User talk:Sunray/Archive30

Edit War

I ll leave quotes and links here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya

There is a site critical of his claim, but recognizes the fact he made the claim. http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/PseudoBuddhism_and_Scientology.htm

Another example page and quotes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants

Also of note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāsattva These eight bodhisattvas, are the subject of the most indirect claims to Bodhisattvahood. A direct claim to being a bodhisattva would be examples like Asanga, Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, Ashvaghosa, etc. Indirect claimants are people who claim to be emanations, incarnations, manifestations, etc. of either mythological bodhisattvas or direct bodhisattva claimants. Over time, indirect claimants have been seen as bodhisattvas in their own right over time, despite not technically claiming that. Like shown later, Budai is the best well known indirect Bodhisattva claimant despite being considered as Bodhisattva or a Buddha in his own right over time. Even though there are Buddhists of varying opinions with regards to the status of each claimant, there is a rare almost universal rejection of the claims of Ram Bahadur Bojmon that is unseen regarding any other claimants, because he claimed to be the incarnation, manifestation, emanation, of a being who entered Parinnirvana. sorry this message is so long!

Since his death, the Chinese monk Budai (Hotei) has been popularly regarded as an incarnation of the bodhisattva Maitreya. His depiction as the Laughing Buddha continues to be very popular in East Asian culture.[dubious – discuss] While a number of persons have proclaimed themselves to be Maitreya over the years following the Buddha’s parinirvana, none have been officially recognized by the sangha and Buddhists. A particular difficulty faced by any would-be claimant to Maitreya's title is the fact that the Buddha is considered to have made a number of fairly specific predictions regarding the circumstances that would occur prior to Maitreya's coming; such as that the teachings of the Buddha would be completely forgotten, and all of the remaining relics of Sakyamuni Buddha would be gathered in Bodh Gaya and cremated.[dubious – discuss] The following list is just a small selection of those people who claimed or claim to be the incarnation of Maitreya. Many have either used the Maitreya incarnation claim to form a new Buddhist sect or have used the name of Maitreya to form a new religious movement or cult. Gung Ye, a Korean warlord and king of short-lived state of Taebong during the 10th century, claimed himself as living incarnation of Maitreya and ordered his subjects to worship him. His claim was widely rejected by most Buddhist monks and later he was dethroned and killed by his own servants. In 613 the monk Xiang Haiming claimed himself Maitreya and adopted imperial title.[26] In 690 Empress Wu inaugurated the Second Zhou dynasty, proclaimed herself an incarnation of the future Buddha Maitreya, and made Luoyang the "holy capital." In 693 she replaced the compulsory Dao De Jing in the curriculum temporarily with her own Rules for Officials.[27] Lu Zhong Yi, the 17th patriarch of I-Kuan Tao, claimed to be an incarnation of Maitreya. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the belief systems Dianetics and Scientology, suggested he was "Metteya" (Maitreya) in the 1955 poem Hymn of Asia. Numerous editors and followers of Hubbard claim that in the book's preface, specific physical characteristics said to be outlined—in unnamed Sanskrit sources—as properties of the coming Maitreya; properties which Hubbard's appearance supposedly aligned with. Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya: "an All-Surpassing God-Man yet to come -- a final Avatar, the ultimate Messiah, a consumate Prophet or Enlightened Sage, a Spiritual Deliverer who will appear in the 'late-time', the 'dark' epoch when humanity is lost, apparently cut off from Wisdom, Truth and God. Buddhists call that Expected One 'Maitreya'." [28] Raël's Maitreya claims [1] center on the content of the Agama Sutra (Japanese: Agon Sutra),[29] supposedly a very ancient text written by Buddha himself, but which has been deemphasized or forgotten by the majority of Buddhist cultures.[30] Raël has claimed directly to people attending Asia Raëlian Church seminars, that someone born in France, a country which is often symbolized by the cock (or rooster), west of the Orient, meets the criteria of the Maitreya. Rael himself claims to be this individual.[31]

