User talk:Sunray/Archive24

Help

Hello Sunray, I hope you had pleasent hollydays and I wish you all the best for this new year. Not wanting to make you loose more time, I need your help. See, edit war: [1]. If this is not vandalism and total ignorance of all agreed on the mediation, I don´t know what it is then. FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, I do not understand your actions in this matter. In the edit war you refer to, you restored the edits of a blocked account. I do not understand why you would do this. Please explain. Sunray (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgetting for the moment the fact that the Yugoslav Front article is not the subject of the mediation, or that this is obvious WP:CANVASSING, please note:

• User:FkpCascais has arrived on the Yugoslav Front article a few minutes ago and started WP:EDIT-WARRING to restore utter-nonsense edits pushed yesterday by a blocked Serbian sock account, User:Слободни умјетник (note their first-time introduction [2]). Fkp, of course, has no idea what he's doing, and thinks he's preventing my edits...
• The edits are indeed utter nonsense: they have nothing to do with the subject of the article and are typical sock vandalism, with a sprinkling of Serbian nationalism. They are essentially the merging of the Yugoslav Front article with the Invasion of Yugoslavia article, of the nonsense sock variety. Most importantly: they are contrary to some half-a-dozen sources.

Fkp's been 1) edit-warring to restore yesterday's edits from a blocked sock, 2) removing and altering very well sourced info without ANY discussion, 3) bothering you :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Fkp to explain his actions. Please note that I don't regard it as canvassing, nor a bother. Because it the interaction is between two participants in the mediation, it is in-bounds for him to refer to it here. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that he did that. Sunray (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit was donne, yes, by a blocked user, and the user is not anyones sock, just another unexperienced user that is simply incredule by seing the Chetniks and Mihailovic not listed in the Allied section. The removal by direktor of the Chetniks and Mihailovic from the Allied section of the infobox, the wrong naming of the lede "other languages" section ("Yugoslav Front" obviously doesn´t translate in all refered languages to "People´s Liberation Front"),, and the inter-wiki links, were all wrong. The interwiki links for exemple were purpously linking to the article direktor wants to move to, and the other user just corrected some of them. Can you please see the edit by itself and not give all the enphasys to the false and abusing acusations of "Serb... nationalism, sock´s", and all other sort of direktpors abusing distractions? FkpCascais (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. i am willing to look into the points you raise on one condition. The condition is that you take responsibility for your own actions. To get a successful result in the mediation each participant will need to take responsibility for his or her own actions. So this is a chance for you to demonstrate your ability to do that.

The inexperienced user apparently did not understand that major changes to an article (such as his changes to the lead section) need to be discussed with other editors. My question to you is how could you have intervened to improve the situation rather than edit warring? In your response, would you be able to address only your own actions, rather than those of other editors?

