User talk:Sunray/Archive12

Hippie
Hey,

Forgive my ignorance, but I intended to offer a link to a natural legacy of a community of Bus Owners/Hippies.

I don't want to argue with you, I just don't understand. I looked at the reference you cited for editing that out, and I felt no relevance.

You've been around a while - can you tell me why you did that? Is it always this way? Is this a waste of time?

/GB —Preceding unsigned comment added by General blasphemy (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to General blasphemy here. Sunray (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV issue
My apologies for reverting your removal of my request on WT:CIV, but it is more than just a dispute between two editors. I think the wording proposed needs to be fairly considered, and I also think the issue being discussed here could use more eyes. Dreadstar †  09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the RfC pertains to the proposed addition to WP:CIV, it is certainly appropriate to mention it on the CIV talk page. Dreadstar  †  22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure it is related. How about when the RfC is completed, bring the results back to Wikipedia talk:Civility? The WP:CIV talk page is not for disputes. Sunray (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because input from the regular editors of WP:CIV would benefit both the RfC and CIV. They should be informed. Dreadstar  †  22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I must be missing something. What does that accomplish? Notification regarding RfC's are not usually what is wanted on the WP:CIV talk page. The reason for that is that there would be an endless procession of them, leaving no room for policy discussion. There is a referral to the dispute between you and ScienceApologist on the page now. Do we need to repeat this? I really don't understand what you are trying to do here. Sunray (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiarton Willie
Why is the fact that "six more weeks of winter is an early spring in Ontario" original research? It seems to me to be common knowledge. I added a reference; I removed the observation about the media. What else do I need to do to not have the edit removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.47 (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer this question: Who is making that statement?


 * If it is a source that you are quoting, fine. If, on the other hand it is you, it is original research. It doesn't matter how may "sources" you quote about the duration of winter.


 * For it not to be original research, you would have to find a quote that says: "Although Willie's predictions are for either six more weeks of winter or an early spring, in Ontario, six more weeks of winter is an early spring, since winter weather usually continues for several more weeks after mid-March" or some such statement, specifically about Willie. Sunray (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Presumably it does not matter that almost any online news report about Willie will have feedback from people making the point in question, since those would not be considered adequate sources? So even something obvious to many people has to be stated by an authoritative source before it can be added to the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.128 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for something like that would include most news media (including online media). The thing is that it is not all that likely that anyone would make that comment, IMO, because Willie is a spoof. It would be pointing out the obvious, like saying "groundhogs can't predict weather!" Sunray (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The media go along with the spoof and therefore don't bother with the lesser illogicality. The tradition has been transplanted from its origin in Pennsylvania to areas with colder climates without the specified timeframe having changed; but there seems to be no easy way to mention that in the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.37 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did Wiarton Willie's inventors (or his current handlers) ever make the claim about "six more weeks of winter"? I don't think I saw that. If they did, it should be possible to find a quote that makes the observation you want to make. If not, it will likely be impossible. Sunray (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

David Suzuki: The Autobiography
I have put together the article David Suzuki: The Autobiography and began an FAC on it. A reviewer has asked for a fresh set of eyes to provide a copyedit. Could you please review the article and look out for proper uses of words (remove any unnecessary words) and grammar? and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Suzuki: The Autobiography? Thank you. --maclean 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

C-17 Discussion
Please refer to my last entry on the C-17 discussion page I would like a reply to my questions. I am amazed that facts can be manufactured in such a way.

I have emailed several serving members for more references than the Air Forces own page.

A consensus of two Americans and an Australian for a question of Canada's military does not seem realistic.

And where are their references? Show me theirs.

I am amazed and will send a copy of the discussion page around to interested parties.

I was under the impression wikipedia was trying to promote correct and accurate information.

That is not what occurred here.

