User talk:Sunray/Archive10

Translations from German and Italian articles on Marxian/Marxist Economics

Dear Sunray

Apologies for the delay in replying to your query on my talk page regarding the German article on Marxian Economics. I've been away.

I have two quite specific proposals and would welcome suggestions from yourself and others on how to progress them.

I will post notes on the talk page of other editors to suggest that they read these proposals below. I suggest that, since these proposals concern new pages, the discussion takes place on your talk page - but if you think another site is more appropriate, let us know

Proposal 1: Italian article on alternatives interpretations of Marx's value theory

I have half-translated, and can rapidly complete the translation of, an excellent Italian Wikipedia article on 'Alternative Interpretations of Marx's theory of value'. This would serve as a new English Wikipedia article with that title, or perhaps an abbreviation of it. The advantages that I can see are

(a)it covers all, rather than just one, of the alternative views on Marx's value theory that have emerged over the last 30 years, and shows the connection between them.

(b)it is well-referenced and authoritative, having been adapted from a published (and, I presume, peer-reviewed - I will check if need be) article.

(c)it could thus stand as a point of reference for other disputes.

(d)at some point it might be plausible to invite comment from the Italian contributors involved in this article - this could alleviate the problem whereby one editor refuses to accept the good faith and credentials of pretty well all the others.

Proposal 2: German article on Marxist Economics

I have located a quite long article on 'Marxistischen Wirtschaftsoekonomie' ('Marxist economic theory') in the German Wikipedia. This is very good, but note the following:

• It is in the German scholarly tradition, very thorough and exigetical, although a bit long. It is very well supported by citations from Marx’s own text.

• It is a summary of Marx's own writings on value and economics, which serves as an informative background.

• It is not an article on 'Marxist economics' in the sense this term has been used in English Wikipedia. It is not about the writings of any author except Marx himself, whereas the Wikipedia Marxist Economics page is about (or purports to be about) a broader spectrum of writings by 'Marxists' on economics.

• It is technically difficult to translate. Many of the terms have specific meanings with either conventional or disputed translations, because there is a quite long tradition of Marx translation in which it has become accepted that certain standard terms will be translated in a standard way. A translator unfamiliar with these conventions may make mistakes that could lead to unintentional controversy. I do not yet translate German professionally and so would be cautious about undertaking this myself (although if there is no other resource forthcoming, I would be willing to undertake it).

• It appears to me, as an English reader of writings about Capital, slightly idiosyncratic in that it makes a number of quite subtle distinctions but also omits things that some editors may consider necessary to a complete account. However, it covers the 'main ground' of someone wanting an introduction to Marx's economic theory.

I suggest that (if I can master the technology) a request is put out on the Babel translation page, making it a translation project. It would need initially to go in as a separate page - I would suggest 'Marx's economic Theory' as the English page title. An alternative is to make it a sub-page of the existing 'Marxian Economic Theory' page.

Here as a guide are the section headings

Critique of political economy (trans: relation to historical materialism etc)

Theory of value and theory of money

Exchange value and use value (trans: abstract labour, commodity fetishism, and the magnitude of value also dealt with under this heading)

Money and the circulation of commodities

Capital

Value product (‘Neuwert’)

Surplus value

Means of production

Components of capital as regards their relation to the circulation of value

Fixed capital

Circulating capital (Zirculierende Kapital)

Capital of circulation (Zirculationskapital) [trans: deals with a distinction made by Marx in Vol II chapter in a polemic against Adam Smith, not I think very well :::known to English readers]

Profit and its forms

General profit

Special profit (‘Kapitalprofit’)

Merchants’ profit

Rent/Groundrent

Interest

Surplus profit

The organic composition of capital

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall

Particular aspects

The sale of commodities

Cost-price (‘Selbstkostenpreis’)

Price of production

Market price

Sale price [trans: ‘Verkaufpreis’; the article distinguishes Market price from sale price, a distinction I am unfamiliar with]

Components of capital as regards their relation to production

The original advanced capital

Advanced capital [trans: the article distinguishes ‘originally advanced capital’ from ‘advanced capital’]

