User talk:Sunray/Archive14

Re: Gilad Shalit

Hi Sunray,

Sorry for the long absence from the mediation. I have only been here sporadically as I am somewhat swamped at work and have had little time or motivation to engage in the frustrating discussion with Jack and Drork.

I don't know if it is worth it to keep the mediation up, as it is getting nowhere. Part of this frustration has to do with the process itself: every time I formulate a clear question or challenge, it is met only by either a vague reply, a diversion or an even more vague question to me. Jack has been very adept at derailing the whole process towards minutiae and dictionary terms while ignoring the two basic tenets of a) which term is more widely used and b) what words/terms are loaded in the spirit of WP:WTA. I have challenged him on both points, several times, and he has derailed the discussion every time.

I don't think it will ever be possible to keep the discussion on-track. If you share this opinion, then just close the mediation. I am currently working on an article on Palestinian prisoners in which the reciprocity issue will come to bear sooner or later, which may settle the terminology long-term.

Cheers and thank you for your efforts, pedrito - talk - 09.09.2008 09:00

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SoF mediation

I was attempting to show (without stealing the content of Mars forth coming opening statements) that it was not a personal attack but a documented issue (several articles in the print media have appeared about WMC's abuse of wikipedia and I was leaving it to Mar to give the citations)... As far as I know I have not yet made a statement in the disputed areas that can not been shown to be objectivaly true using any of the methods commonly accepted in the academic community as being legitmate sourcing and/or intererpretation of an authors intent... In ever case I have offered the source of every claim when challanged where is WMC has never once offered a legitimate counter arguement beyond pointing to some policy or an other that does not apply... In the future please wait for all the facts to be presented (if no 3rd party verification is either offered or said to be forth coming then it is not fact)... I am posting this on your talk page instead of the mediation page because no need to bring it up there. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles about WMC have no relevance to this mediation for two reasons: 1) We are dealing with the article on State of Fear, not one about WMC. 2) The mediation I signed on for, as you have stated, has to do with evidence and original research. That is what we are mediating. Please remind Mars of this. According to WP policy we cannot permit personal attacks. We will, on the other hand, be looking at legitimate sourcing. It is important to focus on content, not contributors. Sunray (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the point I do not feel WMC can be trusted to honor legitmate sourcing when he has consistently shown bias and frankly no evidence of ever reading the book --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that is what mediation is all about. My role is to stand in the middle and to help you to find common interests and a solution to the concerns raised. BTW, are you suggesting that you do not have a bias in this? Sunray (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting I am bias free but I have not (as far I know) allowed them to get in the way of factual corrections... take my edit to the ExxonMobil article I can not stand the company but I corrected a false claim against them --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I did not understand your question regarding "What does light does...", can you re-phrase it for me? and also, I understand why you delete part of my opinion, but sincerely, the confusion in SoF is more related to a communication problem, where passion won over arguments. With all editors in SoF being civilized and answering clearly the questions asked, I believe the mediation would have been unnecessary, but I found very annoying to participate in hostile environments. Just peek WMC user page to see his reply to a question I asked today for another unrelated mini edit war. I rather spend my time in less controversial and more useful articles for Wiki readers, than waste my time over wording or defending anyones POV. However, I will contribute a bit to the mediation, but I think WMC and AMF are the key players in the dispute, and it is them who should lead.--Mariordo (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a typo. I meant to say: "What light does a review... shed." Now it's fixed. As to a communication problem: I think you may be right about that. So what we do in mediation is to practice a different (hopefully better) way of communicating. We are not out to fix anyone, only to learn how to collaborate better. We cannot get rid of someone we don't like and WP doesn't appreciate fighting. Therefore we can only either: a) avoid them, or, b) learn to get along with them. Mediation gives us a chance to do the latter. You could help out in the mediation if you understand this. sunray (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad Faith

WMC's conduct should be considered bad faith because:

• He has asked for and has been presented with numerous RS's yet he claims that there is no evidence to support the claims made.

