User talk:Sunray/Archive09

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)

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)

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 [1] to fit his own understanding of the term - [2]. 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 - [3]. 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)

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)

KH Robert

Seems academics are unfashionable around here these days. I defend a lot of them at AfD. As a help in editing the K-H Robert article, here are the most cited of his medical papers: (from Web of Science) (They are quite defendable, but I wouldn't call him a truly international star,) --His environmental ones are below-- DGG 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

GAHRTON G, ROBERT KH, FRIBERG K, et al. NON-RANDOM CHROMOSOMAL-ABERRATIONS IN CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC-LEUKEMIA REVEALED BY POLYCLONAL B-CELL-MITOGEN STIMULATION BLOOD 56 (4): 640-647 1980 Times Cited: 169 2. JULIUSSON G, ROBERT KH, OST A, et al. PROGNOSTIC INFORMATION FROM CYTOGENETIC ANALYSIS IN CHRONIC B-LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA AND LEUKEMIC IMMUNOCYTOMA BLOOD 65 (1): 134-141 1985 Times Cited: 127

  3.	 OSTLUND L, EINHORN S, ROBERT KH, et al.

CHRONIC B-LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA-CELLS PROLIFERATE AND DIFFERENTIATE FOLLOWING EXPOSURE TO INTERFERON INVITRO BLOOD 67 (1): 152-159 JAN 1986 Times Cited: 105

  4.	 KLINTMALM G, LONNQVIST B, OBERG B, et al.

INTRAVENOUS FOSCARNET FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEVERE CYTOMEGALO-VIRUS INFECTION IN ALLOGRAFT RECIPIENTS SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES 17 (2): 157-163 1985 Times Cited: 87

  5.	ROBERT KH, GAHRTON G, FRIBERG K, et al.

EXTRA CHROMOSOME-12 AND PROGNOSIS IN CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC-LEUKEMIA SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY 28 (2): 163-168 1982 Times Cited: 78

and here are his most recent, the ones on environmental issues obviously the citation count is lower, but its certainly respectable for the field.

1. Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, et al. Reclaiming the definition of sustainability ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH 14 (1): 60-66 JAN 2007 Times Cited: 0

2. Byggeth S, Broman G, Robert KH A method for sustainable product development based on a modular system of guiding questions JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION 15 (1): 1-11 2007 Times Cited: 0

3. Ny H, MacDonald JP, Broman G, et al. Sustainability constraints as system boundaries - An approach to making life-cycle management strategic JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 10 (1-2): 61-77 WIN-SPR 2006 Times Cited: 0

4. Burnett AK, Milligan DW, Prentice AG, et al. Modification or dose or treatment duration has no impact on outcome of AML in older patients: Preliminary results of the UKNCRI AML14 trial. BLOOD 106 (11): 162A-162A 543 Part 1 NOV 16 2005 Times Cited: 1

5. Broman GI, Byggeth SH, Robert KH Integrating environmental aspects in engineering education INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 18 (6): 717-724 2002 Times Cited: 0

6. Robert KH, Schmidt-Bleek B, de Larderel JA, et al. Strategic sustainable development - selection, design and synergies of applied tools JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION 10 (3): 197-214 2002 Times Cited: 27

7. Holmberg J, Robert KH Backcasting - a framework for strategic planning INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY 7 (4): 291-308 DEC 2000 Times Cited: 4

8. Broman G, Holmberg J, Robert KH Simplicity without reduction: Thinking upstream towards the sustainable society INTERFACES 30 (3): 13-25 MAY-JUN 2000 Times Cited: 8

9. Holmberg J, Lundqvist U, Robert KH, et al. The ecological footprint from a systems perspective of sustainability INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY 6 (1): 17-33 MAR 1999 Times Cited: 5

Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, et al. Reclaiming the definition of sustainability ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH 14 (1): 60-66 JAN 2007 Times Cited: 0

2. Byggeth S, Broman G, Robert KH A method for sustainable product development based on a modular system of guiding questions JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION 15 (1): 1-11 2007 Times Cited: 0

3. Ny H, MacDonald JP, Broman G, et al. Sustainability constraints as system boundaries - An approach to making life-cycle management strategic JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY 10 (1-2): 61-77 WIN-SPR 2006 Times Cited: 0