The concept of Maitreya was elaborated within Theosophy during the last few decades of the 19th century. However the Theosophical Maitreya was explained, and developed, differently than the original Buddhist concept. In Theosophical texts Maitreya has multiple aspects signifying not just the future Buddha, but similar concepts from other religious or spiritual traditions.[17] In early 20th century, leading Theosophists became convinced that an appearance of the Maitreya as a so-called World Teacher was imminent. A South Indian boy, Jiddu Krishnamurti, was thought to be destined as the "vehicle" of the soon-to-manifest Maitreya; however the manifestation did not happen as predicted, and did not fulfil Theosophists' expectations.[18] Since the growth of the Theosophical movement in the 19th century, and influenced by Theosophy's articulations on the Maitreya, non-Buddhist religious and spiritual movements have adopted and reinterpreted the concept in their doctrines. Share International, which equates Maitreya with the prophesied figures of multiple religious traditions, claims that he is already present in the world, but is preparing to make an open declaration of his presence in the near future. They claim that he is here to inspire mankind to create a new era based on sharing and justice.[19] In the beginning of the 1930s, the Ascended Master Teachings placed Maitreya in the "Office of World Teacher" until 1956, when he was described as moving on to the "Office of Planetary Buddha" and "Cosmic Christ" in their concept of a Spiritual Hierarchy. Some Muslim scholars who studied Buddhist texts believe that Maitreya is "Rahmatu lil-'alameen" (Mercy for The Worlds), which is the name for the prophet Muhammad as it is said in the Qur'an.[20] According to the research on the book Antim Buddha - Maitreya scholars have surmised that Maitreya Buddha is Muhammad.[21] After examining the Buddhist texts researchers concluded that Muhammad had been the last and final awakened Buddha to come into existence long after the current teachings.[22] The 19th century, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, is believed in by the members of the Ahmadiyya Community (the faith he brought) as fulfilling expectations regarding the Maitreya Buddha.[23] Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is the fulfillment of the prophecy of appearance of Maitreya.[24][25] Bahá'ís believe that the prophecy that Maitreya will usher in a new society of tolerance and love has been fulfilled by Bahá'u'lláh's teachings on world peace.[24] 70.194.84.171 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC) also revert the page yourself if your mind has been changed.

I agree, Budai is well-accepted within Buddhist tradition as a bodhisattva. I also agree that L. Ron Hubbard refers to himself as Maitreya in Hymn of Asia. What I don't see is any corroboration by Buddhists that he is regarded as a bodhisattva. We would need a reliable source for this (and by the way, Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable secondary source). We would need a Buddhist source. Sunray (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Thanks for letting me know why you deleted my edit to Cam Newton's page. I added that because he is, in fact, known for his smile. Football commentators and analysts often mention it, and I saw no reference to it on his page so I thought that it should be mentioned. I understand if you disagree but I, and I think many others, believe that it is one of his defining features. -FJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.237.104 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for getting back to me. It would be great if you could find a reference for that info from a reliable source. WP:CITE explains how to format references, or you could just give me the link and I would be happy to do it. The other thing I would like to point out has to do with style. Your comment sounded pretty casual. So you might want to take a look at WP:TONE. Happy editing! Sunray (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hello. On this edit, you have restored lots of copyrighted material. Please undo your edit or clean up the copyvios. Thanks. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. You are quite right that the article currently has copyvios. Your edit was identified by STiki, because it blanked much of the article. For example, you eliminated the Infobox and other sections. I regret that I didn't follow up on your edit summary (I just saw the blanking). So I will now go through the article, mark, and then eliminate, the copyright violations. Would you be willing to assist with this? Sunray (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month

Good day Sunray,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon X and Y

Thank you for you comment on my talk page. I reverted an inappropriate edit on Pokémon X and Y, and you reverted my revert. Having checked my revert I still believe that I was correct, and am just replying to let you know. As someone who does some AV on wikipedia I thank you for your efforts in this matter. Martin451 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. I'm glad that you did revert that. The only thing I can think of is that StiKi showed me the same edit that you reverted. As you had already reverted it, I wound up reverting you. There is also the chance that I just wasn't paying close enough attention :) That happens (more often late at night), but I'm guessing we may have detected a bug in StiKi. I will keep an eye on it. Sunray (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Netfa Perry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ER (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Change to the Return to the Pit page.

I wasn't sure how to add a cite. But i would like this to be added so people can know that the site isn't what they think it is.

http://returntothepit.com/view.php?formid=70433

There is my cite to insure there is evidence of bullying on this webpage. How do i get this change to stay?

Basically let people know that when you go to this site, if your not part of their group, they will talk trash and bully you around. I would like to let people know before they go to the site. Even though i'm sure most won't read this before they do, some might. I had multiple people send me messages talking about how they were treated the same way.