Consumed capital

Amortised capital

The reproduction of capital

The simple reproduction of capital

Expanded reproduction of capital

Concentration of capital

Centralisation of capital

Forms of competition

Schematic presentation of capital accumulation

Literature

Sources and footnotes

Alan XAX Freeman 08:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alan (and others),

I like the idea of translating these. I tend to think that they should be folded into the ME article, in order to avoid "POV forks" (see WP:NPOV and the Marxian economics talk page) and to add substance to the ME page. (I think some stuff there needs to go, like the laundry list of names at the end and especially the "Marxian" vs. Marxist" distinction which I presume was learned from a teacher who used it as a pedagogical device, but is not, as far as I am aware, commonly employed. I'm concerned about what will be left thereafter.)

I'm also surprised at some of the German terms: isn't value product Wertprodukt while Neuwert is new value? Admittedly, they mean much the same thing. And Selbstkostenpreis presumably has the "Selbst" to indicate that it's the only the paid portion of the full cost, but I'm not aware of this and am almost positive it was dropped at some point. The substantive point here is that I'm all in favor of a serious, exegetical article, but too much philology can be excessive. There's a bad habit out there of confusing terms with concepts, and therefore of wrongly thinking that one traces changes in and development of concepts by marking differences in word usage. ... But if it will prevent edit warring, I'm willing to live with verbatim translation of the whole.

Turning to English, has "progress" really become a transitive verb over there? Oy.

andrew-the-k 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan: Taking Proposal 2 first, I also think that the idea of including elements of the German article in the ME article has merit. I agree with Andrew that this is likely the best article name for this. I say "elements" because I do not think that material written in the German scholarly tradition would be ideally suited to a general encyclopedia article. However, the organization of the German article does look sound. Can we precis some of the German article, which I suspect is very long? BTW, when I looked for an article entitled "Marxistischen Wirtschaftsoekonomie" on the German Wikipedia nothing came up. Did I misspell it or what?

We must bear in mind that Wikipedia articles should be no more than 30 kb to be accessible to readers. That suggests sub-pages. However, many sub-pages are articles in their own right, which brings me to your first proposal. I think that the Italian article would be a good article and we could also take a look at the Labor theory of value article, which is more general. The latter article would need some adjusting if we did this.

Andrew raises an interesting point about POV forks. I would like to think about that a bit to see whether it might modify my thinking. I think we should discuss all this on the ME talk page. Sunray 07:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

German translations and sundry matters

The German article is at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxistische_Wirtschaftstheorie

I guess the Oekonomie was too much.

Andrew-the-k's comment illustrates the problems with German translation. All in all I think the right procedure is to farm this out to a babels translation, in order to concentrate expert opinion on it.

As regards the Italian translation I am happy to do this myself. I haven't had any response to various feelers I have made about translators and I am happier with my own competence as regards obscure terms in Italian than in German.

Anyhow, we can always tell the Italians and they can come in and correct it.

I think the Italian page will come out to less than 30Kb but if not can break into sub-pages.

I agree to look at the Labour Theory of Value article. Give me time.

Where is this discussion taking place now? Should I decamp to the ME talk page? I will look in there.

Regarding the verbing or perhaps verbisation of progress, I always assumed that all linguistic innovation emanates from the ex-colonies. There is however a saying whose origin I know not, 'There's no verb you can't noun'.

The colonisers (with whom I refuse to identify) do have some kind of authority from Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra with 'But me no buts'. But this but is a conjunction. And not to be confused with Butts. Or, for that matter, Buttes.

PS apropos of nothing I have come across the following claim "liking for classical music is negatively correlated with all other musical genres except ... heavy metal" (Bennett, Savage, Silva, Warde, Gayo-Cal and Wright (2005), 'Cultural capital and the cultural field in Contemporary Britain') CRESC working paper series, No 7.

There must be a lesson in this somewhere. XAX

Alan XAX Freeman 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Coast Salish

I see you clarified that the Tillamook aren't actually part of the Coast Salish. Could you check Coast Salish languages and Salishan languages as well, because they make similar claims. I'd like to make sure the connection (or not) to Oregon is made clear. Thanks! Latr, Katr 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Change of publisher

I have undone the change you made regarding the publisher of The Trial Louis Riel. Tellwell publishing is no longer the publisher of the book. The current publisher is now FabJob Inc. of Calgary, AB.

