User talk:Sunray/Archive17

Mediation committee question that needs to be addressed
Your input regarding a question for the mediation committee is requested. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request for article on Rick Warren re controversy over his position on gay rights
Greetings Sunray. I'm party to an open task mediation described here. I see that you're an active mediator who has experience working on cultural issues, so I thought you might be able to help us work together to resolve our disagreements. Please consider taking the case. Thanks. Benccc (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation requested for Holocaust denial article
Dear Suray. I found you name on the Mediators list. Please help us to reach an agreement at. We were discussing about the change of a single sentence along a month. Thank you very much.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
I am going to report you for breaking 3 revert rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=276078871&oldid=276074010

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=276079439

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=276082283

skip sievert (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: No vio. Sunray (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Warren
I fear that I will simpl.y pull out of the Warren mediation -- a couple of editors continue to simply attack persons instead of actually seeking a rational solution -- and when my "brief statement" got thousands of words in "reply" that makes it almnost impossible, in my opinion, to actually achieve anything remotely approaching a compromise at all. Thanks for allowing this vent  Collect (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Posted at my user talk page: "[edit] FYI  At AN/I. [3]. Mike Doughney (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collect"   Doughney is apparently combative today. Seems that asking that mediation be treated as mediation does not agree with him. Collect (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to describe a repost of the earlier proposal that was only "final" in that it was what came out of the end of the the last round, as an "ultimatum," then I'd describe you as the one who's being "combative." Same goes for that "high school debate club" language. Perhaps you should indeed make a graceful exit now. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I happened to read several RfMs and trust Sunray to be acting in the normal manner of mediation.  Mediation does not work by having people repspond at length to everyone's initial brief post.  At least not in any mediation I have read on WP.   Nor does it work by introducing issues not specifically mentioned in the RfM.  That is what I ment by "debating society" -- the task is to find compromises which will last.  My hope is that we can get those brief statements under our belt so that Sunray can see where we stand and what we regard as important. OK? Collect (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, please don't lose faith. I believe the formal mediation process will get parties to communicate more civilly and constructively and help resolve editing disagreements.  I think the worst is behind us.  Whenever personal attacks go beyond what can simply be ignored, we can file a Wikiquette alert, and of course there are other dispute resolution options beyond that.  So please stay with us.  Our eventual agreement will be more solid if all parties are heard (civilly!). Benccc (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All I ask is that normal mediation systems be employed, and that editors not make any comments whatever about any other editors, but only about reaching a rational compromise through mediation.  By strictly keeping any such comments out, we should be able to deal with the issues as defined in the RfM. At least that is how it is supposed to work. Collect (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect and Mike. You two seem to have some issues to work out between you. I would suggest that if you wish to continue that you not do so on the mediation talk page. Rather, let me know and I will set up a page for this. Sunray (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Congestion pricing
Hi Sunray, I congratulations on the result of the mediation regarding State of Fear. You are quite skillful at that.

I would like to request your orientation regarding an endless discussion on the Talk: Congestion pricing, and now I think that without a neutral third party participation we are stuck. The whole page speaks by itself, but al least check here and the complaint from other editor here. I guess a couple of you netrual questions might help us sorting out the meaning of OR and the due weight for the minority view, or if you think is time for formal mediation, please say so. I am not requesting mediation now because in the next following six to eight weeks I will be quite busy at work and travelling, so I will not have so much time for Wiki. --Mariordo (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pretty busy right now. I've taken a quick look and was generally impressed with the civil tone of discussion. It is not my field, so it would take some time to get up to speed. On thing that made the discussion hard to follow was the use of bullets (*) to introduce comments.
 * The use of nested comments, like these, are more common. [Comment by user 1].
 * Does that make it easier to follow threads? [Question by user 2].
 * Yes, by organizing the discussion under appropriate headings, one can easily follow the thread(s) and pick out main points. [Reply by user 1].


