User talk:Sunray/Archive27

Re. Sunyata
hi there, Thanks for the message. My opinion is that the addition has some merit, but it is clearly written in a generalised and broad sense which is not justified. Williams is cited, but Williams has not claimed to be a universal source of knowledge for Buddhism!

I wiil write a comment on the Sunyata talk page 20040302 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bridges to Prosperity edits
Thanks so much for reviewing my edits. I was simply trying to respond to another editors comments to bring in more discussion about others that do this same charity work, provide a substantial amount of additional citations, and show that this article has substantial major media coverage. I am also finding it difficult to post our logo. Regardless of what approach I take upon uploading the logo, some editors pulls it for potential copyright infringment. I am the founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bridges to Prosperity. My name is Kenneth Frantz. I am the only person in the world that has the authority to allow our logo to go into the public domain. So, how can I insure that others do not pull it? I have reviewed dozens of other websites that have their logos displayed. I have copied the formatting of those logos to my best of ability.

Also, you will note that I have gone to considerable effort to tie this article into other Wikipedia articles. In all, it is now tied to 6 other relevant articles. And I also spent about 6 hours researching all the university programs that participate with our mission to properly give them credit and references to their individual websites.

I have also been getting lots of comments that this article advocates. But, I would like someone to stop for one second, and tell me just one sentence that advocates. The entire article is written in total fact mode. No opinions.........just facts, and now all backed with copius citations.

And yes, I have read the entire introduction to Wikipedia and a huge amount of the formatting and help columns. I have spent over 4 hours reading those guidelines.

So, just what could I have done to better improve this Bridges to Prosperity page?

--Krfrantz (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've left a couple of notes on your talk page. You evidently have a good general understanding of WP style, but you were doing some things that were weird departures from the guidelines. As far as the logo goes, take a look at WP:LOGO. Sunray (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup
Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! Inverse Hypercube 03:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

edit etiquitte
thanks for the heads up, sunray. i shall re-edit with your instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westernyankee (talk • contribs) 01:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

discussion re cites on the Persons case
I"ve responded to your comments on my talk page re the Persons case. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design
See the ID talk page, Im not understanding what is going on. I have explained many times why I made the edits which are well sourced, the user who reverted them still not explains why he has reverted it. Gutterpunks (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that there is a discussion on the article talk page about your proposed addition to the article. I also note that you broke the Three revert rule and insisted that your version be included in the article before discussion could be concluded on the talk page. The article has now been protected. You say you do not understand what is going on. No doubt you are upset.
 * You may find the following observations useful for your future editing at Wikipedia:
 * Edit warring is not permitted and is normally strongly sanctioned. You received a warning, but frankly that is a rare exception. Usually violations of the 3RR result in a block.
 * The article on Intelligent Design has featured article status. The FA designation means that the article is a well-written summary of the topic that is supported by reliable sources. It also means that it is a mature and stable article. In the case of mature articles, major changes would not normally be expected without discussion and agreement on the talk page before they are made.
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Consensus "is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Editors need to discuss and agree to major changes to a mature article.
 * It seems to me that your approach has been confrontational. That is not a good way to influence people to your point of view. Remember that articles such as Intelligent design have been debated and worked on for a long time. Also you should be aware that the editor that reverted you may not be a regular on the article talk page he may just have been patrolling, saw a major change and wished to direct you to the talk page—a fairly standard practice. Could he have been more communicative? Quite likely. It happens to the best of us because we see thousands of cases of questionable additions to WP every day. I'm not making an excuse for him, just describing where he may have been coming from.


 * Here's what I would suggest: Take a break, perhaps think of something completely different to do for awhile. When you are calm, come back to Wikipedia (we need good editors). If you want to edit the Intelligent design article, make your case reasonably on the talk page. If you cannot convince other editors there, there are a number of choices available to you. You could simply elect to edit other articles in a different subject matter area. If you do not think that the editors on the article talk page are taking your arguments seriously you could initiate a request for comment. Best of luck. Feel free to let me know if you have further questions. Sunray (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thigle is back, continuing to insult.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A20040302&action=historysubmit&diff=458677961&oldid=458677638

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/InfiniteThigle

Also comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Śūnyatā#Su.C3.B1.C3.B1a_Sutta_.28SN_35.85.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AŚūnyatā&action=historysubmit&diff=458677910&oldid=457296206

Incidentally, It's pretty much established that Suñña Sutta (SN 35.85) predates the Mahayana, and it's a very old Pali text. I can get references if required. (20040302 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the notice. Thigle seems to be getting worse (if that's possilbe). Sad case. It didn't take SudoGhost long to make the report and get the block here. Sunray (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also thanks for the info on Suñña Sutta. Sunray (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sunray. 20040302 (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Community
Hey Sunray. Community an article you have done some major contributions for is up for good article review. You might like to respond to some of the concerns Community|here. AIR corn (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Gorsevski and consent
Hi. I don't know much about you, but you seem like a friend at this point, our having labored together heroically to champion similar perspectives.

