User talk:Sunray/Archive07

Culture is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Western Culture

Hi Sunray,

The text in dutch was referring to a large investigation to what the Dutch people want in the future. It was partly based on my opinion. 150,000 people joint the investigation out of a population of 16,000,000. A vast majority was in favour of a society based on solidarity instead of materialism, this means that the welfare state shouldn't be abolished.

I have a deadline tomorrow, so i will search for other examples another time.--Daanschr 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving mistake

When you archived Talk:Culture, you moved the archive to /Archive 2 which is not the correct name. When moving a page, you have to specify the full name of the page, including the namespace (the "Talk:" part). I have moved the archive to Talk:Culture/Archive 2 for you, and cleaned up the redirects created as a result of your move and mine. Happy editing! Kimchi.sg 22:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Culture

Thanks, OK, sounds good. I throw things in, then take things out. Maurreen 19:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I chopped "Belief systems", but it still needs work. Maurreen 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped to give a sampler platter of different cultures. But maybe you are right and it's not practical to do so in that article from a geographic standpoint.

I understand where you're coming from, so to speak, about the Americas. Just for the sake of conversation, my thinking was that Latin America is distinct from Canada and the United States, as a pair, not just on the basis of language, but economically, technologically, etc. Of course, I didn't write that in the article, and I don't expect you to read my mind. Maurreen 02:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You asked: "Yes, so you wanted to get at the north/south or developed/non-developed dimension?"

I had hoped to, especially for the Americas. To me at least in this context the geographic division of North and South America is much less meaningful than the difference between Canada and the United States on one hand and the rest on the other.

But I don't feel strongly about much of this. You know more than I do and I mainly piddle at WP.

This article like the technology article. Here is an earlier version of the Culture article. At least it has become more concrete and less theoretical, for lack of better phrasing. I think there's room for both.

"Culture" is hard to structure because it is so broad and the topic doesn't seem to easily lend itself to a linear format; things overlap with each other. Maurreen 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Salad bowl again :)

I trimmed the Americas part about the three divisions, but I don't mind if you put it back. Maurreen 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you think it's ready to be nominated for WP:GA and WP:V0.5N? Maurreen 12:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, sounds good. Maurreen 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the Egyptian art in the lead and added a couple others in the body. But if you prefer something different, that's fine with me. Thanks for all your help! Maurreen 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated Africa in the spring, and it failed. Maurreen 13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientism

Hello: appreciate your cleanup of references in scientism. That definition you just put in has been controversial before due to the multiple uses in the last 150 years or so. I am interested to see where that goes in the future with other editors. Personally I'm in favor of the def. you just installed. ... Kenosis 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnote style