--Jimsim22 (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be surprised to find that there are American and Australian editors who actually know something about Canada and the Canadian Forces. I've read the comments of each of those folks and find them to be apt. Usage suggests that it is "Air Force Roundel." However, as Nick Dowling mentioned, if you can produce a source that backs up your arguments, that would carry considerable weight. Sunray (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sunray (sorry I don't know your real name). I left this message on the C-17 discussion page re: the RCAF roundel: I did some digging and consulted an expert on air force insignia (Mr. Bill Burns in London Ont. http://www.canmilair.com) and here's what I found out. All incarnations of the current 11-point-leaf roundel, including those used in the transition period 1965-67, are known as the CAF roundel to distinguish it from the "RCAF roundel" which has a different leaf pattern (the silver maple leaf). The current roundel (with the 11-pointed leaf) was standardized in May 1967 because after 1965, there were so many versions of it. This standard (current) design (purists refer to it as the "CAF revision E" roundel) has changes made to various internal spacing and has a comparatively wider blue circle and larger leaf than the 1965-67 version used in the transition era, and is certainly a different design from the silver maple roundel (the true "RCAF" roundel). There are also subtle color differences. There may indeed be some in the CAF/Air Command who call the roundel the RCAF roundel, but this is probably because it was inherited as a 'blue circle and red leaf" design and is a traditional moniker rather than a formal one. BTW, the  RCAF roundel is copyrighted by the Air Force Association of Canada. The following links have more information: http://www.canmilair.com/prints.htm and http://www.canmilair.com/products.asp?cat=77. If anyone wants further contact information for Mr. Burns, please leave a message on my talk page. -BC (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV
Thanks for responding back. However, my original question was: is it reasonable for me to ask and expect other users to refer to me as "Bless_sins" the user name I signed up for, also the name I sign all my comments with, or are users allowed to make up a name (especially a one that has an expletive meaning) for me?

Please note that I like my user name "User:Bless sins", which is why I signed up for it. I didn't sign up for "User:BS", which is a different name. Thanks again.Bless sins (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I covered that in the first paragraph of my response. As you may know, it is usual practice among WP users to abbreviate names. While you can request that they address you as "Bless sins," they may well ignore your requests. It is not uncivil to do so, IMO, and there is probably little you can do about it. Sunray (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tag
Sunray you removed the POV tag from Yi Ching. Since you reverted me a moment before doing so I have to assume you knew what you were doing and therefore you have acted against the interests of wikipedia. Please do not remove such tags until you are reasonably certain that there is no objection. I welcome your reasoning on the talkpage Mccready (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my revert had nothing to do with neutrality. The neutrality issue you raised was addressed. Sunray (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Noticeboard Alert
please stop what you are doing at Y Ching, and please see WP:ANI for discussion ratgarding your behavior. Smith Jones (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[Cross-posted to AN/I
 * Crossmr, I cannot see why you have given me a 3RR warning and not Mccready. He has reverted exactly the same number of times as I have. Actually, though, neither of us has violated 3RR. However, if you read the talk page carefully, you will see that he has been acting alone and I have been working with other editors on the talk page.


 * Some background: I re-wrote the text in that paragraph in accordance with long-standing concerns raised on the talk page here and here. The text I added contains the quotation from Needham that he likes but provides an online source and gives it context (per discussion on the talk page referenced above). My addition is a paraphrase of an article, which I cited. Mccready reverted me here,, but kept my citation, calling my addition "original research" (it is not, as I and another editor have explained to him on the talk page . He reverted a second time , as did I . I make that two reverts.


 * In addition, I reverted his insertion of a neutrality tag . I did that because Mccready failed to give policy-based reasons for placement of the tag. I make that three reverts. However, following further discussion, I restored the tag . Thus, no 3RR violation by my count. [But maybe I've lost my mind.] Sunray (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite simply because you performed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on the same article., , . As for McCready I didn't notice that his first edit was to restore a tag that had been removed a few days prior so I didn't realize it was a revert.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I said: three reverts. And, since in five years of editing, I've never broken the WP:3RR and Mccready has many times, I am still unsure why you gave only me a warning. Sunray (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I didn't realize at the time that his first edit was a revert. Nor did I delve in to both of your extensive editing histories. For completenesses sake I've gone and left one on his talk page as well.--Crossmr (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

fyi


And, I put the actual quotes inside the refs. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism
Sunray, I just posted a response to your comment under "multiculturalism." I would be happy to help with the multiculturalism page. But we need balance. The opposite of multiculturalism is culturism. There were culturist and culturism wikipedia entries. Someone wiped both of them out. This is unfair. It creates bias.

For full disclosure, I am the author of the book "culturism." But if you google the word, you will see that there is wide interest in the topic and that others have used the word. If you use dictionary.com, you'll see the word goes back to the early 19th century. I think there is no reason for only multiculturalism to have an entry.