4. Burnett AK, Milligan DW, Prentice AG, et al. Modification or dose or treatment duration has no impact on outcome of AML in older patients: Preliminary results of the UKNCRI AML14 trial. BLOOD 106 (11): 162A-162A 543 Part 1 NOV 16 2005 Times Cited: 1

5. Broman GI, Byggeth SH, Robert KH Integrating environmental aspects in engineering education INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION 18 (6): 717-724 2002 Times Cited: 0

6. Robert KH, Schmidt-Bleek B, de Larderel JA, et al. Strategic sustainable development - selection, design and synergies of applied tools JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION 10 (3): 197-214 2002 Times Cited: 27

7. Holmberg J, Robert KH Backcasting - a framework for strategic planning INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY 7 (4): 291-308 DEC 2000 Times Cited: 4

8. Broman G, Holmberg J, Robert KH Simplicity without reduction: Thinking upstream towards the sustainable society INTERFACES 30 (3): 13-25 MAY-JUN 2000 Times Cited: 8

9. Holmberg J, Lundqvist U, Robert KH, et al. The ecological footprint from a systems perspective of sustainability INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY 6 (1): 17-33 MAR 1999 Times Cited: 5

12. Robert KH, Daly H, Hawken P, et al. A compass for sustainable development INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD ECOLOGY 4 (2): 79-92 JUN 1997 Times Cited: 18

Karl-Henrik Robèrt

... article is now at User:Sunray/sandbox. Work away :) - Alison^☺ 23:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I see it's gone to mainspace now. It looks excellent now - well done :) - Alison^☺ 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help improve Plug-in hybrid

You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

History of British Columbia

I see you keep removing the "[ [" "] ]" from the dates and stuff so. Please, if you remove it from some, do it from them all. Otherwise, don't remove them xD

And by the way, why do you add that stuff about "unreferenced"? It was unreferenced before I edited it, but now, I've added lots of external links and references... Onofre Bouvila 00:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

History of BC and date-linking

Hey Sunray, First, I should mention that Onofre Bouvila made the substantive additions to the article, and I just made some copyedits. As for the dates, I did track the guideline down at one point. I can't remember exactly where (WP:MOS or one of the sub-manuals I think). Dates should not be linked (except in rare cases where it might be relevant) with the exception of full dates. The only reason full dates are linked is because users have the option of setting how they are displayed in their "preferences," so even if it's written [[August 19]], [[1947]], it will display as [[19 August]] [[1947]] on my screen because that's what I have it set as. If there's only the month and day, it shouldn't be linked, and also things like '1920s,' '1800s,' '21st century,' etc. shouldn't be linked. Basically you're right in regards to the 'build the web' vs. overlinking, but the full date thing is a different issue. Cheers, bobanny 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found the polcy: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates. I was wrong; apparently month/day should be linked as well as month/day/year for the same preference format reason. It says stand alone years is optional, but I think most editors would see that as overlinking. bobanny 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also didn't realize I was undoing what you had just done, and I only edited a couple sections, making the linking inconsistent. I just went through the whole shebang now and I think it all conforms to said guideline unless I missed one or two dates. I'll see if I can scare up some sources for what's there too; I've got a bunch of the standard texts here somewhere so it shouldn't take too long. bobanny 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07 put back the warning tag(s) you removed

Watchdog07 put back the warning tag(s) you removed the other day, nd without discussing this on the article's talk page, contrary to your request. See [4]. andrew-the-k 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Kliman does not speak the truth. When reverting, I explained that the tag had been explained previously and where. I also suggested talking to you on my user talk page, which you have declined to accept so far. Since what you wrote in your revert was incorrect, I will revert. I will be happy to discuss the matter further with you. Watchdog07 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog07 has indeed restored his tendentious warning tags.[5]

He accuses me of not speaking the truth, but nothing he says contradicts the facts that (1) "Watchdog07 put back the warning tag(s) you removed the other day," and that (2) he did so "without discussing this on the article's talk page, contrary to your request." My statements are true.