Sunray, thanks. In my judgment, the footnote style is the only proper way to handle citations, at least ultimately and for the good of WP's readers. The advocacy of the "Harvard style" by some is convenient for the editors but highly inconvenient for the readers, who must familiarize themselves with the references in order to make effective use of them. This is as opposed to using the footnotes, which allow readers to click, then backpage to the proper spot where they left off, rather than having to scroll through the whole article for referencing. Take care. ... Kenosis 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Your move of the article from the Lo Shu was a tab premature as I gave the citation requested - I have given further references to all the parts of the article more than you requested, so I hope this now overcomes your problems with the article - if you require a longer list of where the work came from I'm willling to give them - but in some respects the maths passes on the reg that if any person who is not a specist can understand them they should pass edit. If the work now passes your inspection and Wikipedia's regs can you move it back again, but I'll leave it to you to judge. Thanks. Karen Solvig 16:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from your user page. --Kimchi.sg 16:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The work removed from the I Ching is a simple mathematical statement that anyone who has the ablility to add, subtract, divide, or multiple can carry out striaght from the materials of the I Ching - it has no other references. As anyone can do it, it therefore does not need specialist knowledge to carry out, so it doesn't break any rule. It also does not break citations rules as the I Ching is the pure reference point - no other. That it offers an alternative to King Wen's sequence (which to some scholars is beyond reproach) does not make it not relevent to the article on the I Ching, it instead premotes the fact a different sequence to the trigrams or hexagrams can be found by anyone in the Ho Tu and Lo Shu, the River Maps that cannot be separated from the workings of the I Ching. Your requests for citations have been met as far as I'm aware, so are you a King Wen-ist, or is it just not your central subject. Please state therefore why you have removed this simple set of math, which if you just look at them and do them (as anyone can) they in fact qualify many statements in the oracles and the materials of the I Ching. And as these statements already exist within the I Ching itself, and can be read by anyone with a copy, therefore I have not gone on to mention them - please re-read the I Ching and you will see that there is a comprehensive amount of readings bevoted to its mathematical workings - so there is nothing new in what you have claimed in your removal to be otherwise. I did agree without question your comments on the citations needed for the Lo Shu - but still the maths it holds has been in place for thousands of years and I have added nothing new to it. You should also read the Shu Ching to see how the Emperors Yu, Yoa, and Shun divided up the lands, built their cities, and temples in accord the celestial dimensions of the River Maps, which is referred to as the 'measure of the mean' (means or measura is a dictonary reference to the moon). I can understand the limit of your specialist knowledge on this subject, but it is not good to use inuendo against something you don't understand, thinking it is new when it is contained in the subject matter of 'The Book of Changes' ten wings - so do I have to give you the page numbers in Wilhelm's edition to clarify what has been written: So, please let me know if you want all the readings, but you can start with Wilhelm's own comments given in K'un, The Receptive, Book 1, six in second place about the progression of linear nuumbers from the circle and the square. Karen Solvig 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect to your comment that the passage removed from the I Ching is "a simple mathematical statement": I agree. However, I am questioning whether it is appropriate in this article. This is a general encyclopedia article on the I Ching. Have you read any of the information that you were referred to on your talk page? It is important to understand what a good encyclopedia article is and how it is written. Above all it is important to ensure readability.

You are incorrect that you can quote from the I Ching without citing your sources. The reason for this is that there are many translations and interpretations of the I Ching. Willhelm combines translation, commentaries, and his own notes. It is always best to cite a page number. However, we should not be regurgitating material from Wilhelm. So that begs the question: What are you doing? My view is that you are combining quotations with your own analysis. That definitely needs a citation, as I have said to you before.

I have not yet mentioned article size. The I Ching article is already at the maximum for well-written articles. Very little more should be added to it. Usually, when an article gets to this stage, sub pages are created with short summaries in the main page. This may be an option for some of your material. However, first, I would like you to demonstrate that you understand the rules relating to citation. I've asked you for citations for Crammer and Gascoigne, but you haven't seen fit to provide these. I'm still waiting.

One important feature of Wikipedia is that its editors determine what goes into articles by consensus. Let's see what other editors suggest. Sunray 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no negative response from other editors on the acticles placed in the I Ching as yet, and there has been a reasonable period of time lapsed now for this to happen - I would though be in agreement with your suggestion of the setting-up of an acticle on the Ho Tu, but I haven't got the time at present as I have problems with serious illness in my family, so am otherwise engaged. This was the one of the reasons I felt I could not do the research or the writing required to bring articles up to your requirements. Thanks Karen Solvig 13:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Thanks for your comments on the talk page of the article. I've been trying to figure out where the wheels went off the track. You seem to have a good appreciation of how the editors jealously guard hard won compromises on that page. Your edits were, perhaps "bold" considering, but that is, after all, what we are enjoined to do. I see your edits as definite improvements to the article and relatively uncontroversial. The only comment I would make on your talk page style would be to, perhaps, be more succinct. Sunray 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very good advice; I have a bad habit of being too verbose when trying to be as clear as possible, which has the unfortunate side-effect of people skimming over or ignoring what I said, thus making it less clear. :) In any case, I'm delighted we have some new, eager young blood, if only to help take some of the heat off of me. :P Nah, I look forward to workin' with you, and to hearing some new ideas for how to improve the article! I think it's a fascinating topic, and a page with an enormous amount of potential; if we really wanted to, we could probably get it Featured in a month or two, though it sounds like the editors there aren't interested in that, which is fine. I just like improving articles for its own sake (and for the readers'). :) -Silence 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:"new, eager young blood": Well, only as pertains to that page, as you will see from my edit history. I came to that page by accident, and saw some of your edits. Good copyeditors are all too rare around here, (and are usually appreciated), so I became curious. I couldn't believe that your careful edits were reverted and then, subsequently, that you were so ferociously raked over the coals. That "designer or designers" edit was a test to see how fast I would be reverted and by whom. Very revealing. However, your re-wording is vastly superior and will likely stand the test. Onward. Sunray 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was only referring to a blood infusion for that page in particular. :) And yes, I think you can expect that all or most of the reverts of your edits will come from FeloniousMonk. Try making small, well-explained (in edit summary) edits, a few at a time, at least to start. I got blasted almost entirely because of how many changes I made in the edits, and because they weren't spaced out enough in time, rather than because of their actual contents. I actually prefer your version, "intelligent designer", to "intelligent cause", because of the rationale you provided: it's consistent with the intelligent designer article (which, if problematic, should be renamed first, ne?). But a compromise like this is better for avoiding unnecessary fights over little things; best save it for the big things. :) My re-wording to "intelligent cause" was actually implemented a while ago, during a productive editing session with Jim62sch, but it was subsequently mass-reverted by FM, so, back to square one... -Silence 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Community is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Hi. Maurreen 08:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Good to see you again. Methinks you are much more qualified in these areas than we are. :) Maurreen 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo Sunray. Good work on the Community article. Let me know if I'm not following your ideas of where to take the article. CQ 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hi, Sunray. Thank you very much for offering to nominate me for adminship. But I've thought about it and decided it's not worth it for me right now. I should probably cross my name off that list. Maurreen 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Litigation"

