User talk:Sunray/Archive19

Vancouver article

Unfortunately the article is in such a poor state, so it will almost certainly get removed as a FA. It'll probably go back to B-class the you/others could hopefull get it up to GA and then see what happens from there. Cheers. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't an FA review allow the page editors a chance to address the problems in an article? Losing a Featured Article seems a shame. We don't have many FAs overall and very few cities with FAs. The problems seem to me to be the usual ones that happen to articles that get a lot of drive-by editing. It doesn't seem all that difficult to take a look at what the article contained when it was last reviewed as an FA and strip off the chaff. There are some good editors who have worked on the article in the past and I'm sure that some of them would be up for article clean-up. Meanwhile, a comprehensive review would be most helpful. Sunray (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if work keeps happening on the article it wont be delisted for a while yet. I'm not experienced enough yet to give a good review of the article but I can give pointers. The most important thing is the poor referencing. Even though it has 150 or so citations the article is so long (probably way too long). Read through Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. In my opinion it fails at least; 1a, 1c, 2c and 4. Great to see you looking to improve the article and contact me if you have any questions, best of luck, Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good that we have some time. Some of the best regular editors of the article seem to be away right now. I agree with you about the weaknesses of the article vis a vis FA criteria. I've watched it get watered down since it was first listed as an FA. And I don't think that some contributors have made the best judgments about sources. But an FAR is a chance to eliminate the chaff. As to length: Featured articles about big cities tend to be on the longish side. Comparably-sized cities clock in at about the same length (e.g., Belgrade (105 kb), Manchester (128 kb), Minneapolis (112 kb) and Seattle (126 kb). Not that that is justification for sloppiness. I will be cutting it down considerably when I do a final edit. Right now I am just fixing things that have been commented on. Thanks for your help. Sunray (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for you helpfulness. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

Hey, I can't find the reviewers comments that led to the removal of one of the panoramas from Vancouver as the FAC link seems to lead to an old review. I am interested (as the photographer) in what led to an image that is a Featured Picture on three projects being removed in favor of the other image which suffers from a number of issues? Mfield (Oi!) 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The current review is referenced at the top of the talk page. Easy to miss, I know, as several people have complained about that. The comment about the panoramas was made by Aaroncrick here (second to last from bottom). We are working right now to keep the article's FA status. I am trying to comply with the various recommendations of the reviewers. We can discuss the best mix of pictures on the talk page towards the end of the review process. Ultimately it would be a consensus decision by the editors, in discussion with the reviewers, as to what we finally use as images. Sunray (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering your comments and looking more carefully at the images, I've restored yours. It is far superior and all we need to do is find a better location for it. It doesn't work very well in the "History" section, IMO. I'm thinking maybe in the "Urban Planning" section. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Typed the following as you were doing that but I will leave the comment I was posting anyway... it is worth noting that Featured Pictures have already been discussed at great length and have been promoted as a consensus taking into account not only their technical and aesthetic merits but also their encyclopedic value. One of the criteria is that the image should make users want to tread the accompanying article. There is precedent for always preferring featured content in articles as the content has already been chosen by the community, and acts as a good promotional tool for the project as a whole and helps drive the creation of better imagery and content. As far as the image location goes, the image was originally in Geography I think as it illustrates the city against its mountains surroundings. Mfield (Oi!) 18:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, fixed now. Didn't know there had already been a FAR. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work so far. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a ways to go yet. I will be making a "To do" list on the talk page - hoping to get more involvement of other editors. Sunray (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sunray. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js

The Meta Network

I have made major revisions to The Meta Network, editing for language and specifically NPOV. Please see my edits. John Kronenwetter (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember why?

Hi, looking at the Talk:Ojibwa, you were on the discussion for merging Chippewa with Ojibwa. Do you remember why Ojibwa and not Ojibwe? CJLippert (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember puzzling over that at the time. Both names were about equally common, if I recall. However, the discussion was not about changing the name of the article (which had been "Ojibwa" from its inception), but rather whether to merge "Chippewa (tribe)" with it. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Red Maple.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Red Maple.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

File source problem with File:Cyrlouis.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Cyrlouis.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell me more about yourself, please...