If you could add this in somewhere i would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.54.221 (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the source you want to use does not qualify as a reliable source. If you take a look at WP:IRS you should see what I mean. Forums and blogs are not acceptable as sources. As far as the bullying goes: Wikipedia is not a manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. I'm sure most people who've been online for awhile will realize that they do not have to put up with online bullying. Simply disengaging, changing passwords (if necessary), and reporting them to their service provider would be some of the options I can think of. Sunray (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So what should i do if the owner of the site condones all the rudeness? I already asked him to take down the pictures of my gf and other friends they stole from my facebook, he just replied with more bullying. I have been looking this stuff up and i have no idea what to do. Is there anything i can do about them stealing pictures and messing with them, then putting them up without my permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.54.221 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the website owner is also the hosting provider. But in any case, I can't really answer your questions, except to say that if you made the pics public, there probably isn't much that can be done unless a crime was committed. I try not to put anything on the web that I wouldn't want to see on the front page of a newspaper. What else can I tell you? Bullying sucks; there are some weird people out there. But I'm sure you knew that already :) Sunray (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks anyways. I heard it WAS illegal to take someones picture and put negative things on it and put it up without your permission. Also these are just pictures of me and my friend hanging out, i didn't think anyone would steal these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.54.221 (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2011 Little Buffalo oil spill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Substrate

People of the Deer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Keewatin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me

Why do you keep taking down my edits hun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daz21 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The edits are not constructive (to put it mildly). You have received two warnings about this. Is my note on your talk page unclear? Sunray (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Krohn Page

Dear Sunray, Just an FYI: I am actually Jonathan Krohn...I've been trying to update and edit the page because there are a number of inaccuracies and so forth for awhile, but found it kind of arrogant to edit your own Wiki page. But I finally sucked it up because it was getting insanely annoying having to have to explain to people I meet who then proceed to look up the article for background on me how old and inaccurate aspects of the article are. I have no idea who created or has been editing it, but there are lots of problems with it I'd like to correct. (Seeing as you are an established part of the wiki community I'd be more than happy to work with you on this.) Sincerely, Jonathan Krohn (If you don't believe that I'm actually Jonathan I would be more than willing to prove this is actually me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieTwin (talk • contribs) 06:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Normally removal of large amounts of text from articles is problematic unless there has been some discussion about it and agreement on the talk page. Much of the material you removed was sourced, so I would need to know more about your concerns. Generally subjects are discouraged from editing articles about themselves. However, if you think that there are inaccuracies, by all means, point them out to me. Sunray (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well for starters, the first book I wrote was not written for The Classical School. That is a lie and misconception and I have no idea where that came from.

I am not active in the Baptist Church. Period.

I did not give a speech called "Conservative Victories Across America." That was the name of the panel I was on.

I gave up playing the cello when I was 11.

There are some more, but I think the larger point I was trying to make by cutting it down was that there is just so much extraneous material that a ton of inaccuracies (such as the ones above) slip in. I realize that you guys don't want subjects editing their articles and I didn't want to. But until I edited part of it wiki still had my profession listed as "pundit," my inspirations as Bennett, Goldwater, and Reagan, and a really old picture of me. And let's not forget there wasn't a single mention of anything I'd seriously done with my life. The whole CPAC incident is such a minor issue, I have no idea why it's focused on for FIVE PARAGRAPHS. So long as it's sourced I think the vast majority of extraneous information can be found from a much simpler article that is sourced. --Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieTwin (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and am willing to look more closely at the Jonathan Krohn article, which, I agree, needs some work. The edits you made changed the formats for some of the references, which caused error messages, so I will need to go through them one by one. Your point about categorizing you as a Baptist is well-taken. The NYT article says that your family attended a Baptist Church. I've removed that category. I also take your point about over-emphasizing a particular incident. We need to ensure that the article is written from a neutral point of view.

I won't be able to look at the article more closely for a couple of days, but will be happy to do that. In the meantime, I will tag it as being in need of attention. Thanks again for your comments. Sunray (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Who accually invented scotch tape.