• Due to some of the "corrections" he has made it is obvious he has not read the book (i.e. certain facts that no one would claim to be SYNTH where challenged by him). For example he insists that the appendix does not directly link the Eugentics to the Holocaust when in fact under any interrpurtation MC does make a direct linkage:

"Since the 1920's, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans where admittance progressive. The set up ordinary-looking houses where 'mental defectives' where brought and interviewed one at a time, before being lead to the back of the house, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium on the property.

Eventually, this program expanded into a vast network of concretion camps located near railroad lines, enabling transport and killing of ten million undesirables" (p. 634 {paper back}).

Maybe I am confused about what OR is and what is not but the authors intent is beyond a doubt here (note this in the non-fiction section).

• He has a very solid reputation in the GW skeptics community as being apposed to any contrary view of GW. That is why both me and M presented those links (the one to the Guardian I provided is actually an entire column about his [mentioned by name along with KDP] abuses in many GW related articles).

• Provably false claims have been put forward in other articles he has edited for example the author of the Guardian souorces claims that a "prominent" (sources word not mine) members of the NASA group working on climate was protrayed as beliving in Martians when the person in question had never made any such statement and/or anyone else about them.

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Some observations about what you have said, above:

1. You make a general comment that WMC has been acting in bad faith. This would be difficult to prove, because we don't know his motives. I would avoid making such general statements about another editor as it is tends to be inflammatory—leading to more conflict.
2. You say that he has asked for and been presented with numerous RS's, yet he claims there is no evidence. This is something we can look at. Please present diffs to support this and add it to the discussion on the case talk page.
3. The eugenics example is fine, but you need to show us the diff as to what WMC said that supports your claim.
4. With respect to OR, I hope that we can clarify exactly what is is for all participants.
5. As to WMC's reputation or background, it has no relevance to this mediation. Only his actions, and that of other participants, have any relevance. You need to be clear on this. Anyone can edit, unless they violate WP policies.
6. We will need to see diffs for anything you want to deal with in this mediation. By diff, I mean the actions of a WP editor while editing Wikipedia.

Would you please indicate whether you are clear on these six points? sunray (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I will answer 5 in the mediation talk page and handle the Eugentics one here:

Here are the diffs (reverse chrono order):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=236706077&oldid=236694736

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Fear&diff=236311246&oldid=236310824

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PA?

This [1] isn't a PA. If you don't like the way I've phrased it, please re-introduce it in refactored form. AMF's misunderstanding of policy is central to the problems here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. In many forums, what you said would be perfectly acceptable. However, you did focus on the individual as well as the content. My attempt is to get down to issues rather than personalities. I will refactor it. Sunray (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you leave in the reverting-banned but cut the 3RR? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR violation report seems to me to be of no bearing on the issues being mediated. The reverting of content added by a banned user may relate to the issues, depending on how it is argued. However, I admit that it is tenuous and have questioned whether we need any further comment on it. Your third point is central to issues under mediation. Sunray (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit in the article Bihar

You have made a recent edit on article Bihar. The quote says "The age in which true history appeared in India was one of great intellectual and spiritual ferment. Mystics and sophists of all kinds roamed through the Ganga Valley, all advocating some form of mental discipline and asceticism as a means to salvation; but the age of the Buddha, when many of the best minds were abandoning their homes and professions for a life of asceticism, was also a time of advance in commerce and politics. It produced not only philosophers and ascetics, but also merchant princes and men of action." This Ganga valley referred is nothing but Magadha (ancient Bihar). I think a separate article on Ganga Valley need to be started, where it's geography can be mentioned. I am reverting back your edit. If you have any further issue kindly discuss with me. Manoj nav (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This quote is very general and not very helpful, IMO. The author refers to an indistinct time and the "Ganges Valley," which could mean many things, but is almost certainly not synonymous with Bihar, or Magadha (being larger than either). I would suggest that you find better sources than this. Moreover, the quote is incorrectly formatted currently. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you to go through the quote and the source "Bashan A.L., The Wonder that was India, Picador, 2004, pp. 46" before making a conclusion - "The author refers to an indistinct time and the "Ganges Valley," which could mean many things, but is almost certainly not synonymous with Bihar, or Magadha (being larger than either)." Age of Buddha is a distinct time period when the Ganga valley comprised of Magadha, Vaishali, Anga, Koshala, Vrijji, Malla, Kosala, Panchala, Shurasena etc. Magadha, Vaishali, Anga and Vrijji are geographically Modern Bihar. The prominent figures Buddha, Mahavira, Ajathsatru, Bimbirara .. were active in Magadha and Vaishali in the time period mentioned. Buddhist stories of Jakarta describes how Buddha was different from other sages of the age who lived the life of asceticism on the bank of river Falgu in Gaya. The quote talks about India and Bihar is in India. Manoj nav (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Plurality (voting)