Hello there, I interested in what makes you qualified to be a mediator. Please give me information about your personal and professional experience. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Committee members are vetted by the committee before being accepted. The committee looks for a combination of real world and WP experience in mediation. Understanding of, and the ability to apply, WP policies is a key. In my case, I have taken dispute resolution training at the Justice Institute of British Columbia and have long-time experience in negotiation, mediation and in facilitating groups using consensus decision-making. Sunray (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Sunray. I look forward to working with you on the Prem Rawat mediation case. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism

Needs a rather thorough vetting right now - possibly even a flea-dip. Two editors appear to feel a lead-in to a section should reflect their opinions and not what is actually in the section, which makes attempts at compromise difficult (especially when constant assertions on the order of "All real historians say this" or "Your use of multiple sources even with full quotes from them is SYN" etc. <g>. Feel free to refer this to another with a few hours to spare, to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How would you describe the problem? Would I be correct in surmising that you are in conflict with several editors about whether Fascism is right wing? What would you have me do? Sunray (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope -- the compromise I provided specifically states that it was normally described as right wing. The conflict (which is with two editors, another 5 have agreed with me) is whether it is proper to say that the issue of the political spectrum being linear (which is in the body of the section) should be mentioned at the outset of the section. No one has disputed that Fascism was normally depicted on the right of a linear spectrum. No one disputes that the proposal reflects what is currently in the body of the section. What is also disputed is whether the OED is a RS on the issue of Fascism's actual position as such -- where a discussion at RS/N found the OED not to be a RS for it. The other issue is TheFourDeuces' continued posting of complaints about me -- including with Gwen Gale raising an issue back a while back when several IPs appeared to be SPA on the article -- she has since informed me that I am not to point out any SPAs unless at SPI, which makes some sort of sense. TFD also posted an EW compalint for me inserting the word "Sir" in front of the name of a baronet in the article (which I self-reverted when he complained), etc. and has apparently also floated the concept of yet another RFC/U on me as well -- he seems quite unwilling to let go I fear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You say that you are in conflict with two editors. Yet when I look at your listing of "facts" I see that several editors have taken issue with your points. As to the OED: that venerable resource merely shows usage. There is a generally accepted usage for the term "fascist." You are presenting a viewpoint that is outside of this generally accepted usage. It will not be easy to gain support for this and the burden of evidence will always be on you. Frankly, I've gone over this argument many times and the editors who have taken your position have mostly retired from the field.

You seem to be accusing others of personal attacks, yet I see you also straying well beyond the bounds of civility in some of your comments. As you should know from the Rick Warren experience, Wikipedia only works through collaboration. My question to you now is: What can you do to resolve the dispute? Sunray (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

I've edited the population paragraph in the article to better reflect the actual intention behind the policy — as long as it's properly cited, it's okay to provide an updated estimate in addition to the 2006 census figure. The paragraph now reads In the Canada 2006 Census, the city of Vancouver had a population of 578,041 and Metro Vancouver had a population of 2,116,581. As of 2009, the city has an estimated population of 615,473 and the metropolitan area has an estimated population of 2,318,200. It's just not okay for the article to give only an intercensal estimate and completely remove the 2006 census figure.