How was my post not constructive. It was the truth. We have even found the document from when he invented it. I dont know why but now everyone says it was richard drew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.81.59 (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Sunray (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. We accually found the document but since it was before everyone had computers it is on paper. We are trying to convert it to PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkman640 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That will be helpful. It sounds like a primary source. We should also look for secondary sources. You may want to check out the requirements for reliable sources in the link I've given above. Sunray (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Need some help with source for sociology

Hi Sunray, Saw your username listed at Wikiproject sociology#Active members. I am trying to make this question as general as possible. Here goes:
what, according to you, might serve as a solid source in the field of sociology?
P.S. Kindly take the question at its face value. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That depends on the subject and what you wish to say. Would you be able to give me more specifics and, perhaps, an example? Sunray (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally a peer-reviewed periodical or a book published by an academic press are considered to be "solid" sources. Sunray (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Academy (Connecticut)

How would I go about getting proof? Would you like a copy of records from the Clinton Police Department, a statement from the perpetrator, eyewitness statements? This is for the Oxford Academy Connecticut edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.176.255 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the first question to ask would be: "How is this incident related to the Oxford Academy? If it is related, and the assault, or alleged assault, occurred at the Academy, the second question would be what was the disposition of the incident? Were charges laid? If so, what was the outcome? If the teacher was convicted, you would need a reliable source that confirms that and makes the connection to the Academy. A newspaper article would be a reliable source. Note that if there has not been a conviction, it is only an alleged assault and would not normally be added to an article about the Academy unless there is a news story clearly making that connection. Sunray (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

List of oil spills

I am a little confused about this edit on the List of oil spills article. Your rational for reverting is quoting the first sentence of the article, but I really do not understand what that sentence has to do with listing the oil companies associated with the spill. Also, I don't understand why it was necessary to remove them, as the information is well sourced and oftentimes readers might want to know more information about companies involved in spills. I could see that maybe the company shouldn't be first on the table, but I still believe it is important to include. I look forward to any clarification your response can give. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters, a chronological list is just that: a list of spills in order of the date they happened. So a list by companies is not a chronological list. More importantly, though, the user who made those changes introduced many errors. For example the Talmadge Creek oil spill was not on an ExxonMobile pipeline. Neither was the 2011 Little Buffalo oil spill. These lines are owned by Endbridge and Plains All American, respectively. I think that it would be very difficult to list oil spills by company, because there are so many companies involved. And what would be the point? It is much easier for readers to find spills by the year they happened. Totalling up the number of spills by each company would be very difficult to do and would be original research, (thus verboten) in any case. Sunray (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that a chronological list is that, it is a list of the spills in order of the date they happens. Before your revert, it was not listed by companies, the companies were just listed (probably in the wrong place on the table, should be further right). There were two errors made, but there were many more correct contributions made as well. I'm not advocating this list being by company, just saying that the related companies are part of the story. Its not much different than the locations and the min or max spillage. Those sections are both included, and the list is still chronological. If it were just a chronological list and no more, we would just have the date and the spill name, nothing else. And you are right about WP:NOR but you completely misunderstand my comment. I'm saying that if you list a company, the reader can see that company x is listed with three minor spills or whatever the case may be. The list wouldn't say company y has been involved in spills as that would be original research, it would simply list the involved companies and readers could infer what they want. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about it still being chronological. I agree with you that the company was probably listed in the wrong place. I imagine many people would react thinking that all those spills listed after "Exxon" were spills on pipelines or vessels owned by ExxonMobil. I also think that adding another column makes the table very crowded. Company names can be lengthy. However, this isn't the place for discussing this. Normally significant changes to articles or lists are proposed and discussed on the talk page. If you feel strongly about making the change and are willing to put the work into it—which would be considerable, IMO—by all means propose it on the talk page. So far, I'm not convinced. Sunray (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Theosophy sidebar and series

I am starting to work on the theosophy sidebar template:Theosophy. This sidebar is currently only about the Theosophical Society. I need a Theosophy sidebar that covers Theosophy and also has the Theosophical Society in it. I noticed there is also a template:Theosophy series. I do not see the reason for the Theosophy series Template. I am considering deleting the series template. It looks like someone was starting a Project on Theosophy (possibly). I wanted an opinion as to whether it is needed, and in use, before deleting it. JEMead (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. However, I haven't been close to the Theosophy articles for a long time. I appreciate the work you have done. Sunray (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kalamazoo River oil spill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy oil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gina McCarthy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lisa Jackson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• country, regional and global levels to promote [[social entrepreneur]]ship. The Foundation is a [[non-profit|not-for-profit] organization, founded in 1998. Its purpose is to "advance social

