User talk:Sunray/Archive15

Sustainability Article
Thanks, my email adress can be found on my userpage. Sorry I've been out of action for a few days, I had 3 gigs and a festival to play at over the weekend, very busy, very enjoyable :] Nick carson (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had an old email address in my preferences and had to confirm the new one. All done now though :] I think we need some clarity and simplicity in the discussions regarding the rewrite of the sustainability article. Nick carson (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support here for efforts to bring greater clarity and simplicity to discussions! Sunray (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Empire
From User_Wjkk20, listen Sunray, before you came in everything was fine and nobody had any problem with me for writing of Sikh Empire on the Punjab page, besides Sikh Empire is just western formal name of the country, the real name is in fact Punjab. if nobody else had any problem, what is yours? Why don't you read Punjab's discussion page? (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the talk page for Punjab, you will note that three editors have stated that your additions to the page are not in accord with the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Please respect the consensus. Sunray (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen you're making me very angry, before you came in nobody had any problem and the editors you're talking about, why don't you refer to what I wrote over there and what is your problem with Sikhs' nation's name being written there? The three editors that had problem, after them I wrote mine discussion as you could already see and then after nobody had problem so what makes you any special apart from them that you have a problem? I tell you it is all right and Sikh Empire is plainly Punjab and I again say that Sikh Empire name is just a western formality to call that country with, it's true real name is also Punjab and by doing the editions I make, I am doing nothing wrong. It had been there like that for a long long time.
 * P.S. if you want some proofs of Sikh Empire being really Punjab then read into the article and see Punjab being written in there. (talk), 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to not understand what I am saying. I'm not sure why. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Perhaps you have not read the recent discussion on the Punjab talk page here. Please do that and continue this discussion there. Meanwhile, please do not revert the Punjab page until / unless there is a new consensus on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? There IS already a consensus. Don't you get it? I have said that nobody else had any problem which means that there is a consensus. Which shows that others agree with me. You're not the only one who read that page, other do too and they didn't say anything about it after I talked with them. And they agree with me so there is a consensus. And no offense but alone what you think doesn't make the difference around here if you have backup of others then. Just be cool girl nobody else thinks it's wrong so why do you? Nobody else objected when I even wrote Khalistan in. (talk), 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk page = "discussion" tab on the Punjab page (I gave the link above). Are you playing dumb, because you did take part in the discussion previously? Three other editors have commented - all had the same view. That is consensus. Please abide by it. Sunray (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You still haven't answered my previous question and showed the audacity of deleting Sikh Empire from Punjab page. If the other three editors had any problem then why didn't they made any editions to Punjab and you had deleted this question as well and without answering it. The way you keep ignoring me and don't answer me, you yourself know that you're wrong so by which you have no right to temper with the Punjab page. I warn you if you won't stop then I will take some action against you. (talk), 01 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being civil in your message this time. The three editors (me being one) each explained that Sikh Empire does not belong on the disambiguation page for Punjab. As each has explained, the disambiguation is for the word "Punjab." That means that only variations of that word are dealt with on that page. What part of that is not clear to you? Sunray (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you still not get it? The name "Sikh Empire" is just a formality name to call the former Punjab Empire with. I've never heard of it before, just here on wikipedia. The country that's named Sikh Empire(only on wikipedia) is actually called Punjab, nobody have ever called it Sikh Empire, so the only solution is either that change its name from Sikh Empire to Punjab because that's what it is originally called as and by which the Punjab disam. page is rightful place as well. So change the article's name from Sikh Empire to Punjab Empire and this is why I've kept on putting Sikh Empire on Punjab page because if anybody will come looking for Ranjit Singh's Punjab they won't be typing in Sikh Empire, they would type in Punjab. I rest my case. (talk), 01 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wjkk20, have you discussed a re-name of the article Sikh Empire at its talk page? If you can get a consensus on moving the article to Punjab Empire I see no reason why it can't be listed on the Punjab DAB page.  Just a thought.  Hope you don't mind me butting in.  Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there needs to be more discussion on the article talk page. However, the term "Punjab Empire" does not seem to be a common one. Perhaps we could ask for other editors to comment. Sunray (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Faraq and Sunray, your concerned response is most appreciated. Thank you. I felt that also keeping your concerns in mind that in order for Sikh Empire to fit in on Punjab disam. page, its name should changed to the original name, originally it was called as Punjab Raj or in English, Punjab Empire. However, I am not aware of the process of how to change it? Now that I have supporters backing me, maybe after knowing it, we would able to get it changed. Thanks again. (talk), 01 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd mention that I've moved the page to Punjab Empire. Pahari Sahib  02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey I just wanted to say thanks on helping me put the former Sikh country on the disam. page. So a heartfelt thanks again. (talk), 04 December 2008 (UTC)

