User talk:Sunray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk archives |
|
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 |
[edit] Ignatieff
I'm not sure that my advice will be all that helpful to you. But since you asked... I'm hadn't really thought of Tyrenius as a mediator but I suppose that you could describe his actions as amounting to that. His initial actions were really just to tidy up the discussion that Ottawaman had started. The format is pretty much the same but Tyrenius was asking for some sort of finality. I suppose you could say that he was "self-appointed" but I had really thought that he just was making a suggestion about structure and that the other editors could say "no" but had been happy enough with his format.
As for the comments, I personally found them extremely unhelpful. Firstly, they claimed that we were not working well together which I think is not the case at all. There are a lot of issues but it is good to discuss them and I think we were making good progress. There are always readers who would question an article, Ottawaman simply had the courage to speak up. Good for him. I disagree but I think debate is often lacking here. Secondly, suggesting bad work was pretty much inviting a comment of "I'm working well but the other side won't AGF" or "are paid organizers", etc. (why do organizers always accused of being paid anyway?). And finally I thought that the delayed edit war idea was, well, not a good one. That said, I had always thought that it was bad form to remove a comment if it wasn't truly offensive or threatening, etc. I certainly wouldn't myself. On the other hand, I'm not really familiar with the relevant policies, guidelines and conventions . And I suppose that it is the administrator's burden to know them. If Tyrenius moved the comment rather than deleting it, I can see his point.
Obviously a balance has to be found between allowing open dialogue and restricting disruptive comments (I mean disruptive to the flow of that particular dialogue, not WP in general). I really don't know where WP finds that balance in this type of circumstance. --JGGardiner 17:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I endorse JGGardiner's observations, and would like to say that there is currently a high standard of work being carried out by the editors. The comment left, "Sheesh, I thought I had problems where I'm editing !", is frankly insulting and an attack on them, which serves no constructive purpose. That you are so keen on keeping this amazes me. I would also suggest that your time could be spent a lot more constructively than going around asking editors if there is a problem, when there isn't one. If there were, I am sure the editors I am working with are quite capable of telling me themselves. I am essentially acting as a clerk to co-ordinate the discussion from an outside stance, which has left them free to concentrate on the particular aspects they wish to examine. If you want to help, then join in this discussion, adding research where appropriate. Tyrenius 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Core topics COTF
Hi, Sunray.
 |
You showed support for Matter at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help. |
- Maurreen 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Sunray. Sorry to pull out, but I decided I need to try to take a break to catch up on some things I have been neglecting. I'll see you later. Maurreen 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Ignatieff
Wonder if you could turn your attention to new edit contents. [1] 'Prestigious' seems to be POV. I can't edit because it would compromise me. Tyrenius 06:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- As you're already embarked on the article, I wonder if you'd like to take over as co-ordinator/clerk of the talk page? I would prefer to hand it back to article editors to work through. You can probably see the system for putting "consensus reached" sections into the Ancillary page, due eventually for archiving. If so, I would be available for back-up, if required, and meet any recommendations for (un)protection as far as possible. Tyrenius 00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
By participate do you mean get the assent of the other editors for the role? The idea is not to be a participant in the editorial discussion of things, but to be a third party. Tyrenius 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest I simply introduce you as volunteering to do the job on my invitation, unless anybody objects to this. Tyrenius 05:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I will leave a note of intent on the page to see the response. I am thinking of removing all protection, but would like your feedback as to what you think would be most helpful for you (it can always be reinstated of course). One has to bear in mind that there is a leadership campaign in progress, and wiki is likely to be a target. Tyrenius 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- PS Also feel free to organise in whatever way you see fit, re. archives, warning notices etc. Tyrenius 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- How's it going? My procedure, as you have probably observed, was to mark in red when there was consensus, leave a short time, transfer content to the article, and transfer the concluded talk to the Ancillary page for temporary storage. Eventually the content of Ancillary can be transferred to an archive. Let me know if you need any assistance or change to protection level. Tyrenius 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] geography wikipedia project
hello, I thought you might be interested in helping Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geography If so, just add your name to the page. Thanks AlexD 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alexander Edmund Batson Davie
Thanks for the work on AEB Davie but I have a feeling that there is a name missing from the sentence: "Davie was married December 3, 1874, to Constance Langford, daughter of Maple Bay, British Columbia." KenWalker | Talk 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I Ching
Nice girl on bus/tram/train photo by the way.
'There is a rather interesting story to be told about the reach and influence of the I Ching. I'm researching that right now and plan to add to the new article' - Please update me on anything you come up with I would be vey interested in this. --Drgs100 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Energy portal
Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ignatieff Discussion Page
The discussion page on the Ignatieff article has been dead for over a month. Since you're the current admin watching it, would you mind archiving it so we can start fresh?
[edit] Geography is now the COTF
|
|
You showed support for Geography at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help. |
[edit] WikiProject Vancouver
This is an important message being sent out too all participants. We are currently recalling our list of participants. Any one who is inactive in the project will be moved to the "inactive" list respectively. See the project talk page for more details -- Selmo (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Sunray—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confucius is now the COTF
|
|
You showed support for Confucius at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help. |
[edit] Nonviolent Communication
I noticed that you contributed to the Nonviolent Communication article at some time. A friend just recommended NVC to me because I am trying to mediate for Sri Lanka related articles. I really love it - I'm just devouring the eponymous book, but I am still very inexperienced. Moreover, applying the techniques to Wikipedia-style communication has its own challenges. Therefore, I could use some help from people who have more experience with NVC. You could help Wikipedia, Sri Lanka, the nonviolence movement and me greatly by looking at some of my edits and giving me honest feedback on User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC. — Sebastian 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon
howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)
i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:
- lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
- section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
- run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.
all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.
my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.
i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.
i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advice requested
I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions [2] to fit his own understanding of the term - [3]. Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [4]. I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do you think? Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. Am I doing the right thing? SilkTork 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Settlements SilkTork 11:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Energy portal & future selected articles
Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.
The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.
With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!
Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
