User talk:Sunray

Note: Messages left on this page will be replied to on this page.

Talk archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Where to next?

[edit] Multiculturalism

Sunray, I just posted a response to your comment under "multiculturalism." I would be happy to help with the multiculturalism page. But we need balance. The opposite of multiculturalism is culturism. There were culturist and culturism wikipedia entries. Someone wiped both of them out. This is unfair. It creates bias.

For full disclosure, I am the author of the book "culturism." But if you google the word, you will see that there is wide interest in the topic and that others have used the word. If you use dictionary.com, you'll see the word goes back to the early 19th century. I think there is no reason for only multiculturalism to have an entry.

I don't know who took the entries down or arranged for searches to be redirected, but I think it unjust.

You can contact me at either pressjohn@hotmail.com or 646-660-4684 if you think you can help. Regardless, I'd be happy to work with you on editing the multiculturalism page.

Thanks, John Press —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressjohn (talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You ask how the page on "Culturism" came to be deleted. The article was proposed for deletion on July 10, 2007 and a "prod" (proposed deletion) tag placed on it by Haemo. The following day, he removed the prod tag and replaced it with "wikify" and "clean-up" tags. That same day you stated that you were "granted permission by the Haemo (the concerned party." I can find no record of that discussion. You made some changes to the article over the next five days, but concerns continued to be expressed. In August '07 an "inappropriate tone" tag was added. The article remained little improved and was deleted and replaced by a redirect on February 11, 2008.

Several of the statements made in the deleted article seem to me to be problematic. For example:

• "Culturism... A philosophy which holds that all majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves...."
• "Western culture believes in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam, for example, does not..."

How does a culture define or promote itself? How could a culture believe something? These statements do not seem to me to be empirically based. I would not support seeing them in a Wikipedia article. Sunray (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culturism

Sunray,

Thank you for the message about the "culturism" wikipedia page. This letter will explain why I believe culturism should have its own page and ask for a reconsideration of the redirect from "culturism" to "multiculturalism."

Perhaps my entry was deficient. I can re-write it. But a short entry will never answer all questions. You asked something like, "How can a philosophy maintain that a culture itself holds an opinion?" That is a legitimate question. But, cultures, via jurisprudence for example, do hold opinion. Generically, however, I would not expect any wikipedia entry to satisfy all questions. I can make the entry more empirical. Though not all philosophies are empirically based,if you wish me to highlight the structural foundations of culturism in natural sciences, psychology, history and anthropology, that can be done.

The word, culturism, has been in Anglo dictionaries since the 19th century. This can be verified quickly via dictionary.com. The culturism entry can feature its etymology. If you do a google search you will people are discussing culturism. The original wikipedia entry of "culturist," which wasn't posted by me, included the CPAC speaker Mark Steyn's use of the word. A growing community can contribute to refining the entry. A redirect from culturism to its opposite, multiculturalism, does not seem to do it justice or expand our knowledge. It is akin to redirecting all searches for "liberal" to "conservative."

My question is how can I, or someone else, undo the redirect in order to submit an improved version of the article? I do not have the expertise to override a redirect. Even if I learned how, I do not want to be obnoxious to the wikipedia community by doing things without consultation. Is one on one consultation the appeals process by which I can question the removal and redirection of the definition of culturism? Can you enable me to have a second chance at a more polished entry? Can I send you a new version of a culturism entry?

Thanks for your passion and contributions to wikipedia,

John Press
pressjohn@hotmail.com 646-660-4684 www.pressjohn.com 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You said: "But, cultures, via jurisprudence for example, do hold opinion." So if I want to know the opinion of a culture, I have only to look at the jurisprudence? If I were able to synthesize an opinion on a given subject, based on jurisprudence, would I then know the cultures' "opinion" on that subject? Surely I would only know what the jurisprudence said. What about popular opinion, the opinions of political, religious and educational institutions, the viewpoints of subcultures within mainstream institutions, the views of minorities... Given the complexity and richness of opinions within a culture, how could we operationalize the definition you have given?