UDR mediation
Hi Sunray, I just wanted to know exactly what this entails. To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement, but I do understand the reason why. Do you have any advice or suggestions how we should proceed from here?-- Domer48 'fenian'  11:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, from the point of view of mediation, we would have to have something to mediate. I will add come comments on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Though the pages have now been dleeted, would it be possible to copy some of the content relating to the discussion of sourcing in North Irish Horse to that article's talkpage? This would presumably require the agreement of Domer and Dunc, I found a few useful resources during that discussion, and I don't want to have to search them out again, as I didn't make a separate note of them.  David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, David, I will look into having the mediation restored. It was deleted because there had been a request by ArbCom to use it and mediations are not to be used in any other forum. However, that has since been resolved, so we may be able to resurrect the discussion page. Sunray (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thnaks, I assume it's OK to copy your passing comment with every else? David Underdown (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sunray (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Obscurantism
Nothing's wrong with it now - but the way you worded it the first time made it sound as if the monks didn't really want to burn the books. Mjk2357 (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sunray

I am sorry if I have used Wikipedia in the wrong way! - this was my first ever edit and I may have misunderstood the guidelines. I felt that the 2 links I added to this article were directly relevant to 'Ecological Footprinting'.

If possible, could you explain which one was innapropriate?

The first one was simply making the reference to 'BioRegional' into a weblink which I noticed is the case in other articles, so that people can click if they require more information direct from that organisation.

The second one was inserting a weblink of an organisation (BioRegional Development Group) into the Links section, because this organisation use 'Ecological Footprinting' to frame and underpin all of their work and activities, and like some of the other organisations listed carry out and publish 'Ecological Footprinting' studies, so I felt it was directly relevant.

But of course I am happy that you remove any links that are not appropriate, it was not my intention to advertise or present irrelevant information.

Best wishes

Magenta butterfly (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification
I've asked the referee panel to convene, as seen here. Thank you. --Tznkai (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI
You might want to try again don't think that was your intention. BigDunc Talk 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability subpages
I agree, would you like me to add the synthesised versions to the talk page subpages? Or is there an issue with any of the editing I've been doing? I just got a bit sick of trawling through discussion after discussion and gaining aproval for every last little update, it was wasting what little time I can contribute here and taking far longer than it should be, especially the bigger sections. If people don't feel confident in what I'm editing or if they feel that any writing or reorganisation that I'm doing in this article is not apropriate then just tell me. I'm mature enough to handle critique and take the initiative with things that I am confident I can deal with in better ways. The history section was just an absolute mess and it would have taken an editing team months of discussion to achieve consensus on how it should be rewritten to the same standard as it has taken one person with a decent knowledge of sustianability in general, to edit it in a few days! Some of the bigger sections have to be fleshed out like this and reorganised into the new outline so they can then be added to the talk subpages and built upon there, adding further citations, rewording, adding any further content needed, spelling, images, etc, etc. This way we at least have somewhere to begin. I understand my edits in the sandbox don't achive consensus but I'm confident that they achive the best result and any unresolved disputes remaining will most likely be minor and can be worked through far easier than would have been able to beforehand. Nick carson (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if there is a synthesized version, I think it should be a subpage of the Talk page. After all, we went to the trouble of establishing that and quickly got consensus of all editors (with one possible exception). As far as wasting time goes, it seems to me that time has been wasted for other reasons than the configuration of subpages. We have one editor who has argued every step of the way, caviled over the nth part of a hair and generally caused others to be demotivated. I, for one can never get started because that one individual invariably has a different point of view and insists on getting his way. I know others share this view. But I digress.