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tzeporah Berman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Boreal and Staples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Tyee may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | image_file = <!-- cover.jpg (omit the "file: prefix -->
• is derived from the [[Coast Salish]], meaning a chief, a king, or champion.<ref>MacLeod, Grant ((Fall 2004). [http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/18002/21961 "The Painter (Tyee)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Tyee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coast Salish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Policy

If you are going to summarily overrule my edit, please at least do not un-archive irrelevant material (like the Suggested copyedit thread), and do tidy up after yourself (such as by pruning the archive so threads aren't double-listed there). This assumes, of course, that you think it is proper to continue an old discussion after a break of one year. AGK [•] 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you annoyed because I undid your edit? It wasn't my intention to offend you and I certainly don't try to summarily overrule anybody, ever. My edit summary may not have been clear. I was trying to say that there was context that editors might need in order to understand the discussion with Steven. I regret that I didn't tidy up well. As to the old discussion, an editor had fairly recently (Aug 2013) pointed out that there was an anomaly in the way we dealt with the issue of compromise. So I thought it might be a good idea to respond to that now.

Anthony, I value your knowledge and would really like to have your support, though I think I should add a spoiler alert: I will make mistakes :) Sunray (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy up. Would you be able to check that I've done that properly? BTW, I see two very different issues being raised, one by Chrisrus and one by Martin Hogbin. I agree with your response to Martin. Sunray (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I confess that I was annoyed. Although I tried not to convey my annoyance, I see that I did so in the end – for which I apologise. From an administrative point of view, I still believe closing last year's discussion and asking Chrisrus to restate his case in a new section would be best; but I do sympathise with the view that it is the contents of the objection, rather than where the objection is made, that truly matters. (As for tidying up, this was the only thing still to be done.) I will leave the substantive discussion in your capable hands; unfortunately, I have enough on my plate without having to attend to it. Best wishes, AGK [•] 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I'm unclear what you mean by closing last year's discussion. You had archived the recent policy discussion (about the relationship with DRN) and left the older policy discussion. I was only saying that we should keep the current policy discussion until it is fully implemented. Steven's question is contained within the recent discussion and I've asked a follow-up question of him. For anyone else to fully understand the context of my question to Steven, they would benefit from the policy discussion, IMO. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies

Are you okay with including work-in-progress sections with a few examples which seem to be the most pressing, and the template to indicate that more needs to be done? Tim AFS (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to do that in either the Sustainability or Sustainable development articles for the reasons given by Granitethighs and me. I would suggest you consider starting a new article. Sunray (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you please say why? I have to say that I do not consider your replies accurate in either the summarization or characterization of the sources, so I would like to learn more about your reasoning, please. Tim AFS (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. As Granetheighs and I have both said, the article is an overview article and your proposed section does not belong there. The article talk page is the place for further discussion of this. Sunray (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tar sands

Hi Sunray!