Just so you know, the primary issue that was being addressed in CANSTYLE was people replacing the 2006 census figure with unsourced offyear estimates, not ones that were properly referenced to provincial government data. Properly sourced off-year estimates have always been okay — they're not supposed to replace 2006 census data, but it's perfectly okay to add them as supplemental data in addition to the 2006 numbers. I'll look into rewording the section to make it clearer what's okay and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that the problem that CANSTYLE was addressing was with sourcing. For some reason, folks seem to go nuts on population data and it is very common to find numbers changed despite the citation at the end of the sentence. Thanks for cleaning that up. Sunray (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When you get a chance, could you take a look at the current wording of WP:CANSTYLE#Population and let me know if it makes better sense to you or still needs to be made clearer? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I like your re-write. As it was fairly lengthy, I trimmed it a bit and added sub-headings for clarity. Sunray (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat mediation

As per this I object to Momento being a part of this process. This is yet another attempt by him to create havok with these articles and push his POV. Since Rumiton has also been banned from editing the topic for a year, I'm not sure he should be included in this mediation either. Any input he would have in a year from now crafting the PR articles can certainly be dealt with at that time, and since he is unable to do anything before then, I see no reason to include him. It hardly seems reasonable to allow an editor who was banned for previous behaviour, and unable to contribute to the articles, to create policy that other editors should abide by. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed this, I think it's a pretty good example of what we could expect if he's allowed to continue. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have created a discussion page for this matter here. Sunray (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Sunray, it seems I'm unable to find the place of those opening statements...help?--Rainer P. (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Message recd, thanks, and apologies for the delay. Will have my opening statement up within the next 24 hrs. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

PR

I will be glad to review it - it will take me several days before I have time to do so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Let me know if you need anything. Sunray (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a current peer review for Sustainability. I have not read the article closely, but are you sure all the issues raised in the first PR have been addressed? For example the first section of Finetooth's comments is on Layout, but the images do not appear to all be set to thumb size and there are many hide / display boxes that seem to go against this statement. MOS:SCROLL says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The only peer review we've had in the one by Finetooth in March '09. I see that the issue of the infoboxes wasn't addressed. Granitethighs asked a question about it, but I don't think Finetooth saw that. Just so I'm clear, the guideline is stating that infoboxes should not be anywhere in the body text, right? I will remove them and maybe you might give some suggestions as to how we could use them. Sunray (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to Finetooth's comments (and linked them above). It might be useful to ask Finetooth's opinion, but I looked more closely at the first such box after the lead. It is the Peak oil box and lists three other articles, plus a link to the category. The peak oil box is in the "Late 20th century" section, but that does not mention peak oil - that is in the previous "Mid 20th century: environmentalism" section, where Peak oil is already linked. If it is that important, it seems like the other links should be added to the article. Linking to the category is unproductive, IMO.

I am also suggesting that it might be useful to start a second peer review as a place for me to leave my comments (and perhaps others will make comments there too). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I will start a second PR. Sunray (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Granitethighs (talk) to take a look at your comments on the Peak oil box. Sunray (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm awake.

If you haven't already, could you add me on Skype. Username is cro0016. We will talk then. Best, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. And you also need to add me (see e-mail). Sunray (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You have mail again. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind coming onto Google Chat for a minute? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't find any trace of the Mediation Committee wiki, I can only find arbcom wiki. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Ryan to ask if it is still there. I will let you know tomorrow if I hear back. Sunray (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks for finding us another reviewer Sunray. Fine to remove the boxes - following WP procedure. However, they did seem very useful clickable information sources in subject areas of sustainability - I think their (appropriate) contents could at least go into available nav boxes - or new nav boxes be created - or some of their contents included in the text. It just seems a pity to discard the information and research capacity they contained. Granitethighs (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear. I am 100% in favor of putting the information from the boxes into the text itself - I think it will be clearer that way as some of the box links are Easter egss (Sustainaibility and consumption was a link to Consumerism for example, not an article on that topic. There are also {{Main article}} and similar templates that can be used. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is up to you and the other editors, but I think it might be beneficial to take it to WP:GAN first for a detailed review there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Sunray! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I already subscribe (see top of page). Sunray (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for the welcome, as well as the support on Sustainability and my edits on Sustainable living. I've learned so much thanks to Wikipedia, I'm glad to finally be giving back. Jscpowser (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Peak oil