Yes of course, but obviously other users should also refrain from purpously editing articles in a certain way, despite knowing evidence. Also, I can´t really understand how can the other user isn´t warned about all that has been doing, and he can even ignore a question that you made to him regarding this issue (on the mediation page I had exposed to you this problem, and you asked direktor about it, and he ignored it). FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For instance, direktor insistance, editing and reverting when corrected of Mihailovic and Chetniks from the "Axis" section infoboxes it would be the same as if I suddently started denying any mentioning of collaboration. It would be exactly the same, but I am the one here being respectfull and not making any edits on those disputed areas, while direktor doesn´t show any consideration at all, and edits as radically as ever! FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to how you might have intervened without edit warring and I very specifically asked you avoid speaking about the actions of other editors. Sunray (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was/is ongoing in the articles talk page. (Was that your point?) FkpCascais (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is to get you to begin thinking about what you can do to improve the situation. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don´t turn this to me, direktor is edit-warring all users in that article for months. You seem compromised... FkpCascais (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it takes more than one to edit war. Secondly, if editors are not willing to take responsibility for their own behaviour, there can be little progress in mediation. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As to being compromised: Hardly. Please recall our conversation on a subpage recently. I will summarize: On talk pages other than the mediation page, I normally speak to one participant at a time. Right now I am speaking to you. When I speak to another participant, I will address them specifically. I try to make observations that may be helpful to resolving conflicts. Sunray (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well this one it isn´t helpfull, and we have already advanced way beyond that. Your pseudo "pedagogical" attitude would be usefull towards some new users, but both me and direktor are quite years long experienced editors. Yes, I tryied to restore a version that is more correct that the one that actually only one user insists in forcebly keeping in the article for months (yes, I can discuss point by point why is "more correct", want me?). And I was the one that in the middle of the process asked for help and a 3th party (your) assistance. And you were surprised??? Who are you? An underwear hello kitty specialised editor, so you were surprised, or the mediator of a very related mediation porocess in which we are all participating? You think I don´t read in between lines? And by the way, you asked direktor a question related to a complain of mine and you were ignored (and this was all you donne regarding a "compromnising attitude" complain that I made towards you, so if I recall a conversation on a subpage should I be convinced? Hardly.). If you really beleave in the things you are saying to me, you should know what to do. I will do things in my best interess depending on that. FkpCascais (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You say that you are a long-experienced editor; yet you seem unclear about basic behavioural policies. Your comment, using the term "psuedo psychological," is uncivil and unwelcome. You are right that I know what to do--that is, I know mediation. However, unless you are willing to discuss things in an open and civil manner, there is little that I can do to assist. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudo pedagogical", not "pseudo psychological"... FkpCascais (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now who's being "pseudo-pedagogical"? Sunray' attitude has been nothing short of textbook RfM. You should probably apologize rather than go on abrasively "correcting" the good fellow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: I have no clue what direktor said)Honestly, I think you are too proud, and you never want to admit you could have done better. For instance, other users ended up correcting the article in question exactly the way I was doing it (please see by yourself), but perhaps because it is me, direktor had the right to freely edit-war me reinserting the wrong information. In the process I asked you for help, but, again, got none from you. Sorry to tell you, but it becomes painfull to deal with you when you constantly give the impression of being something like a psychiatrist that limits himself to make questions, but never really solves anything. I´m sorry to tell you this, and I didn´t intended to be uncivil, but you really give me no choice because all complains I made to you were unsolved and I allways end up hurt in the process. And I allways end up assuming good-faith and give you another chance... You do have power of decition as mediator, you know? Anyway, we are way beyond this now, and the discussion there may have plenty of interess for the mediation process. FkpCascais (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for consistency of rough consensus with Quaker-style consensus

One of your edits from May, 2006 seems to have introduced a claim that:

   Rough consensus is consistent with other models of consensus, 
   such as Quaker-based consensus.

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding appropriate sources for this claim. Can you help?

Thanks,

--Michael Stone (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mihailovic mediation

Hello Sunray. It looks that the mediation was cooled down completely. However, one side of the dispute has its version forcefully protected in the article for more than a year by now (actually, with ediut-warring, more than 2 years). This entire process begin in fact as edit war regarding the lede, as most important. Later came the other changes in the text. I mean, we started disagreing about one word, then a few more, and we ended changing the entire text. Could we facilitate things and return to the first issue, the lede. I was trying to help over an article about Ante Pavelić becoming a good article, and the case could be observed in comparison for Mihailovic one. I mean, Pavelic was the head of state of a brutal fascist regime, however the lede in his article sounds quite good without having any acusational tone in it. We had also agreed in the mediation that having a simplicist lede "D.Mihailovic, a WWII collaborator" is POV. Can´t we fix that at least? I mean, that is where all started, because I was not avaliable to analise the entire text, but I was sure about this (the lede) and that is how it strated. Enlarging the entire issue from the lede to the entire text is really favouring one side and making this issue to never be solved. FkpCascais (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me and for expressing your concerns. I would very much like to complete the mediation and have some thoughts about how we could do that. It seems important to make it simple, fast and effective. I will add something to the talk page within the next few days. Meanwhile if you or other participants have any more thoughts, please let me know. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. FkpCascais (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Allergies

Hi Sunray,

I do not understand why the link to sneezywheezy.com has been removed when it does not contravene any aspect of the following:

What can normally be linked Shortcut: WP:ELYES Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

I would appreciate an explanation.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentanandraj (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable external links "include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." The topic is allergies. The site you linked to does not provide research. It is a blog. Blogs are not permitted (see WP:ELNO #11). Sunray (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