Strangely, I just replied at 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, but happened to look at my watchlist and found something unrelated that you may be interested in. Unfortunately, I hadn't heard about the 'requested move' RfC at the Oil sands talk page until today - it appears that after only a few days and after 4 editors weighed in, the discussion was closed. I believe it is a big issue that could use more discussion. I did a tiny amount of research and found that changing the term from 'tar sands' to 'oil sands' was originally a PR move by the industry, and that in the US, 'tar sands' are legally NOT oil, such that owners of tar sands pipelines do not have to pay into the oil spill clean-up fund. I can dig up the refs for both claims I'm making (they are in archives at BP talk and my own talk page). I noticed that you have a good deal of experience on wiki, and wondered if you would share your thoughts on this? If your opinion remains similar to the one you've expressed at the oil sands talk page a while back, what might be a good next step (ie, re-opening RfC or a review)? Many thanks, petrarchan47tc 01:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I dug up the archived research, and put it here petrarchan47tc 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think it might be a good idea to do a new RfC. To do that, it would be a good idea to get some reliable sources about the original name of the bituminous deposits in the Athabasca Region. Of course it was "tar sands," so one could present documentation and usage for those early days. It would also be worthwhile to show when and how the oil industry made the change. Likely there will be many folks from the industry that will pack the discussion (I'm sure they watch the article closely), so it would be wise to notify a fairly broad cross-section of the Wikipedia community. Whatever the outcome, I think that it would be a good educational process and, if done right, we could be have some confidence in the validity of the result. Sunray (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I have zero interest in battling the industry. Everything you said is right (and thank you for the good advice!), but I'm going to have to file this under "bit off more than I can chew". It would take a good deal of research and I really only do wiki in my bits of spare time. This illustrates the problem with the idea that PR reps and special interests represented on wiki will be naturally balanced out by the independent editors and editing process. I've seen the group that does protect this issue and they are numerous, and have all the articles, data, and confusing arguments that one would expect from pros. It would take a pro (on the other side) or someone with lots of time to take this on properly. Thanks again, petrarchan47tc 07:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty much the conclusion I had reached. The fossil fuel paradigm has been dominant for decades. This is changing, but the shift hasn't yet happened in North America—though it has in Europe. People are increasingly aware that it is tar, not oil, and that the days of extreme energy are numbered. Close readers of the article can discover this for themselves. Take care. Sunray (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sunray. You're a joy. petrarchan47tc 09:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Last thought, just wanted to say that when I'm wearing my wiki-editor hat, my impetus is "how will the reader like this?" and "is this encyclopedic?". With the obvious PR move from tar --> oil, Wikipedia is being used in a way that is the opposite of encyclopedic, and most of all, Wikipedia is making a fool of itself. I fear that Wiki will become a laughing stock if this kind of thing continues. We do not have the resources or even supportive policy to handle this problem. It seems a perilous time for our encyclopedia. I grew up with actual encyclopedias, hard covers and exciting pages full of pictures, diagrams and totally neutral information. These books were my best friends. I know what an encyclopedia should look and feel like at a visceral level. It literally hurts me to see this one being used improperly and possibly dying before eyes. It's this that drives me to get rid of the advertising. petrarchan47tc 00:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I hear your frustration. However, the reason my last response was worded the way it was is because I think that this is waaay bigger than a Wikipedia problem. After your first message, I did a couple of searches to see how common the two terms were. I eliminated wikipedia from the searches and made sure that the words "oil sands" and "tar sands" occurred together by enclosing them in quotes. Here are the results:

• "oil sands" -en.wikipedia.org (6,460,000 results)
• "tar sands" -en.wikipedia.org (3,270,000 results)

What we are seeing is clearly an ideological framing of a resource play (tar sands extraction) that was completely successful and pervasive. For years no one in North American (outside of some of the environmental NGOs) questioned what the petroleum industry was doing in Alberta. Bear in mind that a "climate cover-up" (to use James Hoggan's term) was also happening (1990s and early 2000s). During that time, the petroleum industry was able to create confusion in the public mind through a concerted disinformation program of climate change denial. It has only been in the last five years that a critical mass of people have awakened to what has been going on. Now there is an international movement that goes way beyond just the environmental NGOs (consider the wide-ranging opposition to Keystone XL and Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines, the successes of 350.org and the university tarsands divestment campaigns). Still change does not happen overnight. The oil interests are incredibly powerful and have a death grip on modern society. Right now the mainstream media are only just beginning to cover these issues in any kind of realistic and responsible way. I will keep trying that search to see when the balance shifts completely. In the meantime (and always), we have to use reliable sources and strive for neutral articles. Sunray (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I so appreciate these insights. You've obviously some experience with this issue, maybe your geolocation exposes you to more information about Canada's tar sands than does mine. (A bit busy today, but I'll share my wee bit of experience in this area when I get a sec.) petrarchan47tc 21:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, look what I just found: hehe petrarchan47tc 06:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

NSA

Just stopping by to see if you're aware of this? The EFF just made your life much easier ;) Thanks for the great work with the Timeline article. Much appreciation to you. petrarchan47tc 04:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Sunray (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking through them, I'm curious about what you might have seen that would be of particular interest. Sunray (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This was the only place I've seen all the leaks together, listed alongside their respective RS, and it's up-to-date. petrarchan47tc 19:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't realized that was all the leaks. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Durrett may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and managed by the residents, groups of people who want more interaction with their neighbours.) In recent years he has focused on cohousing for older persons.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

BC / BCE

Hi Sunray,

I'm happy to use BCE if it's important to you[1], but Per WP:ERA the article has to be internally consistent, so, whichever you choose, lets stick with one date format throughout the article. Thanks PhilMacD (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonable approach. I agree that the MoS requires consistency and missed that when I made that change. I've noted that the major articles on Buddhism have long used BCE/CE in dating of eras and think that, since this is an important Buddhist shrine, it makes sense to go with that. I've put a note on the article talk page, here and will boldly change the article to alert editors to the reasons for the change and allow for discussion. I trust that meets the spirit of your comment above. Sunray (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