 * You were asking about sandboxed versions and you said you can take criticism. To my mind sandboxes are for individual users or small groups that do not have an area to work in. That doesn't apply in our case. I think that by working on the sandboxes, you have reduced your effectiveness on the talk pages of the project. If you have the time to put in why not put it in there? The sandboxes are not transparent to others (e.g. newcomers). There is no way to index them unless you have a hot link from the article talk page. They lead to a proliferation of versions. In a recent case, I got into a dispute because another editor was referring to a sandboxed version rather than the subpage. My advice is to ditch the sandboxes and put more effort into helping us to work together.


 * Finally, if you want things to go faster, listen to what GT, TP or I are saying. We are all very knowledgeable in the field of sustainability and capable of working together effectively. You might also start using font colours. It is an effective way of making sure we know who is doing what when we are editing a section. That is where I want to get to. But right now some of us are heading in different directions. Sunray (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Total Balance
I was taking a short cut, and am planing to bring an abbreviated edit of the relevant material from the page from my site I referred to. Sorry.

It also seemed that several of the alternates to LCA were somewhat individualistic efforts, using methods with both well formed and not so well formed bases in theory or utility. Perhaps each page edit history gives you a focused peer group that might be called on from time to time to evaluate the legitimacy of any edit when there is a question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfhenshaw (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize that LCA-related articles have been subjected to plenty of "individualistic efforts." Unfortunately, this is probably a by-product of it being such a rapidly developing field. Organizing contributors might be like herding cats. I would love to see a project developed for sustainability-related articles. All we have now is the purview of the much broader WikiProject Environment. The LCA article, as it stands, has a long way to go. It is only rated as "B-class." Any assistance you could give would be greatly appreciated. Sunray (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of personal attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability&diff=prev&oldid=256758490 Like calling people trolls or just harassing people on their talk page can get you blocked from editing. I also request now that you do not post any more messages on my talk page. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. skip sievert (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some facts regarding the above:
 * At no time did I call you a troll. However, and most importantly, I did leave a message on your talk page about what I saw as your divisive participation on the Talk:Sustainability and Talk:Sustainability/Lead pages, such as this edit in which you declared, against consensus, that you would "veto this suggestion" and then stated "it will be removed from the article if introduced."
 * I have not made any personal attacks. I have made the point that your continual criticism and divisiveness are impeding the efforts of other editors who are trying to work collaboratively on improving the article. In my opinion your actions are not in accord with WP guidelines for etiquette.
 * I have supported what I said using diffs, such as the one above.
 * Making comments such as: "harassing people on their talk page can get you blocked from editing" seems to me to be pointless. I am well aware of WP policies. I identified some concerns in a civil manner. You have chosen not to entertain these concerns. That doesn't make them any less valid.


 * In summary: I have made a simple request to you to reconsider your participation on the Sustainability pages. Would you please consider that request and advise us as to whether you will edit the article and participate in discussions collaboratively, or edit elsewhere? Thank you. Sunray (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability&diff=prev&oldid=256758490 When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA - I believe there is a lot of conduct problems on the Sustainability page, and suggest that the process of editing is for content of the article and not discussion of the editors. Also please refrain from directing people to act in a contractual way on the article. That is a bit like a legal threat or a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions. Following wikipedia guidlines is pretty simple. As asked... please do not post on my talk page. Thanks.  skip sievert (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was never my intent to "insult" or "disparage" you. I asked if you were trolling. I was genuinely curious. Your posts seemed provocative. When Granitethighs said:


 * "Skip, please explain as briefly and succinctly as possible what it is you do not understand."
 * You responded:
 * "What I don't understand? That is called a double negative."


 * I realize now, after considerable discussion, that you: a) seemingly did not know what a double negative was, b) apparently took his question as interrogatory, and, c) were probably not trying to be provocative. But your apparent outrage at a simple question by Granitethighs, and refusal to answer the question seemed like trolling to me.