Hi, I changed the lead in this article because the previous one was very confusing. I used substantially the same material from the previous lead, but rearranged it to make the concept easier to understand. You undid that. Can we have a chat about that please? I'm not convinced that my lead had "too many errors". Petemyers (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You referred to a "pluraltiy voting system." There is, in reality, no such thing. Our article on "Plurality voting system talks about "First-past-the-post" or "winner take all" voting systems. If you google the term, you will find that WP and its mirrors are about the only significant sites that talk about a "plurality voting system." The same goes for the sources. On the other hand, try googling "First-past-the-post." You will find lots of entries. There is a good reason for this. First-past-the-post was invented by the Brits and it spread to all the colonies, including the U.S. The term "plurality voting" doesn't even mean the same thing in British and American English, as you and I have both noted!

I placed a proposal on the article talk page before you made your changes. Since your edits, I've tidied up the language and the citations and left your example. I would invite you to continue improving the wording in the article. We can carry on discussion of further improvements on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sunray. "Plurality voting system" was pulling language from the original article as it stood. The way you're describing this topic, it is indistinguishable from the first past the post system article. Petemyers (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I simply used the definition in the citations. The article about "Plurality" simply needs to explain the concept about what a plurality is in voting. However, I do note that the other articles do need fixing. Sunray (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to request

Hi Sunray - I shall enable my email when I get home in 5-6 hrs. Granitethighs (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

My email should now be set up. I think I know what you have to say ... Granitethighs (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. --soulscanner (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi! I was wondering if I could please get your help. Who would be the right person to talk too about abusive users? Wjkk20 vandalized my user page by venting his anger towards me..and he 3RR on the "Sikh Empire" article, because of I provided a cited material he had asked for! Cosmos416 18:42, 2 November 2008

I've looked over some of your interactions with Wjkk20 and note that while he has been incivil with you, you have crossed the line in your behavior with him. For example, you have been quick to accuse him of vandalism. This is a serious charge and should not be used loosely. I note that you placed a message on his User page. That too is usually not done. I would be willing to assist you, but would hope that you could practice civility with him at all times. If you would like to bring me examples of problems before you have reacted, I would be happy to give you my thoughts about how to approach things. Sunray (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree- When I refereed to vandalism, I was referring to the written comments on my user page the he wrote, instead of placing it on my discussion page, and he was giving a hostile attitude. I was trying to say he was abusive in a way, and he also has also violated the 3RR and has 4 Reverts for November 2 2008. He disregards rules put for everyone's benefit. About me writing on his user page, I was pretty flustered and it was 100% accidental! Because within seconds I reverted and placed it in the appropriate section. It was my mistake and corrected it, and I was civil in my reply. But his was intentional I believe. Thanks you for your input and any more info would be greatly appreciated! Cosmos416 01:03, 3 November 2008

Are you an Admin or just an editor?? Cosmos416 12:30, 4 November 2008

An editor. Sunray (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment mediation

Hi, I've recently become invovled in editing this article, and have some observations about the editing of both parties to the mediation (I've disagreed with both equally frequently so far I think, so I beleive I qualify as reasonably neutral, and haven't had any prior contact with them which I can recall). I've not been involved in this type of thing before, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed, should I make some sort of statement now, or wait for things to move on a bit. David Underdown (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, David. Right now I am trying to ascertain just how mediatable the case is. Perhaps you could hold off for the moment, while I make a determination on that. I will get back to you. Sunray (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you read through the article talk page you'll probably get a reasonable sense of what I currently perceive to be the main problems between the editors. David Underdown (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have left a brief statement here and I have invited Domer48 seen as he was brought up on talk page by Thunderer. BigDunc^Talk 16:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability article