 * I will look in again, within the next day or two. In the meantime, you might refactor, along the lines I've suggested. Sunray (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add, that although you can nest the bullets, formatting them is more difficult (same with numbers). Hence the occasional (* * *) and 1. 1. 1.  Sunray (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response, I will try (not sure) to reformat in nested comments. In the meantime I will try to stop the discussion until you drop by.--Mariordo (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

concerns about AGF you know where
and before indicate, I feel, a possible violation of WP mediation rules, in both spirit and in letter. Collect (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Add also this. Such acts I would suggest are contrary to letter and spirit of the applicable WP policies. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to focus on the mediation, IMO. What would happen if you just ceased interacting on this sort of thing and concentrated your efforts there to try to work out solutions? Sunray (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not interact with them at all -- I only noted the actions of others and made no other comments at all. And note also my proposals which are on the table. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent 1919 edits
While I really don’t want to dispute your recent edits here, because it was, in fact, too long. I will note however, that this was the encyclopedic version before I started adding RS’d facts. You might understand the problem. Regardless of your longevity, edit count and position, I feel that your reductions were excessive and deleted much material which might shed more light on the subject. These specifically include the historic topics of land and water resources, which continue to goad the local situation to this day. I will take a closer look at what I consider important for re-inclusion. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that my cutbacks did not adequately summarize the issues in question. However, quoting long passages verbatim from the declaration is not in accord with WP guidelines. There may be a need for a longer article on the Zionist position on Palestine. In that case, we would need to summarize the declaration in the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 article. However, even if a new article were created, quoting long blocks of text would not be a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

About Sustainability (again...)
It seems like whenever skip doesn't like any comments, he'll attribute it as "personal attack" and remove it (e.g. ). What do you think? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be decided by the editors of the page as to whether it actually is a personal attack. As you will note, he has repetitively raising several issues lately. So far none of the editors on the page nor any outside commentators (Reliable Source Noticeboard, Conflict of Interest Noticeboard) has found any substance to his claims. It amounts to him insisting on his POV - very disruptive. I am sure I speak for all the editors on the page when I say we welcome your input. Sunray (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, even though I'm admin, I tend to stay out of disputes so which board should we use? Wikiquette alerts? Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Long term abuse? In addition, you mentioned about Skip bringing the issue to Reliable Source Noticeboard and COI Noticeboard but failed to garner support to his claims. I am unable to find it, could you provide me the links to the archived discussion? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray and Ohana edit together on multiple articles as do other editors involved. It is pretty obvious that a group of editors are trying to make a lot of fuss over several edits that do not deserve the attention. I feel that you are baiting me with the last communications here. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration and connect them to some element of an article. skip sievert (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sunray and Ohana edit together on multiple articles..." That is completely false, as are most of the allegations made by this editor. Sunray (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren
Hi, I've made a general comment at the mediation about defining a common goal before talking specifics. Feel free to strike if you feel it is unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As the answers from participants indicate, most of them are clear on what we are about. This is a tough mediation and I wouldn't say that we had "cracked the nut" yet. However, there is a movement to get better focussed. I think that should bring greater clarity. Sunray (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray, I'm pretty bored with endless discussions. So, I give up. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. If things start to pick up (as I hope they might) do you want me to contact you? Sunray (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sunray, thank you for all the patience, gentle deliverance of important civility lessons, and overall kindness which you've generously given for free. I'm sorry i don't feel i have further contributions (or benefits) involving this article. I'll still keep things on my WatchList in case you really need my personal attention for something, but i need to get away from that region, for the sake of avoiding potential further screw-ups resulting from my impatience (and downright displeasure) with the subject of the biography and with his fans. I apologize again for not deciding this months ago, before i angrily insulted you or anybody else. It's nice working with you, i hope that our paths cross in more pleasant areas. Thank you for the help and the goodwill; please message my TalkPage if you need me to look at anything Wikipedia related, and please email me if you care to discuss further the non-Wikipedia things we were mentioning personally last week. I really enjoy communicating with friendly, erudite, skillful people like you. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 07:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your ability to retire from the field before further engagement with other participants. The mediation is shortly either going to move towards completion or stop, IMO. Do you wish to be notified if we seem close to a solution? Sunray (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sunray. After a lot of consideration this week, i've come to a useful part of the formal Mediation guidelines which might help expedite everything. Please see my request for Benccc to act in Representation of my presence in the Mediation. Rather than a clamouring crowd of voices (many of which are stating basically the same positions) i feel it would be more efficient to ask Benccc to proceed in the Mediation, and i could simply stand quietly to the side and observe the process, as his comments have always generally represented my basic positions already, and he has a much more calm and reasonable tone of discussion in general. I hope this will be an improved approach, as we all have the same goal of writing the best articles which are Neutral and accurate, and then i can avoid any further fear of losing my cool with Civil conduct issues. Thank you ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey. After checking out the mediation page after a long time (I had removed it from my watchlist), I'm really surprised to see there has been some progress (Prop 8). So, I'd like to return to the mediation, is this ok? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Phoenix of9: I can give a qualified "yes" to your question. The current participants have been working hard at coming up with wording that they can all live with. As you know, it is a difficult mediation with two almost incommensurable positions. Several people were not able to maintain a civil approach. Those who are mediating now have done so. So civility is the sine qua non. You made some useful contributions in the past, so I think you could rejoin now. However, we are moving towards wrapping up and I definitely want to limit the further scope to what the current participants want. Those are the qualifications. You are welcome to rejoin if you can abide with them. Sunray (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this mean you do not want to discuss 'civil unions' issues? Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the other participants want to discuss civil unions, that would be fine. Sunray (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All other participants? Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need consensus on what is to be mediated. No mediation is possible without that. Sunray (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