Hi Sunray - I've had a look at the Peak Oil box question. Problem is the distribution of pics. WP procedure, I think, does not allow pics opposite one-another and so if peak oil is to go into its exact section then the "Silent Spring" pic would have to go ... or go somewhere else. Perhaps, since we have a link to "Peak oil" - perhaps we do not need the Peak oil box: removing it would save space and overcome the difficulty ... I'm not sure what's best ... its the usual problem of removing these boxes ... lost information. Perhaps we remove it and worry about that later? Granitethighs (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems an easy one to solve. The "Silent Spring" pic is pretty, but doesn't really add information to the article. How about moving the "Peak Oil" pic to the previous section replacing the "Silent Spring" pic? Sunray (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK  Done Granitethighs (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Butting in - the Silent Spring image was also Fair Use and needed a fair use rationale if it was going to stay in Sustainability. I assumed it had been removed per WP:NFCC, then saw this making a comment above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks. Sunray (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help - keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability and Prosperity

I've been contemplating your comment that sustainability does not rely on prosperity, and after some consideration, I have realized that I disagree: I think sustainability is intimately tied to prosperity, and have what I feel are very compelling arguments backing up this view. I have left a comment on Talk:Sustainability#Sustainability_and_Prosperity and would be eager to take the discussion there. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've responded there. Sunray (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with Naming Conflicts

There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Wikipedia, includinc Catholic/RCC. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. On breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. You might want to add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 00:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Queen’s University Image Sizes

You may wish to participate in the discussion begun at Queen’s University Image Sizes. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sunray. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conflicts proposed changes Rfc

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4

There's a question for you (or Steve) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 4#WP:RAWAT. Basically asking about where to discuss matters related to the effort, and implicitly, wondering about the status of the mediation versus the project.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a chance I think the WP:RAWAT effort is at an important stage. The book, Peace is Possible, isvery contentious and there's already signs of editors talking past each other. A neutral party could really help in getting editors to address each other's concerns and help us achieve a consensus. Specifically, Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat/Current article issues#Cagan/PIP. Last year we wrote over 50,000 words on the topic. Though we uncovered a considerable amount of information about the source, we didn't achieve consensus. (Also, perhaps some resolved threads could be archived to keep the focus on the active issue.)   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stalled. Five users have one view, while two editors have a different view. What now?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: More Race & Ethnic Relations at Queen’s University

Hi Sunray, See my 2 cents worth on the discussion page. Cheers. BC_{talk to me} 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to your talk page because of length

Information from here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Sustainability task force

The above is inflammatory and also untrue. My edits have been consistently adopted, and more recently the Transition section from the Sustainability article, finally was changed, because of the intervention by another editor... as to removing political pov elements from that section. The article was hence improved, which is the point of editing. You have repeatedly engaged in uncivil name calling also on the article discussion page in question. You recently changed a topic discussion heading even to belittle and dismiss another editor [1]. You refactored another editor there in an extremely uncivil way, in my opinion.

Also this is not suggested on discussion pages in general Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, and I consider the above a personal attack Wikipedia:No personal attacks because of long standing former attacks by yourself such as calling another editor a troll, [2] it was suggested that you do not do that kind of thing anymore, and to allow others to constructively edit the article in question, also that forming a team does not mean ownership of an article.