When I offered my proposal, I was expressing my willingness, at this point, to consent to Gorsevski's inclusion, even if that's not my preference. I didn't presume that this meant you would necessarily consent, nor did I mean to suggest that the proposal should move forward without your consent. if you choose to forge ahead, I fully honor that.

Over the course of the discussion, I've heard enough of the other perspective that I've come to appreciate it, to a point. I feel satisfied too that I've been able to be heard at least to a degree. Too, it was a real relief for me to sort out the "policy" arguments and realize that what people were framing as policy was actually culture. I didn't feel comfortable agreeing to go along with a perspective that didn't match my reality, as was the case when people were claiming to champion policy. Now I feel I at least have a context for their position, and that offers me a degree of comfort. As I think about including Gorsevski in the article, I don't think it's a particularly good choice, but I can stretch toward not thinking it a disaster. I no longer feel the level of urgency that I did about advocating for the position I've been taking. (Of course, maybe I'm just worn out.)

By the way, there is apparently research used by (but I think not done by) John Gottman that says that no, paraphrasing in the form of Active Listening doesn't work in marriages. I don't think it's necessarily that paraphrasing is in general problematic, but more that in the context of the profound emotional charge present in marriages, people couldn't use it in a way that was effective. Or something like that. The finding has apparently changed the way some marriage counseling is done.

I personally think that NVC empathy guessing is distinct from and more powerful than generic paraphrasing, so I don't see the research on paraphrasing, whether it validates or invalidates the practice, as being entirely germane. To me, NVC empathy guessing is conceptually different, and in my limited experience, the NVC approach can have a wonderful effect in marriages.

I also find it interesting and ironic that Gorsevski quotes Gottman research on the bad effects of "negative mind reading." That's consistent with other research to the effect that attributing negative motives to others is a sign that a conflict is escalating in a bad way. Of course, NVC empathy guesses are the opposite of this, insofar as they involve consistently attributing positive, beautiful intentions to the other. Research saying guessing negative intentions is bad should arguably actually be taken as an endorsement of the NVC approach. One of the reasons I'm willing to have Gorsevski be quoted on this is that I think many people will quickly realize that what Rosenberg is advocating isn't "negative mind reading."

Do I understand rightly that your main objections to Gorsevski at this point is basically that what she says is false and is contradicted by other research?

What I've heard from others is that they don't see Gorsevski being wrong as a barrier to including her views. To them, what matters is that, as an academic source, her voice, right or wrong, is intrinsically notable and therefore worthy of inclusion. So the challenge you face is that they don't see your objection as being something that should be a barrier to Gorsevski's inclusion. From their perspective, there is no point in talking about whether or not she's wrong -- that wouldn't affect their position. The real conflict is around the question of whether or not it matters if she is wrong. Their strategy for addressing your objection seems to be to try to convince you that Gorsevski ought to be included even if she is thoroughly wrong.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing it would't work to include Gorsevski's views then quote the contrary research on paraphrasing -- this would probably be viewed as synthesis, and so, contrary to policy.

What a tangle!

Namaste. Rhwentworth (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A tangle indeed! Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am pleased to hear you say that you have sorted out the policy arguments and can see the "cultural" influences. That seems to me a valuable awareness for serious editing of WP.


 * Yes we have had common cause. I was recently talking to an NVC trainer and the subject of Wikipedia came up. She said how upset she, and other trainers, were about the Wikipedia article. I was able to tell her that it had changed recently and was becoming a much more reasonable presentation of NVC. I told her about what you had been adding to the article and was also able to tell her that I had made the case for the removal of the "Criticism" section, and that had been done.


 * What the criticism section looked like to me was, frankly, a "hit job" on Rosenberg and NVC. Some of it was absolutely beyond the pale (the video of the sophomore philosophy major/pot head) who engaged in the most outrageous diatribe. It was at once funny and unwatchable. No wonder the NVC people cringed! The point no one has yet picked up on is that NVC is a service mark. That means that the standards for biographies, (with a higher bar for criticism), apply. It is entirely possible that Sarles and Gorsevski are in a conflict of interest situation (this is more likely true of Sarles, who is definitely a potential competitor). So I do not intend to quit until my concerns have been addressed. If necessary I will appeal to the relevant noticeboard. I too can see including Gorsevski, but you have identified the problem with that: One cannot counter her mistakes with a review of the literature because that would be OR. So we (interested editors who actually edit the article) need to solve that problem. That will be hard to do as long as the RfC is up with, folks driving by and offering their helpful opinions!