RCAF Marville

Hi Sunray,

Thanks for adding more detail to the Marville page. I made a few changes to your edits - hope you didn't mind. You're right about Operation Leapfrog. At the time, that was indeed the name of the operation.

BTW re: the proper designation for the Sabre, there has been lots of discussion on the Canadair Sabre page (see the discussion on Talk:Canadair Sabre). One entry mentions that Canadair Sabre is the "most common usage of the aircraft designation.... The Air Force History and Heritage Department, 1 CAD do not use this designation nor does the Canada Aviation Museum. I do not know where it originated and in checking with Larry Milberry's The Canadair Sabre (1986), the designation: CF-86 never appears during the service career of the aircraft." Having lived on RCAF Stations for a good part of my life, including living with Sabres at 2 Wing for several years, the designation CF-86 was never used - we always referred to the airplane as a Sabre, F-86, or F-86 Sabre. Not that it's a big deal. Cheers!--BC 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Again,

Just saw your adjustments to the Marville page. I am confused with the sequence of events related to the squadrons getting to England since some of your information differs from the information that I have. My sources say this:

• Oct '51 - 410 squadron personnel sailed from Halifax to Glasgow (don't know which ship they were on).
• Nov '51 - 410 Sabres were carried on the Maggie along with 441 Squadron's Sabres
• Feb '52 - 441 Squadron crew and groundcrew sailed aboard the Empress of France to England
• May 30 - June 15 '52 - 439 Squadron Sabres/crew departed Uplands and were airborne-ferried across the Atlantic via Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, Scotland and then on to North Luffenham in Operation Leapfrog. This was the first airborne ferry for Air Divsion aircraft.

There should probably be mention of 441 Squadron in the paragraph (right now there is no mention of the squadron) and it mentions that 439 was both carried across on the Maggie as well as being air-ferried across the Atlantic. I was wondering if you could check your sources and check the above information for accuracy; there could very well be errors in my sources. Once we have the detail and agree with the sequence of events, perhaps between us we can fix up the paragraph so that 441 Squadron is mentioned and clear up any confusion about how 439 Squadron got to North Luffenham.

One other thing: the term "ferrying" as far as military aircraft is concerned generally refers to transporting aircraft by actually flying them rather than transporting aircraft or personnel on a ship. Often called "airborne ferries", aircraft were flown long distances in stages (such as the Leapfrog operations). There was even a Ferry Command in the RAF whose job was to fly aircraft in stages across the Atlantic during WWII.--BC 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My review of the history squares exactly with yours. The confusion was due to a misprint by me. I had inadvertently switched 439 with 441 Squadron in the account of 441's travel across the Atlantic. I've now fixed that.

With respect to "ferrying," I agree that ferrying can refer to flying aircraft. It can also mean attaching them by their wing-tips [1]. However, I believe that it is quite common to speak of aircraft being "ferried" by aircraft carrier. Try the following Google search: "'ferrying aircraft' aircraft carrier." I always heard the move of 410 and 441 Squadrons described that way. Here's a source that refers to 441 Squadron's aircraft as being "ferried."[2].Sunray 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I should have looked up more definitions. Consider my wrists duly slapped. All the best.--BC 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw bale construction

Thanks for your support Sunray.... I've added a comment to the article's discussion. The map now has more straw bale buildings in the US and Canada and will have more as time goes by. Regards, Oliver naturalhomes 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very tentatively may I say... a good edit. At some point in the future the map will be split in to regions and building techniques in which case I'll start a discussion to update the map link. I dare not do it myself. Regards, Oliver naturalhomes 01:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the discussion we had, and your reasoned edits, have not met the grade since the naturalhomes.org link has been removed again. I'd be happy to take advice on how to discuss the issue with other contributors. I don't want to make any more mistakes. naturalhomes 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just learning: SustainAbility deletion

Hi Sunray, just spotted your tag for speedy deletion of the SustainAbility (the company) stub I had created. entry got since deleted.