I think ownership issues are rampant in the sign up team which operates on the article in question [3] as there seems to be a general assault on people outside that try to edit the article as to reverting to what probably is better phrased and sourced information in favor of a small knot of people with almost the same pov that reinforce one another almost ala tag teaming the article [4] There is a recurrent problem with name calling on the discussion page [5]. Since there is now a task force, and with a little prodding, other editors could be encouraged to edit on the Sustainability article. skip sievert (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said in response to your previous post on that page (which also might be construed as a personal attack), this is your POV. I don't happen to share it. Neither, quite evidently, do other editors of the Sustainability talk page. What can I do to make things better for you? Sunray (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop refactoring the talk page as to changing my comments. I have asked you previously to not do that here [6] and more recently again [7]. Ask your fellow team members to not do things like this this kind of behavior [8] (negative personal remarks), and do not make mass reverts of cited information [9] Also, using mockery is not an effective way to edit positively as it can be viewed as taunting and baiting, such as this recent statement on the discussion page, it does not make for good conflict resolution to say the least,,, Quote.->I assume that "Bye" means that you are leaving, Skip. That may be for the best, all things considered. end quote S.R. - skip sievert (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to leave those comments on the talk page if you will stick to content and not contributors. Sunray (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedia guidelines for editing. I hope that is clear. skip sievert (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I have replied to your email messages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Sunray, it would be nice if you could look in on us again at Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat/Current article issues when you have a moment. Both you and Steve have been offline much recently, and a number of developments (including unlocking the Rawat article, a revert there leading to an AE thread) have occurred during your absence. Cheers, JN466 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your return. Could you please clarify whether or not the Rawat topic area is under formal mediation? I was under the impression it was; Will was under the impression it was not. If it is not, I would be in favour of restoring that status.

In terms of housekeeping, we need to check through the article talk pages to see what they currently say about article status, and make sure they say the right thing. Cheers, --JN466 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The mediation has not been closed. It was placed on hold when the project started. We gave it roughly one month from the end of August. It can be resumed at any time. There are, IMO, some advantages if we can work issues through in the project format, though. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what the difference is between (1) project work moderated by mediators, with mediation placed on hold, and (2) mediation. I would be grateful if you could explain or direct me to an appropriate page explaining the difference. Thanks. JN466 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such page. In mediation the mediator is usually more hands on than a moderator would be. The project is not progressing very fast right now, but that is not necessarily a reason to go back to mediation. Sunray (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I think I understand the difference you're getting at. --JN466 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sunray. I've weighed in on the Cagan debate - as far as I can see, the issue is split down the middle, in terms of opinions. I've suggested we move onto another issue for the time being. We still need to address the Cagan dispute at some point. How do you think we should address this? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion to move on. When we come back to it one or both of us could get more actively involved in leading the discussion. Sunray (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada at FAR

User:Oei888 has nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello, I require assistance helping resolve a dispute over the "Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)" page, but I am relatively new at Wikipedia and do not know which step to follow next. The issue is the insertion of a paragraph detailing third parties accusing the subject of 'racism'. I and several others have stated on the talk page that we do not feel the paragraph belongs in the article: it is irrelevant to the specific issue and the BLP in general; it simply summarizes the irrelevant and unfounded speculation of three uninvolved parties; and it gives the section a negative tone. We think it is quite clear that this paragraph has no place on the page. Several of us have removed it and explained our reasoning on the talk page, only to have it re-added either by a person saying "A former president said it, thus it is important" or with no comment whatsoever. This will undoubtedly continue, and rather than have an edit war I would like someone with authority to make a decision. Thank you. 06:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please

(read guidelines). Stop this kind of editing on the discussion page of Sustainability - [10]. This is probably the most negative greeting I have ever seen on a discussion page. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior which translates to this Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Please do not scare off the newbies as happened preiously. skip sievert (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What guidelines are you referring to? One well established guideline is that editors do not remove comments by another editor on an article talk page. You yourself have insisted on this several times. Yet you revert my comment. My remarks were strictly factual and I stand by them. Sunray (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you are reverting the page in question now disruptively against a new consensus that you are not discussing, and still using baiting and taunting tactics on the discussion page. Its pointless to do that. Also your revert of twice reverting the article is not wise today. I assume you are now going to break the former agreement given by an Admin. ed. and do multiple reverting against other users? You multi reverted today with that second blanket reversion Not good.