Would you mind to please check my suggestions - in purple at the end of talk:Sustainability. I am concerned at how the discussion/editing on this page is going and was trying to come up with a process for collaboration on this article, short of requesting mediation from the Wikipedia mediation team. I'm a bit nervous now that I have figured out that you are a member of that small team! However I've left my suggestions up, because even on re-reading them I am thinking they might be helpful. If you've got another process underway or planned, feel free to delete what I've suggested.--Travelplanner (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your proposals and will support your efforts to work on FA status for the "Sustainability" article. I'm not sure why you are concerned about me being a member of the mediation committee. I don't believe it would interfere with my working on the article. Would you consider enabling e-mail? You set it from your "preferences." It allows for offline communications and users can maintain their anonymity, if they prefer, by always responding from the other user's page. Let me know if you do set it up. Sunray (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'm just too used to working in hierachies, and was nervous to be caught mediating by a real mediator - still getting used to Wikipedia! I think I've enabled email, give me a shout on my talk page if it hasn't worked.--Travelplanner (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation on WP, at its best, is simply being in the middle between participants who are in conflict and helping them have a conversation so that collaborative editing may occur and WP policies and guidelines are respected. Anyone can do informal mediation. So, by all means, continue. I find it makes life more enjoyable. Of course, there are some situations that require formal mediation and also some that are unmediatable, requiring other approaches. Sunray (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in this and haven't yet come across Getting to Yes, I heartily recommend it. There is a later book that picks up where the first one leaves off, called: Getting Past No, which in an earlier edition was subtitled "Dealing with Difficult People." Sunray (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and encouragement. I am very inspired to keep contributing, especially to this important article. One problem is, I will be extremely busy in the real world for a week or two so cannot get onto it as quickly as I would like. Thanks again.--Travelplanner (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

what is your problem man with the toyota article?

what is your problem man with the toyota article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.70.49 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article. I did have some concerns with some of your edits. For example, the references you added did not deal with the information in the article. There were several minor errors, so I reverted back to the way it was before. Sunray (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very easy to revert a work. Read the sources I provided. it directly supports the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.70.49 (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I assure you I did check those sources. Perhaps you could read (or re-read) CITE, WP:RS and WP:VER. Sunray (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

main photo in squamish article

hi, thanks for the suggestion. how do people actually vote for a picture though? Alllexxxis (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on the Squamish talk page. Usually questions like that are decided by consensus. You have started that process by posting a question there. Consensus is usually determined when a significant number (say more than two thirds) of the people who comment prefer one of the options. When there are many people commenting, sometimes a straw poll is taken, but that is the exception. The Squamish article is not a high traffic one, so don't expect a flood of comments right away. I will post my response right away and it makes it a tie. If one or two others comment, you could get consensus for the change. If not the article stays as is. I think both pictures are good, so my preference is not strong. Best wishes. Sunray (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Toyota

A neutral point of view? I have credible sources, including an article from the Washington Post.Do you honestly believe the Burma Campaign Uk listed Toyota on their shame list for fun? Let me get this straight: Anything postive about Toyota is neutral, however facts that are not so flattering about Toyota's operations in Burma, or the amount of subsidies it recieves from American taxpayers make it a non-neutral point of view. Is that how neutrality works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapdoorfloor (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Did you read the discussion on the talk page? Are you familiar with WP:RS and WP:VER? You need a peer-reviewed source for the kind of information you want to add. Several of the sources you are using have a political axe to grind. Plus, as other editors have tried to explain, what you have added is not written in a neutral manner. If you want to add information about "Corporate welfare," you need to compare to other automobile makers. Do some research and you could make a valuable contribution. Sunray (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The following statement was apparently not considered by you as a non-neutral point of view. Was the individual who posted this statement in bold able to prove or provide sources that American car manufacturers produced entry level vehicles with a "low level of quality"? Of course had it been about Toyota, it would have been removed immediately. Who determines the level of quality? This is the kind of neutrality you were speaking of?