 * As far as commenting on the content, not the contributor. I strongly agree with this important principle. However, you often seem not to take it to heart. You have frequently made comments about other people, rather than the content of what they were saying or asking (like the example I have just given, above). It seems to me that you do this so often as to be divisive. That is why I left the note on your talk page. However, if you do not wish any feedback, I certainly will not leave you such notes on your talk page in future. Now, would you be able to respond to my question about either editing collaboratively, or editing somewhere else? Sunray (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did respond. Just look at your page history, or the article in question. Please do not comment on me personally again. Please do not ask me that question again... which has already been answered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:STICK skip sievert (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have responded, but you did not answer the question. What is your answer to the question (in 25 words or less)? Sunray (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you could just back slowly away. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy about what I perceive as issues regarding the Sustainability article. This Ed. has said he may be able to help sorting out some of those issues. I'd be happy to help resolve misunderstandings or disagreements if Sunray agrees end quote Jehochman. You can leave them an invitation to join this conversation here --Jehochman - skip sievert (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My response to this can be found here. Sunray (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Currie
Wrote additions from work, can cite all additions from reliable sources. Bad way to work (write first, cite later). Thanks for the reminder, I have gotten behind in adding citations. Citations will appear by 15 Dec 2008. Or maybe 16 Dec 2008 :) Guinness323 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added citations to all new material in opening paragraph.Guinness323 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, looks good. Sunray (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Celibacy
Excuse me, why did you remove, "Not giving women the satisfaction" from the list of motivations? This is what motivates me to celibacy, and it is not a joke. I thought this was supposed to be a user-defined-content encyclopedia? If it applies to even one person, it should be considered for the list of motivations. 24.131.242.200 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Me


 * Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. So if there is an published article about you that says that, we can include it. Otherwise, not. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you like to control the Celibacy page, but none of the other motivations have citations. My reason for celibacy is exactly what I stated, I don't want to give women the satisfaction. Why does this need a citation? Motivations for doing something aren't real only if they are in a book, they are real if someone is motivated because of that reason. You need to stop being the Celibacy nazi and realize that people live outside of a text book reference. 24.131.242.200 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Me


 * Seems you did not read the verifiability policy as suggested. It says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." To be clear: I am challenging your statement. So you will need a reliable source for it. Also, would you be able to be civil in your posts? Sunray (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

India
The picture in the india-economy page does not respect all the progress that India has made!! also the information is not correct india's current poverty level is 25% not 42%. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewan357 (talk • contribs) 16:43, December 19, 2008


 * You are welcome to correct any errors. Please provide citations for your changes, and always, always leave an edit summary that explains what you are doing. Sunray (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability
In reply to your request see below:


 * 1) and others may choose to work as a group and establish processes for their editing, but they may not take ownership of an article and dictate processes to others outside of Policies and guidelines.


 * 1)  If  wants to edit Sustainability, he may do so, and his edits should not be reverted merely because they violate a voluntary process established by other editors. If the edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted.


 * 1)  If Skipsievert edits Sustainability while others are preparing better versions offline (or in userspace), there is a chance his work will be replaced by a better version. Other editors should consider merging Skipsievert's edits with theirs, but they are under no obligation to do so.


 * 1)  Skipsievert should not frustrate consensus of the working group by posting lengthy or tangential comments, circular arguments or any similar tactics that amount to disruption.


 * 1) Sunray, it is generally best practice not to call another editor a troll or ask if they are trolling. There are better ways to deal with trolls, and such comments risk offending good faith editors who might unintentionally be causing disruption.

Do these point incorporate the concerns of both sides? Jehochman Talk 14:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC) and 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO - a new editor making edits to the main article or making suggestions on sub-pages does not create any difficulty. However, problems can arise when a group of people are working collaboratively making numerous changes and edits and one is not bound by the agreed rules of collaboration. For collaborative editing to be effective there needs to be a good understanding and agreement within the team over procedures e.g. when the editing is considered complete; when edited material should be placed up in real time and who should do this. It is relatively easy to “sabotage” a collaborative effort, even when acting in good faith, by showing strong resistance to compromise, using uncompromising language, and making major changes or decisions affecting the collective editing without full consultation with the group or allowing time for discussion. In short, someone who is editing in a group but not bound by its agreed rules can effectively nullify the collaborative effort: this may not be against any WP guidelines or procedures but it can halt the editing. We have been close to this point on several occasions. Granitethighs (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, very well said. We will need to keep a close eye on things from here on out, I think. Sunray (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Corps during World War I
Hello! I have noticed for a long time now that the Corps and Divisional pages have been very weak. I used the chart commonly used by the Military history Wikiproject for the breakdown of divisions, but it isn't complete as of yet- the battles need to be filled in, for several are missing. I saw the odd placement of the image earlier, but I never got to fix it, so thanks! Monsieurdl   mon talk-mon contribs 21:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The chart is a very fine addition to the "Canadian Corps" article. Thanks for your good work. Sunray (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)