I don't know who took the entries down or arranged for searches to be redirected, but I think it unjust.

You can contact me at either pressjohn@hotmail.com or 646-660-4684 if you think you can help. Regardless, I'd be happy to work with you on editing the multiculturalism page.

Thanks, John Press —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressjohn (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. You ask how the page on "Culturism" came to be deleted. The article was proposed for deletion on July 10, 2007 and a "prod" (proposed deletion) tag placed on it by Haemo. The following day, he removed the prod tag and replaced it with "wikify" and "clean-up" tags. That same day you stated that you were "granted permission by the Haemo (the concerned party." I can find no record of that discussion. You made some changes to the article over the next five days, but concerns continued to be expressed. In August '07 an "inappropriate tone" tag was added. The article remained little improved and was deleted and replaced by a redirect on February 11, 2008.


 * Several of the statements made in the deleted article seem to me to be problematic. For example:
 * "Culturism... A philosophy which holds that all majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves...."
 * "Western culture believes in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam, for example, does not..."


 * How does a culture define or promote itself? How could a culture believe something? These statements do not seem to me to be empirically based. I would not support seeing them in a Wikipedia article. Sunray (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Culturism
Sunray,

Thank you for the message about the "culturism" wikipedia page. This letter will explain why I believe culturism should have its own page and ask for a reconsideration of the redirect from "culturism" to "multiculturalism."

Perhaps my entry was deficient. I can re-write it. But a short entry will never answer all questions. You asked something like, "How can a philosophy maintain that a culture itself holds an opinion?" That is a legitimate question. But, cultures, via jurisprudence for example, do hold opinion. Generically, however, I would not expect any wikipedia entry to satisfy all questions. I can make the entry more empirical. Though not all philosophies are empirically based,if you wish me to highlight the structural foundations of culturism in natural sciences, psychology, history and anthropology, that can be done.

The word, culturism, has been in Anglo dictionaries since the 19th century. This can be verified quickly via dictionary.com. The culturism entry can feature its etymology. If you do a google search you will people are discussing culturism. The original wikipedia entry of "culturist," which wasn't posted by me, included the CPAC speaker Mark Steyn's use of the word. A growing community can contribute to refining the entry. A redirect from culturism to its opposite, multiculturalism, does not seem to do it justice or expand our knowledge. It is akin to redirecting all searches for "liberal" to "conservative."

My question is how can I, or someone else, undo the redirect in order to submit an improved version of the article? I do not have the expertise to override a redirect. Even if I learned how, I do not want to be obnoxious to the wikipedia community by doing things without consultation. Is one on one consultation the appeals process by which I can question the removal and redirection of the definition of culturism? Can you enable me to have a second chance at a more polished entry? Can I send you a new version of a culturism entry?

Thanks for your passion and contributions to wikipedia,

John Press

pressjohn@hotmail.com 646-660-4684 www.pressjohn.com 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You said: "But, cultures, via jurisprudence for example, do hold opinion." So if I want to know the opinion of a culture, I have only to look at the jurisprudence? If I were able to synthesize an opinion on a given subject, based on jurisprudence, would I then know the cultures' "opinion" on that subject? Surely I would only know what the jurisprudence said. What about popular opinion, the opinions of political, religious and educational institutions, the viewpoints of subcultures within mainstream institutions, the views of minorities... Given the complexity and richness of opinions within a culture, how could we operationalize the definition you have given?


 * As to dictionary definitions of culturism, I've looked at a half dozen major dictionaries and the word does not occur. Given the difficulties I have pointed to in your definition, that doesn't surprise me. I wouldn't want to try to create an article given the problems I have described. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

CIV
"Lies" has been in the list for four years, and in this same form with it's own bullet point for at least two years. Why remove it now? Dreadstar †  00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And it still is. Check the very next entry on that list! Sunray (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, they're quite different. Calling someone a liar is different than telling lies.  Both are uncivl.   Both need to be mentioned.  Dreadstar  †  00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just inserting the word "lies" really tells us nothing about incivility. I would suggest you develop this on the policy's talk page. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did't insert it, it was already there - it's been there for four years. Someone just deleted it, and I restored it....  I cannot believe you're edit warring over this.  You have no consensus for your warring, but I'll be more than happy to discuss this per WP:DR.  Dreadstar  †  01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I know it was there. An editor removed it and rightly so, IMO. It takes two sides to "war." Sunray (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because lying is clearly uncivil, that is why I find it unbelievable you'd be edit warring over it. Yeah, it takes two...I'm pretty familiar with the concept.  Dreadstar  †  01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Audit
Check out

http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.2538

now that's done, I can surface for air. Will be in Ottawa on Tuesday and after that Winnipeg - are you anywhere nearby? If so you know how to reach me.