andrew-the-k 22:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, if you (Sunray) have questions about the tags, I will be happy to answer them - even though I have done so at length elsewhere. Please do not remove the tags without first discussing the issue with me. Thx. Watchdog07 23:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor to editor -- Sunray -- goodluck with these warring factions. Watchdog and Andrew/Akliman (and several less vocal other editors) have a steady stream of edit warring going back. Do they follow policy? Not really. Do they make snide remarks, claim they didn't attack each other and than the other party claims to be deeply offended even though they did the same thing a few moments earlier? Yes. But, the Marxian economics is the newer of the edit wars so it is much easier to sort through than the main warring on other pages. I pray that you will look into the issue, but it really should have gone to a bigger authority long ago. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog is certainly able to give you specifics, and I believe he might have on the page in question. (although the other disputed party has already chimed in.) Also, you may be getting 'non positive' messages on your talk page telling you that you were flat out wrong. I have tried to teach both tides how to use talk page formatting when responding to other users but often a direct response will have a brand new subtitle and will be separated from the actual discussion that lied above it. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the rules have already been disagreed to even before I was able to post my single sentence of 'I agree to follow the rules above.' well that was a fun experiment. Watchdog has found this essay called WP:SHUN and now uses it to justify not having discussion with the other editor(s) involved. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tao Page

Hello Sunray

Just a note to let you know that the section you deleted from the Tao page yesterday was actually the first half of the original paragraph that was mutilated some time ago. In other words the existing text was only an appendage to the section I restored the other day. Best wishes. Glenn Langdell, May 24th 2007.

Mediation

Sunray

Thanks for involving yourself in mediation on the dispute in the Marxian Economics page

I will at some future point need to seek a review of the decision that characterised me as a meat-puppet, and I note that you find this an offensive characterisation.

I am not offended - I have a thick skin and some mediation skills myself (as a trade union chair and founder participant in the world social forum). However references have been made to this characterisation, in attacks damaging to my reputation and to that of my employer, on an external website. Therefore independent of whether I am offended, references to this disputed characterisation are best kept out of the discussion. If you can achieve this, it would be a source of some relief on my part.

I face a difficult decision. The characterisation is given by Watchdog as a reason for not taking part in the emerging mediation process, which is a shame. If it becomes clear that my presence in the discussion is the only obstacle to Watchdog's participation, then I am prepared to consider withdrawing, if this can be done in a way that is not prejudicial to myself and does not involve my accepting a characterisation I will need (independent of this dispute) to challenge.

Regards Alan XAX Freeman 05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The presence of Alan XAX Freeman is indeed an obstacle to the possibility of mediation. Under WP:SOCK I am not required to consider his perspectives and I will not. Watchdog07 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing letters

very quick update of the pipeline references!

also regarding missing letters this historical webpage of importance is missing a capital letter A (Newspaper section)

http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/electoral_history/part6-1.html

i looked for it at the bottom of the page but it must have bounced when it reached the end of the ligne--John Zdralek 07:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

illustration of comment (this comment about the missing letter is linked to your user page thread about missing letters)

i have some scissors if that piece sticking out the end of your scrap book is annoying--John Zdralek 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Marxian Economics

I asked the following question before on MrMacMan's talk page but you did not reply.

Are you familiar with the literature on the subject of Marxian economics?

I think that's a legitimate question. Watchdog07 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please don't edit war. If you think Andrew Kliman's "highly incendiary and slanderous" (exact quote; his words) edit belongs in the article, please give reasons why on the talk page of Marxian economics.

If you are not prepared to do that, then do not stand in the way of removing the obscenely non-neutral edit which is in gross violation of WP:BLP and encyclopedia standards. Watchdog07 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical Thinking

Hi Sunray,

I noticed your commentary on the Critical Thinking Page. I made some changes while back per the request of Richard Paul (director of the Foundation I work for). He wanted to make sweeping changes to the whole page, as he felt it wasn't well organized. But, As I was/am fairly new to Wiki I requested that he start with smaller sectional edits. I think that the page as a whole does need work to flow correctly as on coherent unit. Please feel free to contact me regarding any ideas you have. Perhaps there could be some collaboration.

Thanks Much,

Dan Blanchard (blanchard@criticalthinking.org)

hoplophobia

I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of Talk Pages

You have demonstrated exceptionally bad faith by deleting content from the talk page. This follows many other abuses by you on the talk page, including improper editing of that page so that my comments have been buried on the page in the "process" section. Your censorship will not be tolerated! I call upon you to remove yourself completely from this discussion. Your actions to date have only served to highten the differences which exist and move us further away from any possibility for achieving consensus.