New sources
Sunray, I went to the library today and I found these additional sources that say the Church claimed as its title Catholic Church. Two of them use the word "exclusively" please see:


 * 1)From The Oxford English Dictionary, 1978, Oxford University Press, Volume II, C, ISBN 0198611013, page 186 Definition of "Catholic": "(a)After the separation, assumed by the Western or Latin Church, and so commonly applied historically.(b)After the Reformation in the 16th c. claimed as its exclusive title by that part of the Western Church which remained under Roman obedience."


 * 2)From The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 01921165x, Definition of "Catholic" page 305: "'(3)In historical writers, of the undivided Church before the schism of E. and W., traditionally dated in 1054. Thereafter the W. Church usually referred to itself as 'catholic', the E. preferring to describe itself as 'orthodox'. (4)Since the Reformation RCs have come to use it of themselves exclusively.'"


 * 3)From The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism general editor Richard McBrien and some of the 280 authors are listed here published in 1995 by HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0060653388, Definition of "Catholic" page 240: ""'However, the use of the word 'Catholic' became divisive after the East-West Schism of the eleventh century and the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth. The West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East, which broke the bonds of unity with Rome, appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. After the Reformation split, those in communion with Rome retained the adjective Catholic, while the churches that broke with the papacy were called Protestant.'"

If we include these with the 1995 Academic American Encyclopedia [ and the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica,[] we now have a total of five sources saying the same thing - that the Church has claimed as its title Catholic Church and that the title is its exclusive title. I don't see how we can be expected to support Soidi's argument when these sources represent the most respected modern scholarship.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These sources look great! I would pick the strongest, such as the OED, and maybe the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church seems not as strong, as it uses the term "RC." Sunray (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RCC
Sunray, I think I'll bow out at this stage. Good luck with the continued efforts! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thank you for all your contributions. Sunray (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sunray, I've noticed that the editor called Carlaude is making a number of comments on the RCC mediation pages but does not appear to actually be one of the parties to this dispute. I'm not sure about the policies regarding this but thought I should bring it to your attention. Regards, Afterwriting (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now noticed that you had already attended to this matter. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix's proposed punishments
Phoenix of9 is proposing that I be under severe restrictions for 18 months and topicbanned in some areas in his RfC/U on me. I regard this as not actually in the best interests of anyone at all, but he is canvassing a number of editors to push this through. The material on the RfC/U is a melange which does not actually meet the RfC/U criteria, but apparently he thinks of it as a vote to get rid of a "conservative" (which is odd since I am a traditional northeast liberal in point of fact). In any event, I fear it will greatly slow down any actions in the mediation, which is very unfortunate for sure. My apologies. BTW, Teledildonix314 sent a gracious email to me in which he complimented me on my forbearance. Hope you had a good holiday. Wow!! Now he added an AN/I pn me as well! Seems like a real nice chap. Collect (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also an AN3 on me as well (declined of course). I think he will soon run out of boards to complain on? Collect (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is votestacking going on -- 14 editors who had runins in me were contacted on their user talk pages (and not a single one who had no problems).   Not a single signer has ever engaged in any "dispute resolution" at all (though they assert they did by signing) and the entire mess is not a "single user" one as required by the rules but a melange of every issue thet could dredge up over seven thousand edits.   I consider it, in fact, abot the worst case of wikilawyering process abuse ever, but I have only looked at fifty or so.  Collect (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sunray, Collect immediatetly started screaming about votestacking and canvassing once the RFC was started. It's an old tactic to undermine the perceived legititmacy of an RFC. In my instance, I picked people who interacted with collect on a couple of page related to Joe the Plumber. Collect made few friends on that article, so naturally he would feel that anyone I picked would be against him. But I infact picked editors I thought would participate in the RFC and that was it. He's what Steve Dufour wrote immediately after being alterted.