Alan XAX Freeman (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Susan Ormiston
Thank you for starting the article on Susan Ormiston. However, much of it had to be rewritten as some passages were too similar to those in her CBC biography; Wikipedia policy does not allow for copying of substantial portions of text from other sites without appropriate permission or licence. Please take some time to read WP:NFC and WP:CFAQ which describes some of the concerns involved. Dl2000 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments. However, I do not share your opinion. In quoting these guidelines, you seem to suggest that I somehow violated them. I assure you that I did not. While I did use the CBC bio, I was very careful to re-write it. So no, it was not a copyvio. In fact, I note that the exact same wording is still in place after your edits. All you did is add to the article, which is what Wikipedia editors do. Sunray (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of paragraph in Concordia article
I explained my reasons in the edit summary. I thought it was pretty straight forward. Not a lot of room for confusion. While a fact tag is nice, it can't take the place of a real citation. Fact tags aren't meant to stay forever. --GreenJoe 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Someone (you? me? someone else?) should take a look at that paragraph and see if it actually belongs there. If it does, it needs editing and sourcing. If it doesn't belong there, it should be removed with a note on the talk page. All this should take place within a reasonable amount of time. Sunray (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: the Natural Step
Hi! What is your experience with / connection to The Natural Step? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingstickman (talk • contribs) 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy development edit
Did you see how it (Pro of battery electric vehicle) looked before I edited it?

"*The use of Battery Electric Vehicles eliminates the dependency on foreign oil."

I changed it to reflect that such a view is not absolute, and that "dependency on foreign oil" is purely an American idea, as far as I know.

"*The use of battery electric vehicles may reduce the dependency on foreign oil in the U.S., depending on the source of the electricity."

I think I like your edit better, so I won't change it back, but it completely changes the meaning of the original sentence.

"*The use of battery electric vehicles may reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, depending on the source of the electricity."

We went from "will reduce dependence on foreign oil" to "may reduce dependence on foreign oil in the U.S., depending on the source of electricity" to "may reduce dependence on fossil fuels, depending on the source of electricity"..it's almost a game of telephone, no? :) --Drewster1829 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