As to dictionary definitions of culturism, I've looked at a half dozen major dictionaries and the word does not occur. Given the difficulties I have pointed to in your definition, that doesn't surprise me. I wouldn't want to try to create an article given the problems I have described. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CIV

"Lies" has been in the list for four years [1], and in this same form with it's own bullet point for at least two years [2]. Why remove it now? Dreadstar † 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And it still is. Check the very next entry on that list! Sunray (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they're quite different. Calling someone a liar is different than telling lies. Both are uncivl. Both need to be mentioned. Dreadstar † 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just inserting the word "lies" really tells us nothing about incivility. I would suggest you develop this on the policy's talk page. Sunray (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I did't insert it, it was already there - it's been there for four years. Someone just deleted it, and I restored it.... I cannot believe you're edit warring over this. You have no consensus for your warring, but I'll be more than happy to discuss this per WP:DR. Dreadstar † 01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know it was there. An editor removed it and rightly so, IMO. It takes two sides to "war." Sunray (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because lying is clearly uncivil, that is why I find it unbelievable you'd be edit warring over it. Yeah, it takes two...I'm pretty familiar with the concept. Dreadstar † 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Audit

Check out

http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.2538

now that's done, I can surface for air. Will be in Ottawa on Tuesday and after that Winnipeg - are you anywhere nearby? If so you know how to reach me.

Alan XAX Freeman (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Ormiston

Thank you for starting the article on Susan Ormiston. However, much of it had to be rewritten as some passages were too similar to those in her CBC biography; Wikipedia policy does not allow for copying of substantial portions of text from other sites without appropriate permission or licence. Please take some time to read WP:NFC and WP:CFAQ which describes some of the concerns involved. Dl2000 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. However, I do not share your opinion. In quoting these guidelines, you seem to suggest that I somehow violated them. I assure you that I did not. While I did use the CBC bio, I was very careful to re-write it. So no, it was not a copyvio. In fact, I note that the exact same wording is still in place after your edits. All you did is add to the article, which is what Wikipedia editors do. Sunray (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of paragraph in Concordia article

I explained my reasons in the edit summary. I thought it was pretty straight forward. Not a lot of room for confusion. While a fact tag is nice, it can't take the place of a real citation. Fact tags aren't meant to stay forever. --GreenJoe 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Someone (you? me? someone else?) should take a look at that paragraph and see if it actually belongs there. If it does, it needs editing and sourcing. If it doesn't belong there, it should be removed with a note on the talk page. All this should take place within a reasonable amount of time. Sunray (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: the Natural Step

Hi! What is your experience with / connection to The Natural Step? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingstickman (talk • contribs) 02:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy development edit

Did you see how it (Pro of battery electric vehicle) looked before I edited it?

"*The use of Battery Electric Vehicles eliminates the dependency on foreign oil."

I changed it to reflect that such a view is not absolute, and that "dependency on foreign oil" is purely an American idea, as far as I know.

"*The use of battery electric vehicles may reduce the dependency on foreign oil in the U.S., depending on the source of the electricity."

I think I like your edit better, so I won't change it back, but it completely changes the meaning of the original sentence.

"*The use of battery electric vehicles may reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, depending on the source of the electricity."

We went from "will reduce dependence on foreign oil" to "may reduce dependence on foreign oil in the U.S., depending on the source of electricity" to "may reduce dependence on fossil fuels, depending on the source of electricity"..it's almost a game of telephone, no? :) --Drewster1829 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1812

Thank you for reverting, was beginning to go a little mad. Your post to the discussion acctually gave me an edit conflit which stopped me posting a terser response to our canadian friend and let me take a longer think. Though, his source does seem ok, I think. The only issue being I imagine there are plenty of sources saying it was a draw. Narson (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. Having now /read/ the source (rather than just checking on its reliability) it clearly says in its first paragraph that 'The war ended in a stalemate'. Narson (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that out. I didn't think I had seen a source that says what he wants to say. He is doing some original research on this. I've left him a warning on his talk page. Sunray (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm British :) Believe me, if it wasn't a draw, I'd be the first to crow about it. Nothing like beating rebellious colonials in a fight ;) Narson (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Trip did it again, using wikipedia as a source for his edits. His editing is seriously starting me to wonder whether some kind of mentor program would be useful for him because he seems unable/unwilling to grasp some pretty basic tennants. Narson (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea. Who would you suggest as mentor? Would you be willing to take that on? Sunray (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be best going with an uninvolved editor if Trip agrees, I can't see him taking kindly to one of those he has had trouble with doing it. He seems like a good editor, just needs some guiding. I should raise this on his user page perhaps. Narson (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Sunray (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've suggested it on his talk page. Narson (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS

Hi, Sunray. My thinking was that "a single blank line above is recommended for readability in the edit window" is technically wrong; we don't actually recommend that people use a single blank line, because that means "not two", and we're agnostic (for purposes of this section, anyway) whether it's two or one. I think we should avoid saying things that are wrong in MOS, even if we suspect that people will intuit our meaning. I'm not attached to my wording; anything that isn't wrong with suit me, if you'd like to use your own words. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that we are agnostic about whether to use two lines or one. Two lines leave extra blank space in the article, whereas one does not. Usually we do not want to have extra white space in articles. Sometimes we do for formatting, especially when images are involved. I think that the current wording is clear. Sunray (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The current wording says what it says: a single blank line. As you say, that's not always right, sometimes two is okay. Therefore, the current wording is wrong, even if people will usually intuit that we meant to say something different than what we said. I prefer not to force people to work to figure out the meaning. But there are so many bigger issues currently at MoS that I'll skip this one if you really feel the current wording is better. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be reading this differently. The guideline recommends (but does not require) that editors add one blank line for readability. In other words if you wish to make it more readable, use one blank line in the text box, as it does not alter the appearance in the public version of the article. The guideline adds that if one places two blank lines in the text box, it will change the appearance in the public version. Your change differed in that you said: "... one blank line above, or occasionally two, is recommended for readability." I cannot see why we would recommend that two lines be added. The additional line does not make the text box more readable, however it does affect the public version of the article. Are we reading this in the same way yet? Sunray (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point that someone might read that as "recommending two for readability", which is certainly not what we want. However, the problem is that the guideline doesn't say what you say it says, that editors "add" one blank line; it says that there should be "a single blank line", "single" emphasizing that it should be one and only one ... which is wrong, in some cases. Maybe your word "add" is the key, something like, "If there are no blank spaces above the header, one blank space should be added, for readability in the edit window?" - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the "added" was understood. Nevertheless, inserting "Adding" at the beginning of the paragraph would certainly leave no doubt. The rest could remain as is. Unfortunately, we should have been carrying out this discussion on the talk page. As others may have wanted a say. Sunray (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is WT:MOS#Blank lines around headings, I asked on March 29. No one commented, either because they liked my solution, or because it didn't seem that important ... I'm guessing some of both. I'm happy to continue the conversation there. I like your solution, except that if we say "adding a single blank line" and nothing else, people will surely add an additional blank line, so the "if" clause seems necessary. I'll suggest it at [WT:MOS#Blank lines around headings]]. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about financing of GEN

Hello,

I'have find theses critics about the finacing of GEN. It's false ?? Or you don't assume this ?

regards

SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.158.138.180 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the criticism if you are able to verify the information with a reliable source. Sunray (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

I'll trust you to ensure that all pertinent edits and threads are included. What I saw were a bunch of my edits removed with the edit summary "not pertinent". Crum375 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that I was pretty careful. Your edits were archived before I set up the Archive for "exercises in civility." If you read that stuff, it was pretty off-topic, but I archived everything in the order it occurred. Sunray (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links at straw bale construction

I'm not sure why you undid the addition of a very viable resource on straw bale construction namely http://www.StrawBale.com as an external link for straw_bale_construction. This site is consistently at the top of relevant straw bale related keywords and has an active blog that is helping to promote straw bale construction. I added http://www.StrawBale.com back as an external link for this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drweatherby (talk • contribs) 06:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to do that. The site does have good information. Unfortunately it does not meet WP:EL, in that it is advertising and selling products and services. Sunray (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Likely some degree of CoI going on here Sunray: Check out their about page and note the name of the webmaster. [3] Narson (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

Anytime you revert someone, provide a valid edit summary.--Ghjmk (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. My revert was too hasty. One of the entries seemed frivolous, which led to my revert. I have since checked your source and see that it is a reliable one. Sunray (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have blocked Ghjmk as a sock of user:Primetime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, indeed. I've had another look at those edits and realize that his use of a source must have been bogus. Thanks for your vigilance, Will. Sunray (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

His use of sources in that article may have been correct, but banned editors aren't allowed to make even good edits. FWIW, I don't think we went through the sources to see if what he previously added to the "List of..." article was accurate and properly paraphrased. His copyvios on other articles were flagrant yet he defended them to a ludicrous point before admitting the copying. Even so he insisted that he was actually helping the project. I'm afraid he'll be back again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Vancouver

You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Vancouver Members List. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list. If you are unavailable your name will be moved to the inactive list on Monday, April 28, 2008. Also the WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Mkdw^talk 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nellie McClung

did Nellie McClung speak french? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.52.238 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Look before you revert...