I realize that it's impossible to hope that everyone will get (or enjoy) the humor, but the analogy is still quite easy to draw and a perfectly legitimate rhetorical device. Calling it bastardization of language or distortion really overstates the case. --Michael Snow 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I recognize it was hyperbole, that's precisely what "really overstates the case" means. And no, hyperbole isn't all that effective with me, especially when it's criticism based on an excessively literal reading (which makes it seem fair to treat the hyperbole literally in return). Sophomoric doesn't bother me, I don't claim that the humor is all that artful. But I thought your complaint was about the word litigation, which by itself is not especially intended as humor. You gave no sign initially that you saw or cared about the humor aspect. --Michael Snow 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The answer to that question is deliberately left for the reader to determine. I know the epithet has been directed at all the players in that drama (collectively, not necessarily individually) at some point or another. To say who is meant by it would stray too far from objective reporting.

By its nature, arbitration is a magnet for criticism — of editors, of Wikipedia, of arbitration itself. That's why it's newsworthy, of course. I chose the original name carefully with reference to many of the criticisms that were floating around the process at the time. So words like litigation, or even lengthy, have significance as allusions to those commentaries about the system, not just as words convenient to create a funny (or unfunny) acronym. Many people probably see the title as an easy wisecrack and go no further, but there are quite a few levels of meaning that can be found in it.

Some of the criticisms alluded to are heard less often today, whether because the problems have been solved, the criticisms were invalid, or people have just learned to live with the situation. With time, too, the joke has probably gotten a little stale. However, the name has a lot of inertia to it, and a successful change probably requires somebody with the imagination to come up with something better. So far, that hasn't really presented itself. --Michael Snow 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nambassa

• You may like to take a look at these folks at Nambassa --Mombas 11:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0

Hi, Sunray. If you have the time and inclination, I'm interested your thoughts on possible plans for 1.0.

I'm not sure how much you've been following the project outside the Core Topics subproject. But part of the plan had been to use a process similar to WP:FAC for 1.0. But now I'm no longer confident that would be the best course right now, for various reasons.

Part of it is that I believe a set worthy of being called 1.0 would likely take a very long time unless all the country articles already had at least moderate review and passed. Maurreen 17:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about a standard to shoot for. More to come. Maurreen 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup

Greetings, you're getting this spam (courtesy of Tawkerbot) because you were listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver. In short, we're trying to have a meetup and we'd appreciate it if you'd join our Yahoo Group setup to figure out a time/place that would work. You can find the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouver_wikipedians/. If you have any questions feel free to make a post there or on the WikiProject page.

Happy Editing!

Community

Hi. I like your elaboration, and especially that you explained the use of "communion". More to come. Maurreen 11:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that there are a few little style things that you and I do differently, things that probably most people wouldn't notice. I'm thinking it might be good when we're done with the substance for either of us to do a final run for consistency. Maurreen 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Culture

I like your changes overall and how the article has progressed.