 * My interest in this article is twofold: 1) professional, and 2) as a long-time WP editor. My background is in the social sciences and I have both academic credentials and practical experience. I am a sociologist with a certificate in conflict resolution. Conflict resolution is my field (both from the theoretical (sociological) and practical (professional mediation) perspectives. NVC is thus one of the tools I use. I can critique it fairly objectively, but so far, no one has hit upon its real drawback: It is hard to learn. This is the problem that all of the "critics" (with the possible exception of Sarles, who as I've said may have a conflict of interest) have experienced. They do not understand it. My concern, though is more animated by my experience with Wikipedia "controversy" and "criticism" sections in articles. This is admittedly more of a problem with biographies, but also with organizations. I have had to do considerable conflict resolution (as a member of the WP Mediation Committee) with folks who insist on their particular POV. The worst cases are religious and nationalistic. But the ones that are more pervasive represent exactly the kind of attitude we are dealing with: The attempt to discredit something that is not easy to understand. Ironically it was Michaplot who first added a "Criticism" section here. I say ironic, for two reasons: first of all he understands NVC well (though is skeptical) and secondly because it was Michaplot who, one year later, removed it. Michael's addition back in December 2010 was not bad, actually. One problem with it at the time was that was overly long, in comparison to the elucidation of NVC, creating a problem of balance. But it became egregiously bad, with folks piling on with their (mostly fatuous) nuggets of criticism.


 * What might make sense is to form an editing collective with a mandate to develop the "Criticism" section. Possible members could include Michaplot, Jojalozzo, you and me. Of course, anyone who wanted to could join in if they were prepared to work at it and abide by consensus. It seems to me that the RfC was premature and isn't heading for a reasonable outcome. Nor do I think that compromise is wise (the Judgement of Solomon). What if we moved to close the RfC and proposed a working group? Sunray (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No time for a full response now, and I'd like to discuss some of this, but for now... I want to replace the "Criticism" section with a "Responses" section, per the recommendation of WP:CRIT, so I'd want that to be part of any working group agenda, if we went with that strategy.


 * By the way, for full disclosure (I haven't been hiding it and it's actually explicitly mentioned in the article, but neither did there seem value in making a point of it), I'm a certified NVC trainer (and a former physicist). I'm happy for the POV to be neutral and even for there to be criticism, but it would be nice if it was a high quality representation of the subject. I does feel like things are much better than they were a few months ago. Rhwentworth (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding a working group to develop the "Responses" section... I don't know that I personally would have a lot of energy for that. I wanted to work on the article until it was no longer terrible, and I think that goal was largely achieved. The Gorsevsky discussion has perhaps for me been about maintaining that standard. There are refinements the article could use (I'd particularly love to rewrite the "Overview" section but need sources), but they don't seem pressing relative to the need to attend to other aspects of my life. Creating a fuller "Responses" section would be nice, but isn't a priority for me.


 * I agree with your assessment that "it's hard to learn" is the biggest issue with NVC. There's also no standardized curriculum for it, and the way it's taught is constantly evolving.


 * When it comes to criticism, I wish there could be some distinction between criticizing the core ideas of NVC and criticizing Rosenberg's presentation of it. Though I suppose that's a hard distinction for outsiders to make. There are a few things that Rosenberg says that I don't agree with, or ways he says things that are exaggerated, perhaps to try to shock people into seeing things differently in a teaching context -- but none of those are the core of NVC, and other trainers including myself present NVC in ways that don't include those elements that are easy to take exception to, yet which still capture all the core ideas. Rhwentworth (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting point about the service mark implying biography standards apply. Can you point to policy that says this? When I look at WP:BLPGROUP it seems to suggest that the biography standards would be true only for very small groups? (CNVC, which holds the service mark, is only about 5 people plus a board. But there are hundreds of certified trainers, and countless uncertified folks. I'm a little uneasy to base an argument on NVC just being CNVC, because at this point a lot of what's best in NVC is outside their purview.) Rhwentworth (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as I mentioned, she is actually criticizing Rosenberg, so there is ambiguity there. But it leads back to WP:UNDUE in any case. Point taken about the time required for a working group. I'm hoping that the RfC will now go away. Let's wait and see. Sunray (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Buddhism infobox
Tpbradbury's point is that the current infobox person template is empty. Most top level religion articles use vertical series templates like Buddhism instead. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that explanation. Would it make sense to fill in the infobox? Sunray (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, the edit by Tpbradbury was correct. We either get rid of the infobox or remove the photo altogether and use a series template.  However, I have no objection to just adding the photo.  I believe the infobox person template is reserved for articles about the subject (Buddha not Buddhism) or for sections about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. My problem was only with the change in relative spacing of the image and the box below. The image can simply be re-sized. I will do that. Thanks for your help. Sunray (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration discussion heating up again
Sunray, if you have the inclination and time, please take a look here. Do you think it would be constructive to ask all of the users who participated in the mediation process to comment? Of course, I can readily understand if you're not inclined to do so. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So I see. Yes, I do think it would be appropriate to ping the former mediation participants. Collaboration was one of the issues that mediation participants agreed to discuss on the article talk page. I will ask if those editors would like to comment. Sunray (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your revert at Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti
If you feel that this revert is justified by our policies. please explain on the article talk page what your reasoning is. I believe that unless you have something very specific the IP might be entitled to ask for review of your action at WP:AN/I. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had thought that the edit was pretty uncontroversial, but since it is apparently being contested, I will add my rationale on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