Also encouraging people breaking the policy and guidelines that you have done recently by encouraging Geronimo to put up pictures and Lawrence Khwoo to call people trolls is odd, to say the least. I have to conclude that as a disruptive editor you are a problem and could possibly be topic banned from the article for your actions. skip sievert (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No one has called you a troll. Lawrencekhoo made the following comment: "I've taken it as personal policy to ignore comment page trolls and personal attacks, and I believe that's a good policy to hold to." That seems like sage advice to me. What makes you think it applies to you? You and your puppet sidekick have been editing warring against the clearly established consensus, as several editors have pointed out. Please desist immediately. Sunray (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the diffs to prove. Disruptive editors edit disruptively. It is pretty apparent. - skip sievert (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Email ping

It's quite important (for once!). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sustainability

Sunray, Your last edit removed some talk about the captioning of the lead image. I'm guessing that you did it by accident, could you reinstate it? thanks LK (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was distracted by further changes to the article (incredible as that is). I've restored the text now. Sunray (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability, Outside Perspective

I found the whole project and associate debate/controversy by fluke-- it came up while I was researching an editor as part of a AfD entry. Since I know little about your subject I certainly cannot speak to rights and wrongs or total objectivity, but after reading (literally) the entire discussion I wanted to say that's it's unfortunate that so much time put in to the article has gone to waste from endless blocking by such a minority of the project editors. I can see why you're having such trouble with one in particular-- merely asking for a clarification regarding NPOV had quite a backlash[11]. In the case of that discussion I did have to partially side with the original author, however.

Really though, seeing the entire Sustainability page with discussion and the AIN filed for it... I really hope something gets resolved for you all. WP:POINT isn't a reason to hold back all of that, and the admin board seems in agreement. In my original research I did find the author and co-defendant of the AIN soliciting another admin for help after the consensus voting begin, so I linked it back for review. Despite following Wiki guidelines and philosophy for some time I just created my account and I'm not going to be bullied away from making sure something as high-level as an AIN is resolved just because an editor felt like s/he could tag me me with harassment via WP:NOOB for asking a question. Mind you, I'm sure I'll get hate mail, but as someone who knew nothing of your project or situation until yesterday a case can't be made that I have any other agenda.

Best of luck to you all. Datheisen (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We need people around here who can sift through all the chaff and intelligently read situations and trends. I will follow up on some of the things you have said above. Best of luck editing with an account. Sunray (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are three editors on the list that were not including in the ARB request. I will add them but am currently busy. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the only editor omitted was Nick carson and I notified him. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now notified OhanaUnited. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Just to let you know there is a Rawat-related thread at RS/N. Please let the project have a statement whether you still have the time and inclination to help out. --JN466 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		* Dear Sunray, You really have gone above and beyond the call of duty, over a period of many months now, to make this a better place for all Wikipedians. We really do need more editors like you. -- Johnfos (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) | * May I endorse that. I was poised to give you the same barnstar for the same reason! --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy

I've been watching this page with interest. I'm rather worried by your statement "we need to agree on the best alternative wording" (my emphasis) and that the "we" is the three editors in the mediation. Firstly, the implication that one editor objecting can demand a change to the text is worrying. Consensus may mean an editor accepting (consenting to the fact) that he is wrong [not necessarily wrong in his own beliefs about an issue, but wrong about the changes needed in an article or his application of policy]. Secondly, consensus among a limited set of article editors cannot override community consensus. In this case, there is a risk that one person's OR may result in a weakening of a statement that is uncontentious among experts.

Both suggestions (the "Research has shown" and direct quotation/attribution) change the statement from being a "fact" to being an "opinion" or just a possibility/likelyhood that sources indicate might be wrong. I would be very worried if such a change was made for it would lead to any statement in a medical article that somebody somewhere disagrees with being watered down to just being the opinion of some scientists or regarded as only one of many possibilities. Medical and scientific facts become facts because the results of limited data are accepted as being universal. The statement "Aspirin is an effective painkiller" was not proven by testing it on the world population and against all forms of pain. Why should we write "Research has shown aspirin to be an effective painkiller"?