MMJ

Hi Sunray ~ another day, another unrelated issue. I wondered if you could offer some advice? It seems a small handful of folks are in charge of coverage of medical issues here at Wiki, and their "project medicine" has focused on all the cannabis articles, as of a few days ago. I have observed (by viewing conversations between them) a preconceived notion accompanied them, sans research. So the studies and edits that have been added seem quite one-sided, supportive of this prejudice. They have been going at these articles with a manic pace, multiple people, and aren't opening up the discussion to other voices. In my opinion, this is very dangerous for Wikipedia to allow any small handful of people to control an issue, especially when it is not supported by time spent researching the literature. Do you know a good route to open this up to a larger group, more voices and more input? How to call attention to this need, I wonder. Mayday! petrarchan47tc 19:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to some examples that illustrate what you are describing? Some diffs would be great, and/or a listing of some of the articles involved. Sunray (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense :) Yes, I'll get to it tomorrow. Meanwhile, you could see my contribs at Medical cannabis talk, and at Cannabis (drug) talk. Of the 3 or 4 edits I've checked, 100% are slanted and ignoring the full picture, so I have a great fear that this is the case across the board. If you really have patience, I laid out one example of tendentious editing at my talk page, just ignore the irrelevant banter. This is an example of the MEDRS team (or "Wiki Project Medicine", I believe) cherry-picking one study and ending up with disinformation re MMJ and MS. Two other examples I pointed out are at the aforementioned talk pages, where again only cherry-picked studies are being used and critics are being removed. It's going to be an enormous project to review all that is being changed. But it needs to happen. petrarchan47tc 01:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Sunray, it looks like RL is taking me away for awhile. It may be a month or more before I can deal with this project. It does seem clear to me that Wikipedia needs a Project Medical Cannabis. petrarchan47tc 02:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Petrarchan47. I'll be looking into it. Let me know when you're back. Sunray (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SunRay. Looks like I'm not leaving as immediately as I thought. Will be in touch :) petrarchan47tc 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to create a project page so that multiple editors can work on this. I, and/or others, can start to comb through the recent changes and list them on the page, then we can bring our research/fact-checking and have it all in one place. The result will be a balanced, well-researched work, as all of Wiki should be. petrarchan47tc 17:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I like that approach. It seems to be completely in line with Wikipedia values and policies. Sunray (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Message from Bob the goodwin

Hi Sunray,

You have mediated successfully with a member who is aggressively editing a page I am trying to expand. As a newcomer I am surely making mistakes, but there is no effort being made to use the talk page. I believe that I am (and could improve) using impeccable medical sources and NPOV. The dispute seems to be around significant minority viewpoints, and several of the areas I have personally researched seem to have groups that have prominent adherents that are not shown in articles. I would like to learn and not get into edit wars. I actually am on the verge of slithering away, but wanted help first to find out if I am the problem.

I started with a low value page to see how it would go.

Wikipedia:ILADS Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just on my way out for a few hours. I will take a look and give you my reactions when I get back. Sunray (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on your RfC about iLADS. Some experienced editors have already commented and I added something that may put the issue into a broader context. In dealing with minority viewpoints, the key is to find reliable sources. As was pointed out by Yobol in an edit summary, the Executive Intelligence Review does not qualify as a reliable source. What you would need would be either peer reviewed secondary sources or articles from a major news medium with an editorial board. The latter would never trump the former for medical information, but could be useful in describing the dimensions of a controversy. However, the sources used need to comply with WP:WEIGHT. You've picked a tricky one to start with. I can relate to your wish to leave, but when I've felt that way, I've often found that editing another subject in a different discipline or topic area sometimes gives a broader perspective. Hope that this helps. Sunray (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that mistake in retrospect about Executive Intelligence Review. I think that I should stay away from the wars part of the discussion until the core issues are right. The wars are too inflammatory, and may be impossible to source fairly. I won't give up quickly as long as people continue to give advise, rules, and data. I think I can learn to help.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please check my replies on ILADS talk if you have a chance.

All the votes where that ILAD was fringe, and I tried to answer questions as to why I thought not. I will accept the consensus but thought you needed the facts first.

Thanks again for helping. I may actually learn how to do this well and become an editor :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 05:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)