1812
Thank you for reverting, was beginning to go a little mad. Your post to the discussion acctually gave me an edit conflit which stopped me posting a terser response to our canadian friend and let me take a longer think. Though, his source does seem ok, I think. The only issue being I imagine there are plenty of sources saying it was a draw. Narson (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Having now /read/ the source (rather than just checking on its reliability) it clearly says in its first paragraph that 'The war ended in a stalemate'. Narson (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking that out. I didn't think I had seen a source that says what he wants to say. He is doing some original research on this. I've left him a warning on his talk page. Sunray (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm British :) Believe me, if it wasn't a draw, I'd be the first to crow about it. Nothing like beating rebellious colonials in a fight ;) Narson (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Trip did it again, using wikipedia as a source for his edits. His editing is seriously starting me to wonder whether some kind of mentor program would be useful for him because he seems unable/unwilling to grasp some pretty basic tennants. Narson (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good idea. Who would you suggest as mentor? Would you be willing to take that on? Sunray (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we might be best going with an uninvolved editor if Trip agrees, I can't see him taking kindly to one of those he has had trouble with doing it. He seems like a good editor, just needs some guiding. I should raise this on his user page perhaps. Narson (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Sunray (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've suggested it on his talk page. Narson (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS
Hi, Sunray. My thinking was that "a single blank line above is recommended for readability in the edit window" is technically wrong; we don't actually recommend that people use a single blank line, because that means "not two", and we're agnostic (for purposes of this section, anyway) whether it's two or one. I think we should avoid saying things that are wrong in MOS, even if we suspect that people will intuit our meaning. I'm not attached to my wording; anything that isn't wrong with suit me, if you'd like to use your own words. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree that we are agnostic about whether to use two lines or one. Two lines leave extra blank space in the article, whereas one does not. Usually we do not want to have extra white space in articles. Sometimes we do for formatting, especially when images are involved. I think that the current wording is clear. Sunray (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The current wording says what it says: a single blank line. As you say, that's not always right, sometimes two is okay.  Therefore, the current wording is wrong, even if people will usually intuit that we meant to say something different than what we said.  I prefer not to force people to work to figure out the meaning.  But there are so many bigger issues currently at MoS that I'll skip this one if you really feel the current wording is better. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to be reading this differently. The guideline recommends (but does not require) that editors add one blank line for readability. In other words if you wish to make it more readable, use one blank line in the text box, as it does not alter the appearance in the public version of the article. The guideline adds that if one places two blank lines in the text box, it will change the appearance in the public version. Your change differed in that you said: "... one blank line above, or occasionally two, is recommended for readability." I cannot see why we would recommend that two lines be added. The additional line does not make the text box more readable, however it does affect the public version of the article. Are we reading this in the same way yet? Sunray (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a good point that someone might read that as "recommending two for readability", which is certainly not what we want. However, the problem is that the guideline doesn't say what you say it says, that editors "add" one blank line; it says that there should be "a single blank line", "single" emphasizing that it should be one and only one ... which is wrong, in some cases.  Maybe your word "add" is the key, something like, "If there are no blank spaces above the header, one blank space should be added, for readability in the edit window?" - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seemed to me that the "added" was understood. Nevertheless, inserting "Adding" at the beginning of the paragraph would certainly leave no doubt. The rest could remain as is. Unfortunately, we should have been carrying out this discussion on the talk page. As others may have wanted a say. Sunray (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is WT:MOS, I asked on March 29. No one commented, either because they liked my solution, or because it didn't seem that important ... I'm guessing some of both.  I'm happy to continue the conversation there.  I like your solution, except that if we say "adding a single blank line" and nothing else, people will surely add an additional blank line, so the "if" clause seems necessary.  I'll suggest it at [WT:MOS#Blank lines around headings]]. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

about financing of GEN
Hello, I'have find theses critics about the finacing of GEN. It's false ?? Or you don't assume this ?

regards

SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.158.138.180 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem with the criticism if you are able to verify the information with a reliable source. Sunray (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I'll trust you to ensure that all pertinent edits and threads are included. What I saw were a bunch of my edits removed with the edit summary "not pertinent". Crum375 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that I was pretty careful. Your edits were archived before I set up the Archive for "exercises in civility." If you read that stuff, it was pretty off-topic, but I archived everything in the order it occurred. Sunray (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

External links at straw bale construction
I'm not sure why you undid the addition of a very viable resource on straw bale construction namely http://www.StrawBale.com as an external link for straw_bale_construction. This site is consistently at the top of relevant straw bale related keywords and has an active blog that is helping to promote straw bale construction. I added http://www.StrawBale.com back as an external link for this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drweatherby (talk • contribs) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to do that. The site does have good information. Unfortunately it does not meet WP:EL, in that it is advertising and selling products and services. Sunray (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Likely some degree of CoI going on here Sunray: Check out their about page and note the name of the webmaster. Narson (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversions
Anytime you revert someone, provide a valid edit summary.--Ghjmk (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies. My revert was too hasty. One of the entries seemed frivolous, which led to my revert. I have since checked your source and see that it is a reliable one. Sunray (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have blocked Ghjmk as a sock of user:Primetime. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, indeed. I've had another look at those edits and realize that his use of a source must have been bogus. Thanks for your vigilance, Will. Sunray (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * His use of sources in that article may have been correct, but banned editors aren't allowed to make even good edits. FWIW, I don't think we went through the sources to see if what he previously added to the "List of..." article was accurate and properly paraphrased. His copyvios on other articles were flagrant yet he defended them to a ludicrous point before admitting the copying. Even so he insisted that he was actually helping the project. I'm afraid he'll be back again. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver
You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Vancouver Members List. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, please visit WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list. If you are unavailable your name will be moved to the inactive list on Monday, April 28 2008. Also the WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Mkdw talk 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nellie McClung
did Nellie McClung speak french? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.52.238 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Look before you revert...
You might want to take a look at what you revert on the main feature article before you blindly put it back up. 207.181.222.201 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, please be very careful with this in the future. Somebody had replaced the image with a really disgusting shock image, and when you reverted, you restored the shock image to Today's Featured Article.  It happens, so don't feel too bad about it, but please remember to check that an image is valid before you restore it to an article.  It would of course have helped if the new user had left an edit summary, but it's far better that if they don't know they still remove pornographic images. --JayHenry (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like I screwed this one up. I always check what I am reverting and I recall checking the image. It was a map as far as I could see. I have since checked the logs and see the notation that a vandalized image was removed by you in the time between 207.181.222.201's revert of me and your restoration of the map. I am sorry that I missed that, but am grateful for the actions you took to correct the matter. Sunray (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cyber-bullying and moral panic
I had entered Cyber-bullying into Moral panic because it's basically politicians developing legislation and fear over internet trolls and flamers and has gone as far as computer rooms being shut down in Australia.