You might want to take a look at what you revert on the main feature article before you blindly put it back up. 207.181.222.201 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please be very careful with this in the future. Somebody had replaced the image with a really disgusting shock image, and when you reverted, you restored the shock image to Today's Featured Article. It happens, so don't feel too bad about it, but please remember to check that an image is valid before you restore it to an article. It would of course have helped if the new user had left an edit summary, but it's far better that if they don't know they still remove pornographic images. --JayHenry (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I screwed this one up. I always check what I am reverting and I recall checking the image. It was a map as far as I could see. I have since checked the logs and see the notation that a vandalized image was removed by you in the time between 207.181.222.201's revert of me and your restoration of the map. I am sorry that I missed that, but am grateful for the actions you took to correct the matter. Sunray (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber-bullying and moral panic

I had entered Cyber-bullying into Moral panic because it's basically politicians developing legislation and fear over internet trolls and flamers and has gone as far as computer rooms being shut down in Australia.

Sure. I agree that there are moral panics over cyber bullying. However, "see also" links are intended to assist the reader to learn more about the article at hand (moral panic). That angle is not developed in these links. Sunray (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details. This box: view • talk • edit

Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore

I didn't appreciate you reversing my edits! Wwb (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so my intent is clear, I've added a vandalism warning to your talk page Sunray (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ecocity

Please forgive my undoing the re-direct on Ecocities and revising the article. As you may have assumed I'm a new Wikipedia "editor" (not yet worthy of the term) and didn't know how to enter the discussion page. I'll attempt to participate in the discussion there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimacfan (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of headings

Sorry, I was unaware of the capitalization rule! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuratEdit (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sunray (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, I do not think you should mass delete properly cited paragraphs on McGill University. Isn't this considered to be vandalism? Let's discuss before you do that. Ocikat (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't know what you were trying to do. I am very sorry if I'm mistaken. Ocikat (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was a problem with the page. I made one mistake in trying to fix it, but reverted myself; then AccuratEdit‎ found the problem and fixed it. Sunray (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Dude man, I'm sorry I just felt bad if all AccuratEdit's efforts were erased. But I was mistaken.. excuse me for that. Ocikat (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Terrawatt has listed the Dalai Lama article on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Help_requested_on_Tenzin_Gyatso.2C_14th_Dalai_Lama after failing to get his way. John Nevard (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Hamilton Yacht Club

Thanks very much for your kind words, and I have notified RHYC's webmaster of the discrepancy, citing your comment, Commodore Penny's book, and the CYA website as sources.

--Tww27 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:ACM2

You have just reverted two of my edits on the this page. Whilst assuming good faith, I must point out that the first of these edits was 'normal' reply to an edit by user:ACM2, and it was wholly inappropriate for you to have undone that edit. I half expected my second 'blanking' edit to be questioned or commented upon - but not discarded in such a seemingly off-hand manner. This suggests that the matter has been amicably resolved. I am going to revert your revert now. If you re-revert it please explain your actions on the talk page. Mannafredo (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My response:

• ACM2 (or someone using their user name) engaged in a rampage of page blanking between 01:03 - 01:09 (UTC) [4], [5]. When I placed a warning on ACM2's talk page, s/he vandalized my talk page [6]. Chenzw also warned ACM2. The same vandalism from ACM2 was delivered to Chenzw's talk page and two articles.

• At 01:13, in a message on ACM2's talk page, Mannafredo asked ACM2: "Have you gone totally barmy, or has someone hijacked your desk whilst your away to get a coffee?" [7]

• ACM2 picked up the refrain that "someone has vandalized my desk," on his/her talk page and with the help desk [8].