NVC criticism
I'm afraid I can't quite follow the logic of your arguments at this point in the Gorsevski dispute. I don't think that bodes well for winning an arbitration. I no longer see a plausible case for exclusion.

I was surprised to discover some rather insightful content in Flack, which I think would be a valuable addition to the article. I'm guessing your argument to exclude Gorsevski would also exclude Flack. Rhwentworth (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you cannot follow my logic, it is not surprising that others cannot either. I'm not sure what can be done about that except get an opinion from RSN. Certainly it is not the sort of thing that needs to go to arbitration. I could summarize my argument on the talk page before submitting it do RSN. Would that be helpful?


 * I've always been interested in Flack's commentary. There are some aspects that are problematic, but much of it is interesting. What aspects do you think would be possible to include? Sunray (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Offering a summary would likely be helpful. Note one part that confused me was your assertion that WP:IRS mandates "the need for scholarly consensus." The text I see there says "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." It only requires consensus when the article is going to assert that there is a scholarly consensus. So, it sounds like scholarly consensus is desirable but not required. Which would seem to undermine some of what you were saying. Rhwentworth (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I was attempting to respond to other editors repeated insistence on WP:VER and WP:IRS. WP:VER is a very important policy. However, WP:VER refers to other policies: WP:IRS to determine what is a reliable source and also, WP:NPOV regarding neutrality . Since there is no scholarly consensus (per WP:IRS) it places more emphasis on WP:WEIGHT. Is that clearer? Sunray (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not much, alas. (Tired, maybe I need some sleep.) Rhwentworth (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed
Hi. Regarding this, you want citation for the low external debt or for the fair amount of international assistance? The external debt is $2.7 billion and the international assistance since 2001 is $67 billion  I didn't bother to cite this because I figured that it's well known.--NorthernPashtun  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernPashtun (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a reliable source. Basically we need sources for just about everything (not for "the sky is blue," but certainly for Afghanistan's debt) and the paragraph you are adding to is all sourced. Do you need any assistance in formatting the citation? Sunray (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

New template for Canadian JCPC cases?
Hi, Sunray,

I'd be interested in having a new template specifically for Canadian JCPc cases, modelled on the one used on the Edwards page, but I lack the technical skills to make a new template. Is there anyway to have it done? Here's the changes I was thinking of:  (1) adding a maple leaf to it, so that whenever it's used for a JCPC case relating to Canada, there's a symbol to show the Canadian connection. Is there a way to add the maple leaf that is used on the WikiProject Canada info? (2) change "Judge(s) sitting" to "Judges sitting", since the JCPC always sat as a panel; (3) add a new field: "Decision by: " to be able to show which judge wrote the decision; (4) change "Prior action(s)" to "On appeal from", since the JCPC was an appellate body; and (5) delete the field "Subsequent action(s)", since the JCPC decision was the end of the road. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have much knowledge of the mechanics of templates either. You might want to ask your question at the Canadian Wikipedians noticeboard. Sunray (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for the suggestion - done! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * an update - Arctic Gnome has made the changes I suggested to the infobox - it's not restricted to the JCPC, but increases the options for anyone who wants to use Template:Infobox court case. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jiddu
Have you misread the thread at Jiddu? Sach.b is not packing in, I am. Well, I am not responding to that thread any more because I have exhausted my ability to explain the situation & I can tell you now that Sach.b will not stop until the article is returned to its prior state - seen this behaviour too many times before. Feel free to keep on trying, but I'll be moving on to the next section tomorrow. Thanks for sorting out that awkward bit that I posted a few days ago. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did misread it. I was so focused on replying to someone that I thought I had seen before on that page, that I responded to the wrong comment (yours). Three editors all beginning with "S" can be a challenge when one is a bit bleary eyed :)
 * I think that you nailed it when you said that Sach.b was "het up." I was surprised at the energy behind their presentation--all the more so since this individual had suddenly returned after a long hiatus. Their positions seem to mirror those of the New York Library IP. A sock perhaps? (though looking at the timestamps, likely not originating solely from the Library which closes at 6:00 p.m. EST on weekends). Sunray (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Query
Hi!