I assume my link from the sustainability (noun) page that got you irked. tried to respect NPOV, and voluntarily created a stub so that others could contribute. let me know if you have suggestions, as I believe the company has its place on Wikipedia (NOT as advertising, but to show its contribution to the field). I pulled the little info from verifiable sources, yet shouldve been more carefull.

I am in conflict of interest, as I work at SustainAbility. but did this on my own time, with no instructions to do so.

Looking forward to reply. JP

Practice and Practise

Thanks for catching that... after researching it a bit, that usage seems to fit the noun spelling rather than the verb. Tricky. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI (Re:your 3RR report)

Hello Sunray...Just to let you know...I just checked the list of Admins/Sysops and Hu12 (talk · contribs) is a sysop...so try to get him blocked would be kinda fruitless...because he can simply unblock himself...but don't let that be an obsticle...if you find that his actions continue to be a problem, you should try a dispute resolution such as mediation or arbitration. Anyways, happy editing. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 09:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nat. However, blocking is not the only action that can be taken for someone who violates the 3RR. Sunray 18:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

merge

Thanks for taking care of that finally. I had completely forgotten. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strawbale Construction

Hello Sunray,

I suppose I can't contribute to the poll but maybe I can point out that the editor Burlywood reviewed the external links on the 23 May 2007 and reduced the links from 21 to 16. Burlywood did another review on 5 June 2007 reducing the then 17 links to 9. On both occasions Burlywood kept the link to the Naturalhomes Map. Presumably he would support the poll. Naturalhomes 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Sunray, guess who's back? andrew-the-k 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hippies

Hippies were against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The U.S was never at war with Vietnam. vietnam was at war with vietnam.

Hippies used illegal drugs.

Hippies were against many of the U.S. government's ideas.

Some Hippies were violent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.249.99 (talk • contribs) 12:08 August 6, 2007

I appreciate your attempt to discuss this. Nevertheless, your edits of the article amount to vandalism. The place to discuss the article is on its talk page. However, here are my responses to the points you've raised:

1. Yes, that is why it is referred to in the article as the "Vietnam War."
2. Hippies used many kinds of drugs, legal and illegal. The whole point was opposition to the drug policies of the day.
3. Hippies were against many of the established institutions of the day. As long as the government pursued military adventures in Vietnam, it was one of those institutions.
4. No doubt. However, the ethic was one of peace. Sunray 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If hippies were against the U.S. Government shouldn't that be stated on the page. If some hippies were violent shouldn't that also appear in the page. If the hippies protested The U.S. government's involvement in Vietnam shouldn't it be called the Vietnam Conflict since war was never declared by the U.S. government. If hippies used illegal and legal drugs shouldn't it be stated

While many hippies made a long-term commitment to the lifestyle, some younger people argue that hippies "sold out" during the 1980s and became part of the materialist, consumer culture. This statement makes it seem as if the U.S. lifestyle is bad and hippies shouldn't be like most other Americans.It seems like POV.

What is the article about? It isn't about U.S. lifestyle, U.S. government, or how most Americans live (there are articles for all these subjects). The article is about hippies and what they were all about. To insert a defense of the American government into the article is to insert a point of view. Sunray 05:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensus decision-making

Hello Sunray, I have reverted both your blanking/prod-ing of the AfD discussion and the removal of the AfD template. The prod-ed discussion page was causing havoc with the AfD log and I don't think that it was the proper way to contest or remove a nomination, anyway. Cheers —Travis^talk 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Conversation continues with replies on my talk page. —Travis^talk 12:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar, Sunray! It's my first one. Some of the policies around here are a bit, umm, complicated, and I can understand the confusion. As you apparently surmise, removal of a tag applies only to {{prod}} tags. I'm still hoping to get an expert opinion about this particular case case. It's pretty clear, however, that the nomination will fail.

Anyway, thanks again! —Travis^talk 21:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Power and PHEVs

I thought about your undoing of the comment regarding nuclear power, and I decided to undo your undo. A discussion about alternatives to fossil fuel must include the possibility of nuclear power if it is to be complete. I certainly do not like the nuclear option. I fear it tremendously, but to ignore it would be negligent. I want to examine it closely so I can help persuade people that it is not the right choice.Fbagatelleblack 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

David Laibman article

Dear "Sunray,"

May I try to clarify my position on the "David Laibman" entry?