2002 French presidential election as an example of abstention

I'm looking into Abstention for a project I'm working on and the lead example in the article is of the 2002 French presidential election. Looking into the numbers I'm not sure why it's a good example. In the first round of voting there was a 71.6% turnout and in the runoff there was a 79.71% turnout. The abstention article talks about 25% of people abstaining or spoiling their ballot which doesn't seem like a much of a movement when French elections regularly get between 70 and 80% turnout. Iacchus (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information available on abstention. The French example is interesting in that the left was advising people to generate a "white vote," i.e., spoiling of ballots. The number of spoilt ballots was over 5% which is, I believe, quite high. Statistics I've seen show less than 1% spoilt ballots as the norm, unless there is some malfunction in the voting process, such as the "hanging chad" fiasco in the U.S. presidential election in 2000. Here's some stats from the UK

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=20100

In Canada, I believe I heard that there were roughly 95,000 spoilt ballots in the last federal election, which would be considerably less than 1%. But, of course, it is illegal to intentionally spoil your ballot in Canada:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20060121/eating_ballot_060122/

So if you are asking whether I think the French example in the WP article is a good one, I would say yes. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Good luck with your project. Sunray (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mihailoviv mediation

Hi. I understand you are the lucky mediator on this article. You are probably aware that I have topic banned DIREKTOR for one month on all yugoslav/balkan articles, broadly construed. I must admit I didn't think about your mediation. I wouldn't want it to become invalid through the non-participation of one party. If this is a problem, please let me know.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Sunray

I would sincerely like to give the mediation one last go, as it were. As I explain on the mediation talkpage, I will not be able to participate fully, however, until after my exams (some three or four weeks). By then, I would like to get some preliminary work done. That said, I do consider these initial steps (i.e. affirmation of a number of sources) as absolutely crucial to any source-based dispute resolution in the future. If a source of that calibre can be simply "rejected" for no good reason, then what can anyone do? I would appreciate it if you read the new thread on the mediation talkpage and posted your opinion on the reliability of the source in question, with regard to the peer reviews and Wikipedia policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on your involvement in the mediation. I had understood from our previous discussion on your talk page that you were not supportive of the mediation. You made a further statement that you "have no intention at all of abiding by any conclusions drawn in the RfMY." I was unhappy about that statement because I value the time that I and others have put into this mediation and I would hope that the effort has been worthwhile.

You've since talked to Faintes in the context of whether a topic ban would affect your participation in the mediation. My understanding was that you still had a concern about participating. You said: "I will only participate in debating Draža Mihailović's (and the Chetniks') collaboration..." I think that we have discussed that at length and I told participants that I saw a lot of common ground. I've always said that sources are the key. I think we need a focused discussion on what to include.

If you plan to return to the mediation, I would like you to sign the Groundrules on the Mediation talk page. We should be rolling by the time you are finished your exams. Sunray (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Moved DIREKTOR'S further comments re: WP:UNDUE and my responses here. Sunray (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

????

may I intervene in mediation about Mihajlovic? On which page of project? Regards,--Tiblocco (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record I oppose the inclusion of any further users, with poor English skills, most probably canvassed from srWiki by User:FkpCascais. The end result has always been a long, tedious discussion that serves only to debunk ingrained preconceptions, bring the inherently biased users up to speed, and dispose of unacceptable "sources". Lets get this over with, further participants are completely unecessary. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: I understood that you were not participating in the mediation at present. Can you clarify this? Sunray (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, now this is out of limit! Where did you get the idea of me being involved in this? This was the silliest attack I had seen lately. It is quite easy to see that Tiblocco is not Serbian and probably never even visited sr.wiki. He asked me about this, and I answered him. It is not my fault he oposes your POV. Your observations on this are provocative, and you are demanding/oposing too much in my view after your behaviour. If this is your way of asking to return, it is quite disapointing. FkpCascais (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@Fkp: Statements such as: "Your observations on this are provocative..." are personal remarks. As we continue the mediation, will you be working at not making such statements? Sunray (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