As has been suggested by one party, IMO the mediation should perhaps initially focus on whether the case has been made for change and whether all parties understand the policies and guidelines. I don't rule out that some other wording may be better, but neither do I feel that you, as mediator, should insist the wording be changed. Colin°^Talk 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I was commenting on this version. I see Yobol has made similar arguments subsequently. Colin°^Talk 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am trying to interpret WP policies on this subject and have some concerns (which are reflected in my statement "we need to agree on the best alternative wording.") If there is no better alternative wording, so be it. My mind is entirely open on that score. Sunray (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought mediation involved helping the parties come to their own amicable solution. In this edit your say "comments of this nature are probably best dealt with as actual quotes to be encyclopedic" which is you entering the dispute with your own opinion on the solution to pick.

I'm not sure that we should copy how the Guardian article handles the vaccine debate. Reporters report what people say. In quotes. And quoting one of "Britain's leading child health experts ... Professor David Goldblatt, director of clinical research and development at Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital" raises the opinions expressed to a much higher importance than if they were the opinions of a journalist. In contrast, since we aren't allowed to puff people up, we'd be left with "David Goldblatt says" and all the readers would say "Who is he? Why is his opinion being quoted? Why is this not considered a scientific fact? Is it only him that thinks that?". Not the same effect at all. Colin°^Talk 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As a mediator, I am not in any way constrained from giving an opinion, particularly where it relates to WP policy or practice. You seem to have a particular POV about this matter, which is fine. My job is to mediate. Once three parties enter into mediation, each of their views must be taken seriously. I think you may misunderstand what I was attempting to show by using the Guardian article. I was demonstrating the use of quotes. This seemed to me worthy of noting. It must be recognized, however, that Wikipedia has standards that are different from media articles or academic papers. (And I agree with you that we would adapt the format to be encyclopedic). The question I am raising (and it is a question, not a POV) is: How do we represent this controversy in an encyclopedic manner. Sunray (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. My point is the journalistic use of quotes is quite different from an encyclopaedic use of quotes, making the example of the Guardian text less appropriate as an example of a solution to our problem here. The problem with your "comments of this nature are probably best dealt with" statement is that you appear to have decided that this statement is not a widely held fact but is merely an opinion or is a fact that is seriously disputed. This is the essence of the policy requirements for quoting and surely it should be up to the participants to decide (if they can) whether it is one or the other.

Yes, I have a POV on this issue. I think it is a fairly clear-cut example of flat-earth nonsense suggested by people who have no concept of how the immune system works. The language used by the experts makes it quite clear the disdain and annoyance they show towards this hypothesis and it would be wrong of WP to let the rants of these individuals lower the WP:WEIGHT given to the scientific fact that there is no basis in it. It would be like an article on the earth having to quote scientists on its spherical qualities. That is quite separate from WP noting that there are pressure groups who expound this hypothesis, as clearly that is a notable fact. Colin°^Talk 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(by "rants of these individuals", I mean groups like JABS, not any of the editors in the mediation Colin°^Talk 22:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

The evidence is pretty conclusive that my approach hasn't worked. Interestingly, you provide some clues as to what is happening. I obviously was not clear in my questions, or with the Guardian example. I have to go on fact. So I have asked for documentation that "the notion is flawed" is an accurate portrayal of the medical community's views. From the evidence presented thus far, I get that the responses of the medical community to the vaccine overload concept range from "no research to support" to "flawed" to "rubbish." I am prepared to accept that "flawed" might be a good descriptor. However, so far I have only seen one article that has made this statement. Thus to conclude that it is the view of the medical community seems to me to be original research. However, I haven't been able to get my point across and it seems that my motives are being questioned. So I will await the participants decision on what they want to do next. Sunray (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your "so far I have only seen one article that has made this statement". Eubulides has provided many examples of articles that say much the same thing (clearly one cannot expect all sources to use identical phrasing). Indeed, many of those other articles use stronger language. One problem with the "research has shown" suggestion is that it doesn't need research to work out the flaws -- they just require someone with expert knowledge to think through the consequences of if the hypothesis was true. The Guardian article gives one example of a flaw where a single older vaccine produced many orders of magnitude more "overload" than a few injections of some new vaccines. And the Guardian article is reasonable proof from a single source that "Britain's leading child health experts" agree the idea is flawed (and those repeating it are "irresponsible"). Can you take that source to be proof that "it is the view of the medical community"? I agree that, stating as a fact that something is "flawed" is a strong conclusion and requires strong sources. If it was just one man cited in one source, then in-text attribution would be required.

