunray (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Sunray. I sent an email to medcom-l but it was rejected automatically (not even held in moderation) so I have sent it to you instead. Could you forward it to medcom-l please? Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve, I have forwarded your request to the MedCom list. I will get back to you shortly. Sunray (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Is it normal for the emails sent to medcom-l to be rejected automatically? From memory they used to be held in moderation. Odd. Anyways, thanks. Talk soon. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will check on the email situation. I have responses from the list about your request. The gist is: thanks for the offer, but no. However, there are 12 cases awaiting mediators at MedCab. Best wishes, Sunray (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I will see what I can do. Out of interest, were there any particular reasons, or was it mainly abundance of MedCab vs Medcom?Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Email sent. Sunray (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replied. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Don't you think we should now move on the collaboration issue? BoDu (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes we should wrap it up. Thank you for staying with it. The piece on collaboration, is, as you know, the final piece. I will put the question on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moon landing

This redirect is up for discussion. Please see WP:RFD#Wikipedia:Moon landing. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 19:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref. to PoV on Roma people in CZ in Roma people article

I have several references to be added to my contribution on Roma people article:

Standing Roma people in czech economics http://www.dzeno.cz/docs/ROMECO_CZE.doc

Crime, living and unemployment of Roma people http://www.christnet.cz/magazin/clanek.asp?clanek=1278

Roma unemployment rate (2005): http://www.romea.cz/index.php?id=servis/z2005_0051

Point of view on Roma: http://aktualne.centrum.cz/domaci/spolecnost/clanek.phtml?id=475102

Current hate crime wave in the media: http://aktualne.centrum.cz/domaci/regiony/ustecky/clanek.phtml?id=713785#utm_source=article-hint&utm_medium=referral http://zpravy.idnes.cz/romove-z-noveho-boru-se-boji-odvety-vinu-davaji-i-obsluze-herny-pvx-/krimi.aspx?c=A110812_205754_liberec-zpravy_abr http://zpravy.idnes.cz/mistni-vedi-ze-delat-umime-rikaji-romove-z-varnsdorfske-ubytovny-p9z-/domaci.aspx?c=A110915_190121_usti-zpravy_alh

Following article about problems with education of young Roma: http://liberec.idnes.cz/deti-chudych-povinne-do-skolek-romove-nemaji-zajem-zni-z-boru-a-tanvaldu-1aj-/liberec-zpravy.aspx?c=A110916_1652790_liberec-zpravy_oks

Forced prostitution and welfare misusage: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/romove-se-zpovidaji-z-kuplirstvi-prostitutky-jim-vydelaly-miliony-1go-/krimi.aspx?c=A110816_124343_budejovice-zpravy_pp

I would also recommend merging main article with following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism, http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticikanismus those articles have references included within.

Is number of articles enough or should I dig out some more?

Robin WH (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

These are Czech sources, right? They might well be reliable sources for the Czech Wikipedia, but we need English ones for the English Wikipedia. If you want to pursue that, I would be willing to help. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to pursue, but all which might be neeeded is add the google translator to the links.Robin WH (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the guidelines require that we use English sources or official translations of Czech sources. Sunray (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Then above mentioned Aniziganism article is ignoring those guidelines as it uses google translated articles as references. Robin WH (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We should base our decisions on policies and guidelines rather than articles as some articles are not good examples. Antiziganism is rated "start class," whereas Romani people is assessed as "B" Class and considered "top-importance" by WikiProject Ethnic groups (see the box at the top of Talk: Romani people).

BTW, if the two articles were to be merged, the main article would be "Romani people." Are we clear on this? Sunray (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did not know/noticed rating as such I was focusing on article as itself. I just don´t know where to find some things about czech in english as most common sources for czech (without errors) are czech only portals. So when I saw google trasnslator applied for czech sources on english wiki so I thought it was enough (otherwise it would be repaired). I think you should try use of translator at least on standing Roma in economics (date probably 2005-06), because it is thorough and is describing all I mentioned in my own words, and I admit, that I didn´t read it before you asked me for sources. As for merging, I wholly agree, it was my intention. Robin WH (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There may not be many articles, but I'm sure we can find enough. Here's an article from the The European Roma Information Office (ERIO):

Inspectors from the Council of Europe have completed a "monitoring visit" to determine the Czech Republic's performance in upholding minority rights. The visit followed a report by Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg in March, 2011. In his Hammarberg criticised the Czech Republic's treatment of Roma people. The report called for greater efforts to include Roma in Czech society:

"[Hammarberg's report] said that an anti-Roma approach and ongoing segregation in education and housing are the main obstacles to including Roma people into Czech society. Hammarberg was disturbed by the anti-Roma statements made by some politicians and believes the Czech Republic should fight against extremists and racially motivated violence more effectively. He recommended the creation of social housing and an end to the practice of pushing Roma people into ghettos on the outskirts of towns. He also drew attention to the large number of children in children’s homes and to the high percentage of Roma children among them.

Notes

I've quoted from the article, but it would be easy to summarize it for the WP article. We would need at least one more report from a reliable source to support this one (e.g., a newspaper such as the Guardian). There should also be other studies by the Council of Europe or European universities, published in English on various aspects about Roma people in Czech. The problems are so well known, there may also be North American reports we could use. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

War of 1812 revert

Hey there, sorry I didn't know about that. A simple search of war of 1812 colts comes up with a good deal of coverage. I'll have to get around to inserting that, someday. Buggie111 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize that there is a rivalry between the two teams and I get that it is often referred to as a War of 1812. So I went through the links you sent me with interest. The first two are blogs, and don't meet the grade as reliable sources. The third one is ESPN, which is a reliable source, but doesn't link the War of 1812 to the Colts/Patriots rivalry. The fourth is NFL.com and does make the link, but says nothing about it. Fifth comes a Naval Weapons station and doesn't make the link. The sixth is a blog... and so on.

One of the considerations for including material in articles is notability. I'm wondering how notable this is and whether it has much traction other than with sportscasters, who are always looking for something to fill the air, repeating the statement that the rivalry between the two teams is like the War of 1812--which actually is a rather strange statement when you consider that the War of 1812 was fought between the U.S. and Canada. Sunray (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail. ;)

Hello, Sunray. You have new messages at Steven Walling's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bodhisattva

Hi Sunray,

The link to an online version is here: www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/dhamma-nibbana.pdf The reference is at the bottom of page 36.

Cheers,

Julian Jccraig (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)