Why did you revert the article I posted a couple of seconds ago without leaving a proper explanation?

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.197.187 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What article are you referring to? Sunray (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you are referring to. Please pay attention to the instructions for adding to that Infobox. The first time you did it, you screwed up the formatting. The second time you eliminated the instructions! Would you be able to take it slow? Sunray (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: removal of Gaelic content on Nova Scotia wikipedia
To whom it may concern:

The Gaelic content posted yesterday on Nova Scotia's wikipedia site is accurate and enhances the page's overall content. Can it please be put back up on the site?

Thanking you in advance,

Lodaidh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.214.5 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to Stephen Covey
I have made mistakes on wikipedia in the past, including vandalism in my younger days. But I was reading the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and someone told me there was some controversy about the author. As a former undergraduate, I do not think citing press releases is acceptable sourcing for his successes. I find it to violate the wikipedia standard on original research, and in general, not to be encyclopedic.

I'm trying to do the right thing here.

I have no idea how to improve the article. To do so would require a bit of research on my own into peer-reviewed sources. What I was trying to do was flag it for cleanup so that it would be brought to someone's attention.

--24.158.0.2 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as the saying goes, "if you ain't makin' mistakes, you ain't learnin'." True there is one press release, but the other sources are reliable and fairly varied. As I mentioned, it is rated "C" class, so it has a long way to go. Which is a bit different than saying that it "has problems" if you see what I mean. The article surely would benefit from additions. Would you be interested in working on that? And, have you thought about getting an account? Sunray (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting, indeed. Sunray (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Hi, Sunray - hope you don't mind, but I pinched your script for the note re replying to responses on this page and put a variant on my own talk page - makes good sense to keep the conversation on one page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I forget who I pinched it from. Nice of you to mention it. Sunray (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Joan Baez
Sunray,

It is worth emphasising the breadth of Baez's appeal, which might not be obvious to contemporary readers only familiar with folk as a minority music.

Also, the quote about Baez being an important songwriter in the sixties is misinformed.

Cheers,

Stan Anson Stananson (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stananson (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever we say, it is important to back it up with reliable sources. That is why I added what I did. The article didn't have a source for the previous statement. I saw Baez at Woodstock and other venues in the 60s and can assure you she was hugely popular and influential (as many sources attest). Sunray (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunray,

Indeed, but as the "most accomplished interpretive ... songwriter of the 1960s"? More accomplished than Dylan? Baez didn't even start recording her own material until late in the decade.

The reliable source cited was the Billboard chart positions summarised at All Music. It is reasonable to conclude from this objective evidence that Baez had wide mainstream appeal. Quoting someone else's opinion to that effect does not strengthen the point.

Best wishes,

Stan Stananson (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stananson (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a point about "the most accomplished..." We should find a better source on that. As far as the allmusic source: If we make a conclusion based on a table it is OR. We need a source to say what you want to say. The source I gave does say that she "has influenced nearly every aspect of popular music", which avoids OR. Sunray (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunray,

Aha! No original research. I have learnt something.

Best,

Stan Stananson (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stananson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome note
Thank you for the welcome, SunRay! I shall look into the things you have mentioned in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.253.188 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, SunRay. In fact I distinctly remember opening an account some time ago but I forgot my username and password, so may have to scrounge through my email inbox to see if something is there. As for the cool head, well it is needed since Buddhism has been turned into a very emotionally charged issue in India today, as I mentioned in response to ChiswickChap and IanThomson... Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.253.188 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, emotionally charged indeed! Hope you find your account. Let me know if/when you do. Sunray (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for formating my deep ecology article addition
Thanks. I'm new to wiki and didn't quite know how to put in the edit in the correct format. I appreciate you cleaning that up. SashaGolden (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in responding to your comments
Dear Sunray,