But I'm uncomfortable with the last three sentences: "A holistic approach to the study of cultures and their environments is needed to understand all of the aspects of change. Human existence must be looked at as a "multifaceted whole." Only from this vantage can one grasp the realities of culture change."

This is opinion that I think should be more clearly attributed. Maurreen 13:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Changing from "must be considered" to "may best be considered" is good. It could be better to just start with "Sociologists believe ..."

Just a difference in background and audience. I'm leery of absolutes and superlatives, especially without attributing the source directly in the body of the text. I'm thinking the average reader is not used to footnotes much. Maurreen 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you do good work, and in line with standards. Maybe I am not in line with standards. :) Maybe standards need to be more cognizant of the variety in audience. Maurreen 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree.

If I'm not too full of myself, I think we were instrumental in improving the article by maybe 100 percent.

And I have big plans in case I go back to the Technology article. Maurreen 14:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, just so you know, in case you're interested, I posted a note about references and everyday audience at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Maurreen 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I agree, thank you. And I was a little embarrassed by the misspellings I either made or missed. Maurreen 12:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

An illustration of why "being right" is counterproductive

Radical environmentalism

Is it really correct to remove a statement sourced to the academic literature by a leading expert on the topic and call it "one person's view"? Can you please explain your changes on the Talk page? Thanks. Guettarda 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't change the wording of a section and leave the same reference in place. That's unacceptable. Guettarda 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: "You can't change the wording of a section and leave the same reference in place. That's unacceptable." Unacceptable according to what policy or guideline? I'm just following Wikipedia guidelines and my own experience as an editor, both here and professionally. I've also done a fair amount of academic writing, and I don't understand your comments on this. Please explain. Sunray 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW on the article's talk page you said: "... contrary to what you may think, I'm not stupid." I have never thought you were stupid. Far from it, I remember the first time I read something you had written on a talk page. I found it very apt, philosophically precise, and literate." I judged you to be highly intelligent then, and haven't changed that opinion. Sunray 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference was cited to support the statements made in the sentances before it. You can't change a key word in the sentance and continue to use the same source to support it. Guettarda 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. No the sentence is not supported by any reference. If you look at well-written leads, they almost never are. The reference relates to the second sentence in the lead paragraph. I view this as a work in progress and it has a long way to go. The article, as it stands, is little more than a stub. A great deal of work will have to be done to make it a good article. I want to do more with the lead paragraph. However, I think it stands on its own for now — passable, but not great. We can improve it and I was hoping to work on that. Sunray 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying "You find Bron Taylor's take on radical environmentalism compelling and you are trying to bring sourced material to a contentious topic" is patronising. It's the kind of thing you'd say to a teenager who picks up some idea and embraces it as the be-all and end-all of knowledge. After doing some reading (albeit far from comprehensive - I only put a few hours into it last night) I picked what appeared to be the clearest definition, from what appears to be one of the leading academic authorities on the subject. You comment suggested that I didn't have the intelligence to do anything but parrot the first source I came across (or maybe the first source I came across that I agreed with). I was mildly shocked by Taylor's work, when I first came across it. But after reading a little more it appeared to be a mainstream position - not simply the first idea I came across that I agreed with. Guettarda 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to revert you. But I cannot work on an article that appears to violate NPOV. While a mature article doesn't need to reference everything in the lead (though a well-written artice should), this is, as you say, little more than a stub - as it stands as it stood, a POV-riddled stub. If you want to keep it that way, then let's just slap {{NPOV}} on it and throw it away. I have already put more time into the subject than I can afford right now - it's a shame to throw away all that time, but there's no point in continuing if you just want to edit-war. Your version is clearly misleading, as I have pointed out, and lacking in supporting references. Guettarda 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any plans to address the concerns expressed at Talk:Radical environmentalism? Guettarda 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuing work on Radical environmentalism