More importantly, your actions have served to allow Wikipedia to be used to slander and insult a living person in violation of WP:BLP. Your unwillingness to see the urgency of that question and the extreme violations of WP:NPV in the article on Marxian economics can no longer be thought to be a consequence of Hanlon's razor. Instead, they constitute evidence of malice.

Your bit roll - as the bad faith censor - in this performance will be taken note of outside of Wikipedia. Watchdog07 12:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cease your edit warring

Please respect the Wikipedia community and stop reverting the article on Marxian economics without any attempt on your part to explain or defend the violations of WP:NPV and WP:BLP in the version authored by AKliman. Your contributions to the discussion, including your censorship on the talk page and your treating of other editors as if you are the 'commander' of the discussion - has not helped to resolve the dispute. Indeed, your actions to date have exaccerbated the dispute over the article and interfered with the possibility that once existed of talking over the differences among editors. You should either modify your behavior or go someplace else on Wikipedia.

I want to add here (even though you know it already, as I have taken great pains to explain it repeatedly to you, including in a message on the Marxian economics talk page which you improperly removed) that your actions have served to unfairly tarr the reputation of a distinguished living scholar. I have patiently explained this to you - again and again. I have explained - again and again - the URGENCY of the need to change the article so that it wouldn't have that effect. Since you have ignored what I have written so many times about this, I can not assume that Hanlon's razor is the principle at work. If you have any concern about the damage being done by the article to innocent parties and to the reputation of Wikipedia, then you will immediately cease your edit warring and go someplace else. Watchdog07 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not edit warring

By now, I think it should be clear to most observers that my actions on Talk:Marxian economics are hardly edit warring. I have simply tried to uphold Wikipedia policies and assist other users on that page to discuss and resolve any differences about the article. By my count, five editors have agreed to do that, one, Watchdog07 has steadfastly refused. These same editors have achieved consensus on one point of disagreement. However, they have not yet been able to progress much further due to Watchdog07's continued disruptive edits. I have made two requests to individual admins to assist, with no results thus far. Further action will be taken to resolve this situation in the very near future.Sunray 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunray's claims

It should be clear to any independent observer that Sunray's actions concerning the Marxian economics article have been highly disruptive.

Over and over again, he has failed to respond to the issues concerning the violations of WP:NPV and WP:BLP in the article. He has empowered those who wish to use Wikipedia to slander a living person. When this has been explained to him, he has even deleted that content from the talk page.

Over and again, he has reverted the article without justification or consensus.

A cursory examination of the talk page of Marxian economics will show that the current editors include Akliman, Extra Fine Point, Ryan Delaney, Sunray, and myself ... and that is all.

I also have asked repeatedly for assistance from admins. Watchdog07 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The editors of the page also include MrMacMan and AlanXAXFreeman. We have dealt with one of the issues identified as problematic for the Marxian economics article and I personally would like to move to the neutrality issue. However, he has repeatedly reverted the article without consensus, violated WP:CIV and engaged in personal attacks. It thus has been very hard to deal with the article itself. Nevertheless, i am optimistic, I think we can work on the article, get consensus, and resolve the concerns. Sunray 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"However, he has repeatedly reverted the article without consensus, violated WP:CIV and engaged in personal attacks" refers to Watchdog07, of course? andrew-the-k 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry that wasn't clear. Sunray 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

YOU SEEM TO HAVE CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN THAT TODAY ANDREW KLIMAN CHANGED THE ARTICLE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING CONSENSUS. IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE TO ME THAT YOU DID NOT OBJECT AS IT HAS BEEN CLEAR FOR SOME TIME THAT YOU HAVE "FAVORITES" ON THE TALK PAGE AND HAVE ONE STANDARD FOR SOME EDITORS AND ANOTHER STANDARD FOR OTHERS. PLEASE DO NOT ACT IN SUCH A BLATENTLY ONE-SIDED AND TWO-FACED MANNER. ANY PRETENSE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE "CONSENSUS" BEFORE CHANGING THE ARTICLE WAS BLOWN ASUNDER BY AKLIMAN AND YOUR SUGGESTION THAT CHANGING THE ARTICLE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING CONSENSUS WAS A "REASONABLE" APPROACH.Watchdog07 00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA by Watchdog07. andrew-the-k 02:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your most recent action is further evidence of bad faith on your part. Watchdog07 01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)