Just a brief note to explain my tardiness in responding to a message you wrote to me in 2008 (!!); it's because I did not notice it until today. I was not aware of the huge amount of "User Talk" correspondence focusing on the I Ching (Yijing) entry in Wikipedia. I don't have time to write at length, but I would like to compliment you for being an island of common sense in a sea of Yijing-related polemics, ignorance and lunacy. I will probably not be looking much at "User Talk," and would prefer it if you contacted me directly at smithrj@rice.edu if the occasion arises. I did want to let you know that my Yijing website at http://chaocenter.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=601 contains quite a bit of material on the Changes, including some otherwise unpublished papers of mine. All best, Rich Smith [I have no idea where the tildes go, so I'll add them here]: Smithrjs (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Temple Grandin
I just need my changes to stick for a week or so for an important project. Then I will not touch the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student92492 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In order for the edits to stay, you need to follow the style guide. I will give you a few examples on your talk page. Sunray (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The UBC Bookstore
The UBC Bookstore is owned and operated by the University of British Columbia, where proceeds support student services, facilities and research. We provide necessary services to UBC students. (Communityservices (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your note, which caused me to look further. I found a link that supports what you say, so have added that as a citation. Sunray (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:VOTES & WP:CANVASSING
Since Nuujinn has deleted my response to your post on his talk, I will post the deleted text here.

The "Nuujinn draft" at Talk:Draža Mihailović/collaboration drafts does not have "support". As it stands it is opposed and has serious issues that need resolving, namely significant bias by omission of sources and sourced information. This has been made perfectly clear on the article's talkpage, where the matter is being discussed (though the main focus is currently on the main Chetniks article). You do not see this, apparently, and seem to be itching to proclaim another one of those "consensuses". If you are thinking of pulling the same sort of WP:VOTE preceded by the canvassing of your side of the dispute, it will immediately be brought-up with the community. Needless to say, addition of the disputed (I'm sorry) propaganda piece will be immediately reverted without fail. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. The question of voting seems moot. Whether or not there is a vote, the key issue is whether the legitimate concerns raised by editors are able to be addressed. Sunray (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
mabdul 03:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sunray
Thanks for the message about citing my additions. It's rewarding to contribute to Wikipedia articles and I appreciate the reminder. Cheers. Rolandwilliamson (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Theosophy
The Theosophy Portal was based and set up as a religion, Occult etc. Last night I was going to simple rename it to Theosophism(s) (practices a specific theosophy as a religion - or the closest word I could fine to the concept) I got rather confused on what I was doing - links everywhere. Anyway I was asked in Wikisource the reason. I explained it. I didn't finish - decided to stop. I wanted to talk to the person who was questioning this (a moderator I assume). I cannot find our discussion last night, so I can contact the person. How do I find this? I fear I may have have overstepped bounds. Not my intent. I was trying to keep what was there, but change the name only. so Help? JEMead (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, changes of this nature would be discussed on the article talk page and consensus gained there. I regret that I was away from that discussion and not able to contribute. In a major change like this would usually benefit from fairly broad consultation, possibly a Request for comment and some consultation with the relevant project (in this case, probably WikiProject Philosophy or WikiProject Religion, or both). Finally once a course of action is agreed upon you would make the page moves, change categories, and adjust portals. I doubt that you have to do anything at Wikisource as they would mirror the categories and portals at Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is a big project and there are many ways to approach things. You have found someone who seems to be a good resource in User:Beeswaxcandle.


 * What happened?: At some point you switched projects from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) to Wikisource (en.wikisource.org). Each project has several namespaces (article, project, portal, etc.). So you were attempting to modify the portal on both Wikipedia and Wikisource projects.


 * Specific question: How do I find this? I assume you want to get back to your discussion with Beeswaxcandle. Your discussion at Wikisource can be found here. Most of us (Beeswaxcandle, you, me) have talk pages on various projects. You can also reach them at their Wikipedia talk page: User talk:Beeswaxcandle


 * What to do next: I'm not sure that is necessary to change the listings at the portals yet. I think that the first thing is to agree on the names of the various pages (on the article talk page); then consult with relevant projects (if changes are agreed on); then make page moves, adjust categories, etc.