I don't see anyone questioning your motives. I don't envy your job. Sometimes, it isn't possible to get people to change their minds and the truth rarely lies halfway between the extremes. The three editors do seem to be amicably discussing the issues and staying on topic. They may ultimately just have to agree to disagree and walk away. Colin°^Talk 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for working as a group to improve on Sustainability and to ensure people with fringe POVs do not get away with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag removal

Hi,

If you disagree with the purpose of {{intro-tooshort}} then feel free to take it to TfD; while there's still consensus that it's an appropriate cleanup tag I'd prefer for people not to summarily revert its (appropriate) addition simply because they dislike having tags on articles. If you want, I can give you a trivial bit of code for your monobook.css which will hide these tags from you whenever you're logged in. I will get around to expanding the lede in due course; that's the whole point of tagging the thing, to direct my future work. While we're at it, it would have been nice to have been pinged about this rather than having to find out about it in an edit summary. For now, the tag should be re-added so that the page is appropriately categorised. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds really good to me that you intend to lengthen the lead. I think that is the best strategy. Please consider how an encyclopedia looks to a non-editor who is simply looking for information on a particular topic and gets to see all these tags whereby editors are talking to one another about the inadequacies of various articles. It is not a pretty sight. Certainly Britannica doesn't do it.

I will fix it, but I feel as though some editors are going around finding more work for me and other dedicated article editors to do. Sunray (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a look at my editing history, I hope you'll find that I'm pretty good on my word when it comes to expansions like this. I am myself a rather "dedicated article editor", albeit one one who would rather flag an issue and come back to it (as the tagging system was developed to allow) rather than have to try to commit to memory what work I have ongoing. Britannica doesn't do it for the same reason that Xbox 360 games don't have TODO comments spread throughout them: it's a different development model. As articles approach the standard expected of such works (which people are paid a lot of money to edit) they are de-tagged. This has, in my experience, worked extraordinarily well over the last few years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So I didn't get around to this, it seems. Unsurprisingly it slipped off my radar because - ding ding ding - it was de-tagged. In the process of polishing up the article (which still needs significant, basic work to meet our quality standards) I've re-tagged it so that I remember this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me on the status of that. I see what you meant about the tag providing a memory aid for follow up. If everyone was as diligent as you it would certainly meet my concerns about "over-tagging." Would that this were the case!. Sunray (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

Mediation in page deletion process

Hi, I would be very grateful if you could take a look at an issue that has arisen with the pages of BeLight Software. An editor has brought the deletion process up but, as far as I can tell, this person is not at all an expert in the Macintosh community and has unwarranted notions about the credibility of sources like MacWorld, MacUser, TopTenReviews, and others. It would be great if you could neutrally look at this and decide whether intervention here is necessary. Thanks a lot!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeLight_Software

RayJazz21 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is one of a several messages left on various user talk pages[12][13][14]. RayJazz21 (talk · contribs) has a WP:COI and is the creator 9 of the 10 articles up for deletion. He also is one account in a larger spam campaign for BeLight Software, see Spam Case. RayJazz21 has been Warned about his COI and yet continues to be excessively active in the discussion and would appear other participants feel they are being badgered by RayJazz21(See edit summary). Would also note there has been an instance of editing the content of others comments during the debate, which is wholey inapropriate. Thanks for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a mediation request. Yes, of course I am active in the discussion. I have not edited the content of others' comments. I did revert one comment that included false information and left an explanation. You yourself changed the phrasing after I pointed this out. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, after the revert was fixed the language became stronger, not weaker. I posted the diffs here. --Colfer2 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)