I have read the talk page there, which now includes my own statement, posting for me by a colleague (only due to my own lack of Wiki-expertise!)

All of the debate about the "accuracy" of statements about me, or by me, or quotations from works by me, *misses the point.* I will not enter into this debate in a stub biography about -- me! If someone googles "David Laibman," the first item that appears is the Wiklpedia article. No one has a right to "edit" that article to feature their own work, and I regard my debates/discussions with Kliman et at as a very small part of my own work. Suppose you had written a dissertation on a topic, x; how would you like it if someone inserted the word "so-called" before "x"?

A stub biography of a living person should be a bare-bones statement: who the person is, what s/he has done, published, etc., and how the person can be contacted. (The last is what I am usually looking for, and it is often the hardest thing to find.) Kliman et al have the right to present and develop their own point of view, including their responses to my critiques, in their own articles and books. They have *no right* to impose that on *my* biographical entry in Wikipedia. For this reason, I will not respond to the substance of their comments on the talk page for that article. (Believe me, in an appropriate venue I would have plenty to say.)

I inserted a paragraph into their article "The Temporal Single-system Interpretation," which is currently (apparently) under dispute. While I think the content of that paragraph is entirely defensible, and represents a strong -- and accurate! -- critique of TSSI (unlike the minor disputes they themselves present under this heading), I will gladly drop it and forego any further attempts to get it approved -- IF they are barred from editing my biography.

I would greatly appreciate your help in resolving this. As I am (still) quite unsure about Wiki communications, and might not see talk-page entries etc., it would be helpful to me if you could contact me by email.

Many thanks, David

David Laibman dlaibman@scienceandsociety.com

David:

Thank you for your clearly-stated concerns about the biographical article on you. It is important that a biography of a living person accurately and fairly reflects their life and work. Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons is very clear:

Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

You mention the fact that the article is currently a stub. As you will note from the stub tag at the bottom, there is a request automatically added to all stubs asking editors to "help Wikipedia by expanding [them]." Let's assume that the editors who added to the article on you intended to fairly represent your views on TSSI. However, you have objected to the undue weight given to this. I think that it is important to consider your comments carefully. However, please note that Wikipedia does not support the writing of autobiographies. We cannot bar anyone from editing any Wikipedia article, without cause. Nevertheless, anyone can state their concerns about an article on its talk page (as you have done).

The ideal situation would be to fix the TSSI article to accurately reflect all major viewpoints on the subject. Since you have published on the subject, there would logically be some mention of that in your bio. However, it would make sense to me that there be a link to the TSSI article for the main discussion of your writings. I don't think that your addition to the TSSI page is "under dispute." I removed it to the talk page to sort out the references and vet it for a neutral style. However, another editor has expressed concerns about the page, and this may complicate things (hopefully not). In any case, I am optimistic that with good will, we will able to sort out these matters quite soon. Sunray

Added comments to GB

Added rating comments to GB talkpage. The rating I give it is actually on the borderline (Weak start/ high stub), just to clarify. Hydrogen Iodide 01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Main page request

Hey. No, I have not made the request. As I said on Talk:Canada, WP:TFA/R says "Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests in this section at any time. Members of the community may comment on pending dates requests; those without significant support will be removed." Hell yes I want to pursue this, we can do it easy. I like your idea of bringing it up at WikiProject Canada too.
Tell you what: all we have to do really is perfect that paragraph that will be displayed on the main page. I will make it as a subpage at Talk:Canada/Main page, and any editors will be able to come along and tweak it, or discuss changes. -- Reaper X 05:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moral panic

Your edit to this article read "Undid cat change: Not a component of crowd psychology. On the other hand, it is a subset of morality" -- but the actual edit you made to the article changed a See also link and didn't change the categories at all, as was implied in your edit comments. Did you do what you intended to do? DreamGuy 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada-article lead

I'm having another go at a one-thing-at-a-time approach to editing the lead, beginning with whether or not the first paragraph should be exclusively geographic. Please look over how I've shown the views given so far, at the talkpage and ensure that yours is accurately shown by my treatment. Thanks. The goal, of course, is a definite result to build upon.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to resolve the dispute or do you just want to edit war?