 * Hoping the above is helpful. Let me know what you would like to do next. Sunray (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very helpful. The template and portal - that may actually sort itself out by the people who use it. My concerns usually stem from the wars between doctrines amongst the societies and organizations etc. The various branches and creations (e.g. anthroposophy) were started because of very strong beliefs of what the "correct" doctrine is. oh well. The existing page "Theosophism" really helped me to realize (a AhHa! moment) that this is exactly the contentions the non-academic/doctrinal sides of all these debates stem from. They all want the word "Theosophy" to be owned by their group etc. and they actually are arguing about the correct "One" Theosophism (believe there is only one Truth - theirs) which should win all debates. That is my current view. Of course, my goal is to get "Theosophy" correct first, which we have, and now we may (through Theosophism) be able to create a stable environment for the future, keeping contentions separated. I can get several people from several schools (I am friends with several, and they have friends etc) who may just be at the point to help structure things to prevent/minimize the issues this field has historically had. That would be a very good way to help the "Users" of the wikipedia site actually make some sense of all of this. It gets complex and confusing sometimes. JEMead (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision war about to start ???? JEMead (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Gregbard removed the Philosophy banner. I put it back. He/she really is confused about theosophy being part of Philosophy. I added the banner back. Under the banner i suggested to read http://www.iep.utm.edu/submit/100-most/ hence if a peer-reviewed Philosophy Encyclopedia considers Theosophy in the top 100 sought after articles I can not understand the confusion/ignorance. The confusion is exactly why I am trying to fix Theosophy. I left the link on Gregbard's Talk page as well JEMead (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this can happen if people do not think that things were properly discussed or they are unclear about the intent of changes. The latter seems to be the case here. I will take a look. Sunray (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some things one can do to minimize revert wars:
 * Use edit summaries to explain what you are doing and direct others to discuss their concerns on the talk page.
 * Use BRD as a modus operandi.
 * When you foresee a revert war brewing (as you did), put a note on the talk page under a new heading at the bottom of the page. Explain, briefly, your reasoning. Sometimes it helps to use the other user's name (e.g., "Gregbard removed the philosophy template...") to get their attention.
 * Stick to content rather than the contributor. If you have to mention something that someone else is doing, stick to observations (i.e., facts).
 * Keep posts short. Longer posts may not get read or may give the other guy more fodder.
 * I'm thinking of doing an essay on this. It is the essence of civility in this sprawling community that uses the written word as its medium. Sunray (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have decided that everything is fine at this point. I have seen no one object anywhere. I think we were solving a non-existing issue. JEMead (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you are right about that. You can tuck my primer away for future reference. With luck you may never have to refer to it... :) Sunray (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you write anything up - which I would love to have you do, can I get a copy (link)? JEMead (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that your comments are appreciated. However, the figures in the TS lineage are all lightening rods (Steiner seems safe). I went through and at least got links (into other wiki pages) for many individuals I had mentioned in the history section. For the societal figures/individuals that might also work. However, if the term Theosophy is to gain respect we really need to proceed carefully and deliberately. That side of the history has landmines. It also is not terribly relevant. The field evolved and may become respected, but not because of the societal side (I am actually a member. just being honest). JEMead (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I respect your expertise and appreciate what you are doing to re-work the article. I am not directly involved in Theosophy. What I do bring to the task is a knowledge of WP article writing and editing (I also have professional qualifications as a writer and editor). I agree with you about proceeding carefully. It is also important to bear in mind that an encyclopedia is never proactive - our objective cannot be to "gain respect" for Theosophy. WP's goal is to provide information in a neutral and balanced. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good - That is why I am trying to stick to the Academic definition side. It is neutral and actually leaves societal items somewhat afar. I am feeling pressure to do more "Secret Doctrine" currents via HPB, Judge etc. Academically the SD has many problems. The work (mostly due to Faivre) has actually defined Esotericism and Theosophy in a solid academic manner. Theosophy needs to stand on the firm ground (now) built in the Academic world. "gain respect" should have been phrased as "keeping academic credentials and credibility". I mis-spoke - worded really poorly. I appreciate being corrected on that. I deserved it. JEMead (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that elaboration. Your approach makes sense to me. I'm sure we can find a way to bridge between the seemingly competing needs. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Last night, and also just now, I have had two edits on the main page that had to be undone. This last one was mostly a replacement of text with a string of garbage. The first may have an attempt to help. Neither were logged in. unknown user. Is this standard ?? Is there an option to only allow a known user to edit (just curious). It is weird. if it happens a few more times (hopefully not) is there any recourse? JEMead (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The first edit was likely based on a misunderstanding: The anonymous editor may have thought "a gnostic" was a typo and simply made the change to "agnostic." To reduce the likelihood of that happening I added a link to gnostic. The latest example you mention was pure garden-variety vandalism. One of the banes of serious editors is the frequent use of Wikipedia as a test ground for childish nonsense, adolescent vulgarities, rants, opinion pieces, political cant, etc. The slogan "anyone can edit" brings with it the best and worst of human written expression. "Anonymity" attracts not only experts, but fools. I put "anonymity" in quotes, because actually the naifs are telling us (with a quick WHOIS search) where they are and who their service provider is. What can be done?
 * Article patrols, such as you just did, reverting mistakes or garbage are the fist line of defense. Ideally reverts are done with a civil edit summary (such as you made in the former case). Pure vandalism, of course, may be reverted without explanation.
 * When vandalism is repeated by one or more individuals, many editors will leave a polite warning on the individual's talk page. A series of templates for warnings may be found here. Usually if one goes step by step through the warning levels, the individual will get the message. If not, they are warned (at level 3) that they may be blocked if they continue. An admin will usually step in and do that (provided that editors have gone through the steps). If an admin hasn't already stepped in after appropriate warnings it can be reported to WP:AIV.
 * In the case of dynamic IP addresses, blocking the address can have adverse effects on innocent people who also use the same range of addresses. Admins will sometimes contact the service provider or school administrator to get the little monsters to stop.
 * At times, in such cases it is easier to protect the article. Admins can "semi-protect" an article, restricting it to only auto-confirmed users (like you and me). This is not done lightly. A case must be made at WP:RPP.