After Collect and some of his allies from other articles made the votestacking allegations, I and another editor who's a Collect defender (Soxwon) went out and added dozens of other notifications to this RFC. Few if any of these additional editors have participated. Soxwon did alert SluggoOne who wrote such a strong opinion that it was moved from the RFC to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect. Anyway, I hope this helps you with your "votestacking" tally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However, I am not following the RfC and do not intend to right now. Sunray (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting mediation
Hi, i'm looking for mediation on a matter regarding the "anime and manga portal" we have a discussion going on and i would like you to madiate, it's the first time i request mediation, should i add more details here or should i link you to the discussion thread? Starlingmaximilian (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have been delayed looking into this, but I've had a look now. As I understand it, you want mark certain episodes as "fillers." You made a proposal about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga and have also discussed it at Talk:List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes. You have had many replies from other editors. Most of the responses have said that marking episodes as fillers would be original research. There seems to be a consensus about this. Thus I don't think that your problem is mediatable. It seems to be more a question of whether or not you will accept the consensus. The policies I refer to are really not subject to dispute. If I've gotten something wrong here, please let me know. Sunray (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Salve
Sorry I hope I dont disturb... I am rathter new here in wikipedia... I am a teacher and journalist (And a pilot of glider) from Roma, I am much interested in Aviation History and I tried to give my contributions to make richer the pages of wikipedia I know something about...

I know something about italian second world war planes ( I know personally pilots that fought flying those planes against some kind of Allied planes...) and I have some books on my shelves... Well to make it short... when I noticed that in the page of the Curtiss P-40 it was written that this fighter was considered the equal of the Macchi C.202 Folgore I wrote down 3 or 4 quotes, all from english or german historian, that stated that the Italian plane was widely or totally considered superior to P-40 and for some parts superiore even to the celebrated Spitfire as well. But an editor, Binksternet, at first modified the quotes and at last started to delete them saying that they were too detailed.... I am speaking of short phrases that - in my opinion - gave an opposite point of view, useful to give a more complete picture of the characteristics of this planes... SO I ask You if he has the authority to do so and - if wikipedia is really the free encyclopaedia - there are some guys that feel (or have?) this right? Thanks for your time,

sincerely, gian piero milanetti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your query. I've had a chance to look at the edits on the Curtiss P-40 page. I note that one editor re-organized your edits here and then another editor pointed out weight issues here. There was discussion among several editors of the question of balance in the Combat performance section here. I note that you did not take part in the discussion on the talk page.


 * Two observations: First, as the article is about the P-40 and not the MC.202, the question of weight is a valid one. However, I note that much of what you mention above is reflected in the article (including the point you made that "Bill Gunston, at last, states that the Macchi C.202 "proved to be totally superior to English Hurricanes and to American Curtiss P.40."). What they mean when they talk about "weight" is that all points of view are reflected in proportion to their significance. The quality of the references (see WP:VER) is the key to this.


 * Secondly, editorial decisions are made by consensus. If you find yourself disagreeing with other editors, it is important to discuss your concerns on the article talk page (click on the tab marked "discussion" at the top of the article). By all means state your case there. It is important, though, to bear in mind that decisions are made by consensus. The regular editors on that page know their subject and they know WP policies. You will do best by collaborating with them. Best of luck with it. Sunray (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Grazie da Roma

 * thanks for your time and your concern... I understand but - if I can say it - I dont agree totally, COnsensus and thruth could not get along... Just think in the past how many times in the past mistakes have been maken by consensus... Socrates was killed with consensus, if I remember well, the witches were burnt with consensus... :)

I am joking of course but: if some enthusiastic of the subject are crazy about a certain planes and they have consensu about that and they like to write (for nationalism or something) that a plane was a wonder and may be they find a pilot that states that, so they can write something (in part or totally) wrong, as they have consensus? :) If I find some sources that states the opposite, with consensus they can delete it or modify it because they have consensus? Hummm... I think you know what I mean... that is dangerous for a balanced information and knowledge, also because mnay contributors have not academic titles and can just be enthusiasts of the subjetc that have some books...( I buy continusly books of aviatio, my father was in the Regia Eeronautica, I know historians and pilots etc...) you can see it by yourself.... I understand (but I dont agree) and I adapt myself to it... Best regards from Italy gian piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you looked over that other policy I mentioned (WP:VER), you will have come across this: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Some have difficulty accepting this, but there it is. ;-) Sunray (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)