personal attack against FkpCascais is childish very much! Obvious I am Italian.--Tiblocco (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sunray, I supose Tiblocco noteced the unfair remark Direktor made about us first. Our responces were basically reactions to provocation. I think we both understood that it seems unnecessary to respond (athough not responding may leave a wrong impression), but the origin of the problem should also be adressed, because nothing of this wouln´t happend if direktor didn´t made the unfair comment in first place. He can opose, he can do whatever, but he can´t acuse me of canvassing (?) and Tiblocco of being "Serbian biased user" (??) and expect to not have an adequat answer on that. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, DIREKTOR'S comment about "poor English skills" was also out of bounds. As to the remark about canvassing, I agree that it was provocative if you weren't canvassing. DIREKTOR is topic banned and he will need to modify his behaviour if he is coming back to the mediation. I think that you should keep in mind that what DIREKTOR does is not justification for you breaking the groundrules that you have agreed to. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. FkpCascais (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Tiblocco: You ask if you might intervene in the mediation about Mihailovic. What did you have in mind? How would you see yourself being involved? Sunray (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I do not see personal attacks (or any personalized comments) as useful in talk page discussions, and especially not in mediation. Calling another editor "childish" is not helpful. If you continue the discussion here, I hope you will refrain from that. Sunray (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

allergies

Hi Sunray,

Thanks for your explanation.

The blog actually contains Q & A with top pediatricians from Singapore and is more relevant than research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentanandraj (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take another look at it. If we decide to use it, there should be justification on the article talk page. Editorial decisions are made by a consensus of editors. Sunray (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

About mediation

Hello Sunray. I just wanted you to know that I certainly never made any canvassing anywhere about this issue. First, canvassing is something I have never done on wp on any issue, and secondly, because I obviously know I would be reported inmediately. The only thing I did was to inform Swift and Cлoбoдни Умjeтник about the restart of the mediation, hoping they will return. Now, direktor seems to want to wrongly present that as canvassing.

Regarding Tibloco, I met him when he edited Mihailovic article recently, and I contacted him at his talk page explaining him that the page was under mediation. You can see his talk page. I don´t opose neither support his inclusion because I don´t know what he pretends, and because it is not up to me to judge that.

Thank you for the explanation.

Now, and most important SUnray, I know we had our divergences in past, but I hope you know that I am able to admit my mistakes and change and addapt my behavior when necessary. Also, I really hope you noteced that all my remarcs you critisized in past were allways preceded by a similar comment from the other party, it is not an excuse, I know, but it is a constatation. I hope you know that I am able to try to have a perfectly normal debate with people oposing me, and I really don´t mind so much loosing, but I do mind about the way the process will develop.

Yes, you have been responsive. I think it would be helpful for you to remember that I am not an arbiter who divides everything in half. As a mediator, I respond how and when I think it will be useful for the mediation.

I am saying this mostly because I must complain on direktor. After his defiant attitude regarding not wanting to participate, I noteced that all his comments from then on included provocations and attacks. Instead of direktor behaving in oposite way and entering this time in the mediation with the acertive attitude, unfortunately that is not what happend. I´m not sure if the reason for that is panic of not knowing where he stands, or what, but it becomes extremely hard to discuss in this environment. And notece that the debate hasn´t even begun! I know you allways somehow demanded a bit more contention from me than him, but lately that situation has been quite painfull for me. And the worste thing of all is that he did all this completely unnecessarily. The discussion didn´t even started, I didn´t said anything yet and we were even starting to create the perfect (at least the best possible) environment so this mediation comes to an conclusion. Since it is his version protected by now, I even dare to think if this is not some intentional sabotaging of the mediation, or some way of making pressure for his POV to be accepted by force, but I must say that he created an enormous amount of completely unecessary problems in just few days without even anything strating yet, so I think he shot his own feet totaly unecessarily. Also, and I find this very important, direktor said to me in his talk page that he´ll somehow refuse to accept the decitions of the mediation in case "his version" is not accepted. I asked him about a serios compromise on this and the final result, and that was his answer. I find this all very disturbing and unhealty. FkpCascais (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the complaint department. I have made two requests of DIREKTOR: The first was that he consider a facilitated discussion with you (which he declined). The second was concerning his further participation in the mediation. I am awaiting his response to that. I would prefer not to discuss these comments by you unless he responds positively to one of my requests. Sunray (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean. Thank you for your response. FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)