 * Sure. I agree that there are moral panics over cyber bullying. However, "see also" links are intended to assist the reader to learn more about the article at hand (moral panic). That angle is not developed in these links. Sunray (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore
I didn't appreciate you reversing my edits! Wwb (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so my intent is clear, I've added a vandalism warning to your talk page Sunray (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ecocity
Please forgive my undoing the re-direct on Ecocities and revising the article. As you may have assumed I'm a new Wikipedia "editor" (not yet worthy of the term) and didn't know how to enter the discussion page. I'll attempt to participate in the discussion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimacfan (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of headings
Sorry, I was unaware of the capitalization rule! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuratEdit (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sunray (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, I do not think you should mass delete properly cited paragraphs on McGill University. Isn't this considered to be vandalism? Let's discuss before you do that. Ocikat (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I didn't know what you were trying to do. I am very sorry if I'm mistaken. Ocikat (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a problem with the page. I made one mistake in trying to fix it, but reverted myself; then AccuratEdit‎ found the problem and fixed it. Sunray (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude man, I'm sorry I just felt bad if all AccuratEdit's efforts were erased. But I was mistaken.. excuse me for that. Ocikat (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Terrawatt has listed the Dalai Lama article on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias after failing to get his way. John Nevard (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Royal Hamilton Yacht Club
Thanks very much for your kind words, and I have notified RHYC's webmaster of the discrepancy, citing your comment, Commodore Penny's book, and the CYA website as sources.

--Tww27 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:ACM2
You have just reverted two of my edits on the this page. Whilst assuming good faith, I must point out that the first of these edits was 'normal' reply to an edit by user:ACM2, and it was wholly inappropriate for you to have undone that edit. I half expected my second 'blanking' edit to be questioned or commented upon - but not discarded in such a seemingly off-hand manner. This suggests that the matter has been amicably resolved. I am going to revert your revert now. If you re-revert it please explain your actions on the talk page. Mannafredo (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My response:
 * ACM2 (or someone using their user name) engaged in a rampage of page blanking between 01:03 - 01:09 (UTC), . When I placed a warning on ACM2's talk page, s/he vandalized my talk page . Chenzw also warned ACM2. The same vandalism from ACM2 was delivered to Chenzw's talk page and two articles.


 * At 01:13, in a message on ACM2's talk page, Mannafredo asked ACM2: "Have you gone totally barmy, or has someone hijacked your desk whilst your away to get a coffee?"


 * ACM2 picked up the refrain that "someone has vandalized my desk," on his/her talk page and with the help desk.


 * At 01:32 Mannafredo blanked ACM2's page . I reverted this. My view was (and is) that if a user (or someone using that account) has gone on a vandalism rampage, the talk page, specifying warnings, should not be immediately blanked&mdash;especially until the matter is sorted out. Such blanking only makes it more difficult for other editors and admins to see what is happening. Sunray (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Result was: User:ACM2 blocked for one week. Sunray (talk)


 * As I said, I expected my second edit (blanking the page, albeit not an act of vandalism, to be questioned and/or reverted). However, my edit immediately prior to that was a wholly 'normal' edit, and should not have been reverted. I understand that certain revert techniques will revert multiple edits by the same user, but this was not the right time to use such a technique. Anyway, it did all get very confusing for a while, and it looks as though User:ACM2 has indeed gone inexplicably barmy (his previous edit history is that of a useful contributer). Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)