I have explained objections to the TSSI article - time and again. I have given rationale for the tags - time and again. We can only begin to make progress when we consider the content of article - sentence-by-sentence. I propose beginning with the first paragraph. If you want to see the dispute resolved, this is a workable procedure which should move us towards that end. However, if you just want to edit war, then there's nothing I can do (short of surrentder - something I will not do) which can stop you. Watchdog07 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't regard it as edit warring to request that an editor (in this case you) observe basic norms of consensus for an article that has been contested. Sometimes reverts are the only way to get someone's attention. I am pleased that you have since agreed to discuss changes on the talk page. Sunray 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

David Suzuki entry

Sunray,

thank you for your clear, well-written edits to the David Suzuki profile.

We have been making some small edits to the page, but have decided to steer clear of any charged topics because we'd rather it not blow up in our faces!

-- Elijah van der Giessen Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator David Suzuki Foundation 604-732-4228 x 228 or 1-800-453-1533 x 228

Join the Suzuki Nation and take the Nature Challenge http://www.davidsuzuki.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzukination (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tecumseh

The Tecumseh article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

David Suzuki discussion

Your edit removing the "List of donations" section from the David Suzuki article to the talk page was reverted without comment (and then removed by myself and reverted, once again... this time with an edit summary). I've removed the section for a second time and have encouraged the user in question to discuss. At this point, I'm fairly neutral as to whether or not the section should stay as is... and so may not participate. Victoriagirl 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Obscurantism

I am very sorry that I read the following link today, it has been about 2 months since you asked me, as I am not that familiar with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cosfly&redirect=no

I am also sorry again that I do not have the source. The contents I added are not what I myself wrote. They were maybe something that some another person deleted but that I thought they were worth mentioning, or maybe something I copied and mixed from other articles in Wikipeida.

I am sorry again I was late and I could not help.Cosfly 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ok?

Why is it ok for you to remove warning tags from your talk page, and not ok for me? GreenJoe 02:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it seemed to me that you were using those tags as an attack. Why would someone remind a user who has been editing Wikipedia for three years plus about the 3RR? The only explanations I can come up with are that the person placing the warnings either doesn't know what he is doing or he is engaging in a personal attack. I chose to see it as the latter. But maybe I was wrong... Sunray 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. GreenJoe 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, your edit summaries should be accurate. If you wish to archive, fine, go ahead. Sunray 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the archives either, but as I pointed out to GreenJoe, it's up to each editor if they want to delete comments from their talk page. Probably best if we focus our energies on improving the article. --NeilN 02:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, constructive comments on a User talk page should be retained (archived rather than blanked). They are a record that is useful to other editors. If I thought that GreenJoe had learned something, I would be a lot more comfortable letting it go. However, in light of his civil request, I will defer to your judgement. Perhaps he will learn from this. Sunray 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule report

The removal of warnings from a user talk page is controversial but not prohibited; it is not something to get involved in edit wars over. Please be aware that a user may revert in their own user space as often as they want (that is, it is a specific exception from the three revert rule), so long as it is not disruptive. However, given the discussion under the report which indicates that the conflict is over, I'm going to close the report. It may be better, instead of reverting, to ask that an editor if they will acknowledge the concern. Sam Blacketer 10:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Concordia

My thanks for you kind words. I was pleased to comment. Although I very much believe in the asumption of good faith, I felt very strongly that you were being baited (and you were not alone). It was unfortunate that things escalated, but I can certainly understand the frustration and irritation. Cheers, Victoriagirl 19:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted link on Talk:Green building

I stripped the blacklisted link and edits can now be saved, but I do not know if it was the right version I saved, so please take a look at it. Thanks. --Jorunn 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC David Suzuki Foundation

It seems that Request for comment failed. Would you sigh a Request for mediation for David Suzuki Foundation page or you would like to try some other method of conflict resolution first? Vryadly 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any way that a request for comment can "fail." Two editors have stated their case on the talk page. It is my belief that you need to respect that. There is no conflict, here, IMO just a refusal to abide by Wikipedia policies. Sunray 05:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar award

Sunray, a belated thank you for the Barnstar award. The head swells. Victoriagirl 15:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)