Yes, I intend to work on the article. However, if you are going to involve yourself, I would like to see some sign that you have understood the concerns that I raised. I do not like to keep repeating myself to someone of your purported intelligence. My first point was that one does not footnote the lead sentence. My second point was that Taylor's viewpoint is but one of several views about radical environmentalism. I don't have time for edit waring. I asked you a question: Would you be willing to work collaboratively on this? I look forward to your response on these three matters. Sunray 22:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I am willing to work collaboratively on the article. I have only reverted the article once, not because I believed that my version was good but because I believe(d) that your version was (is) not an improvement (for reasons I have already expressed);
2. I disagree with you on the issue of referencing the lead (since I don't believe that policy really allows us to make unreferenced statements). This is especially true in the infancy of an article when there is no article for the lead to summarise. If every statement in the lead is referenced elsewhere, then I agree that the lead can exist without references, but I don't see this as a positive thing. Nonetheless, I am willing to go with the majority viewpoint;
3. Regarding the fact that Taylor's viewpoint is one of several - I have never disagreed with that. But the problem is that we need to reference the opinions, and weight them according to credibility. The right wingers seem to see radical environmentalists as terrorists without saying what they consider "radical" (if you listen to my senator, that's anyone who accepts that global warming is happening). That needs to be acknowledged, but it shouldn't be given the same weight as the opinion of academics who study the movement, or people involved in the movement;
4. Calling the "new religious movement" POV "Talyor's viewpoint" isn't compatible with NPOV, IMO because it marginalises the viewpoint without actually presenting evidence as to its notability. I am not saying that you meant to violate NPOV, but I believe that presenting things in that manner violates NPOV.

You ask if I am willing to edit collaboratively. I have tried. You have not answered my questions or addressed my concerns. You speak of edit-warring. I have not edit-warred, and I have not reverted. You lay out conditions for your participation in the article. I am not here to beg you to participate in the article - I just want to know whether you will permit the article to go farward, or whether you will continue to revert it to your version. I have waited for two days for your to participate in the discussion. Guettarda 04:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your statement that you are willing to work collaboratively. However, I'm worried at your continual refusal to accept what I've said about the lead sentence. You simply reject what I've said (with copious documentation) and provide no alternative case except the general statement that everything must be referenced (which is fatuous). You claim that the lead sentence must be referenced. OK, then I would like you to show me some examples of lead sentences that have references. Sunray 07:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_add_content If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "You simply reject what I've said (with copious documentation)". What documentation? Guettarda 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant documentation on writing a lead. Thank you for the guideline on references. I am well aware of it. Now would you please give me some examples of lead sentences with references? Sunray 14:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I included my rationale for referencing, as per your request. You mentioned "copious documentation" which states that sentances in the lead section should not be referenced. In fact, Wikipedia:Lead_section says "The lead ... should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text". Guettarda 14:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Now you will be able to provide me with examples. What bothers me about this exchange is your persistence in maintaining your point of view. You have gone to extreme lengths to find justification for your POV. However, you are unable to back it up with concrete examples. This does not bode well for being able to work collaboratively. Sunray 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

C"What bothers me about this exchange is your persistence in maintaining your point of view." Huh?? What the heck are you talking about. You are the one who is insisting that lead sections should not be referenced. You have yet to support your assertion. I am simply basing my position on policy and guidelines of which I am aware. "You have gone to extreme lengths to find justification for your POV". No, I am simply following policy. You are the one who is obsessed about this issue, you are the one who insists on adherence to your POV, despite the fact that it contradicts Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have asked you for some supporting documentation, but like everything else I have asked, you have simply ignored my requests and instead chosen to attack me. "However, you are unable to back it up with concrete examples" - sorry, this statement applies to you. I have supported what I have to say with policy and guidelines. You have not provided a single shred of support for your position. "This does not bode well for being able to work collaboratively" - does your idea of "working collaboratively" mean "my way or the highway"? You have refused to address a single one of my concerns. You are adamant that your POV be adhered to, despite the fact that it contradicts policy and guidelines, and you made all sorts of ridiculous accusations which are totally at odds with reality.

It seems to me that you have no interest in collaborative editing. I see no further point to this conversation. You obviously have no interest in letting any POV other than your own stand, and policy be damned. I'm sick of your dishonesty, I'm sick of your twisting the facts and accusing me of wrongdoing which I have not done, but which you, in fact are doing. Guettarda 16:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And I, in turn, will await some concrete examples of a lead sentence with a citation. Sunray 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC):

It seems you don't understand the idea of policy. I have provided adequate support for my opinion. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support yours. Oh well. Guettarda 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Sunray 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)