• At 01:32 Mannafredo blanked ACM2's page [9]. I reverted this. My view was (and is) that if a user (or someone using that account) has gone on a vandalism rampage, the talk page, specifying warnings, should not be immediately blanked—especially until the matter is sorted out. Such blanking only makes it more difficult for other editors and admins to see what is happening. Sunray (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Result was: User:ACM2 blocked for one week.[10] Sunray (talk)

As I said, I expected my second edit (blanking the page, albeit not an act of vandalism, to be questioned and/or reverted). However, my edit immediately prior to that was a wholly 'normal' edit, and should not have been reverted. I understand that certain revert techniques will revert multiple edits by the same user, but this was not the right time to use such a technique. Anyway, it did all get very confusing for a while, and it looks as though User:ACM2 has indeed gone inexplicably barmy (his previous edit history is that of a useful contributer). Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Hendry

Hey, I've posted a new suggestion as a quote on the discussion page. I hope this could settle things? The point I've been consistently trying to demonstrate is that far from me trying to bias the article towards my opinion, it is WalterMitty who is trying to use the fact that he clearly disagrees with Hendry have this status to falsely give the impression that this is something of fundamental disagreement within the snooker world. As the BBC and this new WorldSnooker quote illustrate, this is innacurate, and its innacurate for wikipedia to present his perspective as the state of things. As the official quote says, within snooker Hendry is generally held to be the greatest player ever. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perspective held, and is a valuable perspective of Hendry's status within the game that I think should be presented in the lead. Making it a quote is a good idea. Jleadermaynard (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland article

Hello there, was it me you were referring to as calling myself a seasoned editor(with only 3 months experience)? I can assure you, I never made any claim to being a seasoned editor, all I was saying was that while the same arguments are being repeated over and over again editors who have been doing a good job improving the bulk of the article seem to be avoiding it like the plague while this is going on! I don't include myself in this category(I hope to one day!) I have a hard enough time finding the right keys to press on the keyboard! I came to computers late in life.:-) Jack forbes (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this. I am somewhat frustrated with some of the arguments that I am reading on that talk page. I agree that the whole article needs work, but people are being driven off by the attitude of a minority, IMO. I raised a simple concern and got an amazing variety of replies that seemed to miss the point. Hopefully it can be sorted out. But I'm not yet sure I want to be involved. Sunray (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medcom

Hey. For a trial case, should medcom approve, would you be interested in taking the case Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit? Although I called it, I actually haven't started anything at all (and will probably withdraw anyway due to a lack of time on my end), so if you would like to have it you're more than welcome to. Let me/medcom know if you're interested. Wizardman 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure I would be willing to take it on. I had looked it over the other day and saw that you had picked it up. What's the process? Sunray (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, answering my own next question, I note that you had not contacted them, so I will proceed. Sunray (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[Moved from AGK's talk page for ease of reference] Sunray, I have followed the standard Committee procedure regarding offers from non-MedCom mediators to take a case, and thrown a proposal out to parties on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit, for you to mediate; specifically, see this section.

With regards to "resources for mediators", my best advice would be the mediation policy (which I presume you will already be familiar with, as a candidate to join the Committee). The sections regarding approaches to mediation, the structure of soliciting party input (including the available systems: spokespersons, et cetera), are especially important. Additionally, Wikipedia:Catalyst and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators may also be helpful, although the last link is obviously from the MedCab, Wikipedia's informal group of mediators, and may not be entirely suited for formal mediation.

Anthøny 20:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collective Nouns

Hi Sunray,

Rather than undo your recent edit on the Jethro Tull page, can I ask you too look at this ? Singular and plural for nouns

There's obviously a difference between American English and British English as to how this should be written. How does one decide which is the correct form? David T Tokyo (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We Canadians are often stuck in the middle between BrE and AmE. But on this one, I don't see a problem. The rule in the link you specified is:

"In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members..."

Unless I am missing something, since there is emphasis on the "British rock group" in this sentence, I surmise that the singular should be used, whether going by BrE or AmE. Sunray (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the example at the bottom which drew my attention. BrE: The Clash are a well-known band. AmE: The Clash is a well-known band.

Surely this is the broadly the same as BrE: Jethro Tull are a [Grammy Award–winning British] rock group. AmE: Jethro Tull is a [Grammy Award–winning British] rock group.

It seems to me that the example isn't consistent with the preceding text. That said, the example does sound spot-on to these gramatically incorrect but undeniably English ears.

David T Tokyo (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)