 * Most long-time editors do a fair amount of vandal patrolling. Some do mostly that. It is a commonly held belief that enabling anyone to edit is what has made Wikipedia so great. But vandalism is not tolerated. Usually when there is collaboration on an article, the regular article editors will keep an eye out for vandalism and share the chores. As articles become more popular, unfortunately, they become more subject to attacks. I will keep an eye out for vandalism to the Theosophy article. Sunray (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

HGilbert made changes in the Theosophy page that did not show up on my watchlist. That has me confused. He did use an acronym in the change: "OR"  not sure what that meant. just curious. JEMead (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "OR" is short for original research, which is verboten. I'm not clear why he thought it was OR. As I mentioned on the article talk page, I had thought it was a paraphrase (which is completely in-bounds, as long as properly sourced). It seems that he is familiar with the source. Did you add some of your own thought to the summary? Sunray (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing was added. These occur together all within the same book. Faivre uses these to make distinctions, on purpose, to enhance the differences, and allow the broader usage of a Religious Philosophy to be brought onto the table. He enhances the differences on purpose. JEMead (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. I will restore that text and ask him to discuss before removing it again. Sunray (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunray - I have found links, contained within articles on early 1900 literary figures (mostly) that are references like "and became a Theosophist, ..." - most recent is Mabel Collins. I was about to fix that link, but noted that it was redirected from "Theosophist" to "Theosophy". At that point - it maybe Theosophist should redirect to Theosophical Society (membership within) versus Theosophy (as a type of Religious Philosophy and not a religion/doctrine ==> Theos Soc).Comment? I think almost all should go the Theosophical Society (or that is what I am running into). so.. do I fix each one, or do we fix the larger problem once? or do I just not do anything. or a disambiguation? (could go each way. A Theosophist can be a person before and after HPB & Co. A Scholar of philosophy and religion etc.) JEMead (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we are still skirting the problem of the HPB Theosophists. My view is that we need to deal with this head on. I agree with your last statement. Your project, which I support, seems to me to be to reclaim the work "theosophy" (and "theosophist"). One thing we could do is write a short summary of HPB's thought for the Theosophy article, explaining that it is an off-shoot of theosophy (or explain that it is not properly theosophy). The summary would be in summary style. We could then create a new article "Theosophical Society beliefs" (we can probably come up with a better title) that would link from the main article. We could then go through the "Theosophist" links and see which should link to "Theosophy" and which to the "TS beliefs" article. How does that strike you? Sunray (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sunray. I understand your point. The Theosophical Society (generic usage) does have a page that breaks out into the multitude of societies with pages/links/players. That seems the best link for Theosophists.(?) Actually - where do you see the shortcomings of the current summary on her? (honest question) Is it the book "The Secret Doctrine" we want to briefly mention? Also - I do want to put out more on Steiner (Anthrosophical Society), a Theosophist in the more traditional sense. He has actually impacted more lives than HPB (Waldorf Schools in particular). Also, the Russian philosopher Solovyov is very important, especially with respect to his Sophia writings. Then the other philosophers/theologians etc.  JEMead (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the Enc. of Religion (Editor Mircea Eliade) and there are a few solid neutral items I can pull. It would be a list fo basic beliefs (boils down to three major ones. Also, that leads into differences from the Academic side. JEMead (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Representation
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Mediation Committee. I created a policy proposal called Representation. I think that this policy would help the Mediation Committee as well as the Arbitration Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Mediation or Arbitration Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Mediation Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:


 * File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
 * Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
 * Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year -  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 22:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)