"American car manufacturers had considered small economy cars to be an "entry level" product, and their small vehicles were made to a low level of quality in order to keep the price low. Japanese customers, however, had a long-standing tradition of demanding small fuel-efficient cars that were manufactured to a high level of quality. Because of this, companies like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan established a growing presence in North America in the 1970s." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapdoorfloor (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about this paragraph. Based on my own research it appears to be factual. However, it is not souced and I'm going to tag it.

When you are writing negative information about a subject, you need to be more careful. Please consider what I've been saying. Things will go better for you if you try to understand what experienced editors are telling you, rather than getting belligerent with them and continually reverting. Sunray (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the reason I am starting to edit the Toyota article is that it is a mess. Too many Toyota owners have been happily adding whatever they want to it and there are few citations. It needs a lot of work. Sunray (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability article

Thanks for all your help, yes I have signed up now and am keen to assist on the Sustainability article (as time allows). Sorry for the slow response I was here and the wireless coverage was awful.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on AE

Could you explain your reasoning why you have posted the old agreement on AE. I struck my name from it on NOV 16th after 4 breaches. I am concerned with your motivation for the post. BigDunc^Talk 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that the agreement was established on November 7. I simply was informing those who read the AE as to the terms of the agreement. Sunray (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I struck my name from on the 16th so why post them? BigDunc^Talk 18:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What you do is up to you. The Terms of Editing were established, and were adhered to (for a time). That is a fact and a matter of record. Whatever further happens with the mediation, that will be part of the mediators' report, and as I have said, I wanted the admins at AE to know the exact wording of the agreement. Sunray (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But who breached them 4 times? Before I struck my name. BigDunc^Talk 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What good do you think it does to continue to point fingers at others? People can see for themselves what is going on. Sunray (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"refactoring so that mediator's comments are together for clarity"? I though the discussion was already very clear? An editor makes a comment and another editor replys. Just saying it as I see it. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I was not responding to you or Dunc. I was responding to an admin. You and I can carry on our discussion elsewhere than the AE page. Sunray (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Responding to which admin? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to Tznkai here. The exchange was as follows:

"I'm certain the mediator will confirm this for me in a moment, but no where in mediation terms or precedent are you responsible for enforcing the mediation terms on others. You are responsible for your own conduct, not that of others. Likewise it seems I see a justification of edit warring based on "well he started it." I'm seriously considering some sort of short term drastic enforcement measure and I would appreciate someone making that unnecessary. --Tznkai (talk)13:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you waiting confirmation on Tznkai? Don't know what you mean. BigDunc^Talk 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In mediation, you agree to certain editing terms, and you are responsible for policing yourself, not others. Its entirely possible you all agreed to something else however.--Tznkai (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)"

Tznkai did not ask for the editing terms, they ask you to confirm that "no where in mediation terms or precedent are you responsible for enforcing the mediation terms on others." And it would be only right do you not agree, to mention, having provided the terms to note that both Dunc and myself withdrew our agreement on the 16th? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve to continue this? I was responding to what Tznkai said. Surely you would admit that I have some agency in how I choose to do that. The Terms were established and agreed to. If you or Dunc decide not to abide by them or, "withdraw your agreement," that is your decision. You have clarified that on the AE page. I have no comment on it right now. Sunray (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Please don't edit war with The Thunderer over their user pages. If you disagree with the content, WP:ANI is open for discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to edit war. However, I regard the comments he is making about BigDunc and Domer as defamatory. I'm going to leave him one final warning to that effect. As far as I know, he does not have any right to make such claims on his user page or anywhere else in WP. It is a personal attack. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the way the policy words this:

"Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

That having been said, the matter has now been resolved and the comments removed. Sunray (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your quite right Sunray in your rational, and thanks for addressing the issue. I do hope this latest distraction will not adversely effect our mediation. With the prospect of moving to the UDR article talk page, as a prelude to editing the article page will again focus minds temporarily distracted. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I just wan't to thank you for getting the derogatory comments about myself removed from another editors pages it is greatly appreciated. BigDuncTalk 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The message of the week is personal responsibility. I hope that we can turn a corner on this. Forgiveness all round is in order. Sunray (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)