User talk:Sunray/Archive02

The I Ching & Dark Shadows

I noticed your correction to my addition to I Ching, & have no doubt that the I was/is used in meditation. However, I wonder if you've seen the episodes of Dark Shadows, wherein the characters used it to travel thru dimensions & alternate realities. (It's been a while since I've seen the episodes in question, so I apologize for my vagueness here.) From what I've read of the I Ching & its place in Chinese culture/philosophy, the use from that Soap Opera is not accurate, & that was the point of my original addition. Would you agree to that? -- llywrch 19:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The I Ching isn't called the Classic of Changes for nothing. My understanding of the divination process is that when you cast a hexagram, if you get old yin and old yang lines, they change and give you a second hexagram--a second reading. The second hexagram represents a change. Thus you are looking at a future situation. That is why the I Ching is considered an oracle. While the Dark Shadows premise is far fetched, I Ching readings are somewhat consistent with time travel--at least on an imaginative level. Sunray 22:52, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Soc Dem/Dem Soc

Sunny: a little bit of background for you. Our boy Michaelm got into an edit war with User:Kurieeto over applying "dem soc" to the NDP. Mike didn't seem to like to think of the NDP as being socialist. Kurieeto and I showered him with references showing that the NDP has called itself dem soc, as well as soc dem, in the past. I expect that the record of this is on the Talk:New Democratic Party page. Having convinced him of this, Mike set off like the Energizer Editor to change every reference from "soc dem" to "soc dem/dem soc" as if the two terms were interchangeable. I haven't done anything about this (although others have, esp. with regard to the Bloc, PQ, UFP) for two reasons: (1) I hate beating up on Mike so much, even though he is wrong 90% of the time, and (2) because I'm not sure that the two terms aren't interchangeable. It may be that there is no real difference, and that they use whatever is more suitable for the times. But, on the other hand, to the extenet that there is a difference, it is not incorrect to use both, and having stopped him from deleting "dem soc in the NDP article, I am troubled that now people are telling him not to use both. Kevintoronto 15:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that you're engaging Michaelm in conversation about this instead of just making the changes. I think that that will prevent a lot of trouble and hurt feelings. You keep up the good work, too. Kevintoronto 19:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino

Hi Gbambino is new and therefore not familiar with Wikiquette. And, thankfully, he has now found the talk pages. I hope this is a case of Don't Bite the Newcomers, and, who knows, he may become a useful contributor in due course. Could I ask you to treat him with kid gloves on the talk pages - by all means disagree with him - but also guide him on Wikiquette too? All the best and many thanks, jguk 22:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think, in retrospect, that the approach of several editors worked fairly well. Because of his strong POV and tendancy to ignore, or revert, other editors, we had to take some fairly strong measures ("first you have to get their attention"), however, everyone was civil and it worked out rather well, I thought. Sunray 20:09, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Relaunching CCOTW

I am trying to organize a relaunch of CCOTW and would appreciate your support at wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/CCOTW/Collaborators Circeus 15:41, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development

Have you added this project page to your watchlist? That is the first step. Thanks for your interest and help. Tom Haws 05:15, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Moon landing

Per your request, I have deleted the redirect that was at Moon landing, making way for the article split. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 03:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent article. You did a good job of splitting the information off. One question -- toward the end, where it speaks of Armstrongs words upon "first touching the moon's surface," what do you think about changing the word "touching" to "stepping onto" to avoid the common misperception that those were the first words transmitted from the moon? SWAdair | Talk 06:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, it is just a nit-picky matter of semantics. The first words transmitted from the moon were spoken upon landing, when the lunar module touched down. They went through their landing checklist, much like any airplane pilot today goes through a checklist. The very first words transmitted from the moon were spoken by Buzz Aldrin -- "Contact light." After the short checklist, Armstrong reported "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." There are several versions on the internet, varying in small details. As far as I can tell, one of the more accurate versions can be found here. SWAdair | Talk 07:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development

Could I get you to chime in on the poll here? I appreciate it. It represents a sticky ongoing question. Tom Haws 06:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Consistency

The MOS requires consistency - and when I see a mish-mash of styles, as a copyediting WP, I tend to change them over into a uniform style. You will note that in each instance where you have reverted me, there already was an established mish-mash style. Where there is one generally understood term, and one not generally understood term, to choose between, it makes sense to think of the reader and choose the generally understood term. After all, the writers of the articles already know the fact, the important thing is that it is conveyed clearly and succinctly to the reader. (Incidentally, this is an important point generally - it is much more difficult to write an article that can be understood by someone unfamiliar with a topic than it is to write one that will be understood by someone familiar with it. The former is, however, much more rewarding.)

Incidentally, copyediting to the generally understood term and more generally used term means that the article is less likely to degenerate into a mish-mash of style again.

My copyediting edits are about consistency and intelligibility. Nothing more, jguk 07:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why does the "uniform style" invariably involve eliminating the terms BCE/CE? You know that when an author uses this dating scheme, the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline is to use the same dating method throughout. I've never seen you change a date to BCE/CE, no matter how many times it has been used in an article by authors and editors before you. Thus, your claims of consistency seem baseless. How can you justify this?

At this point, the few who don't understand the meaning of BCE/CE can find out about it in five minutes or less. But that is not the point. The MOS says either term is acceptable. How could you better support Wikipedia policy on this matter? Sunray 08:25, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

AD/BC is most commonly used on WP. I'm a bit tired with this dispute, taking offence with BC is simply looking for a dispute, I really don't see the problem with it. I understand BCE as well as I understand AH and ab urbe condita, and I'm still going to use neither. dab (ᛏ) 08:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Use whatever term you wish—isn't that the point here? I only ask that people not force their views on others.Sunray 08:48, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

hmm, ok. but since articles do not have single authors, this will just mean the terms get changed to and fro forever. On the items on my watchlist, you appear to have inserted BCE. I certainly don't want to start an edit war over this, and I will let anyone adamant to reinsert BCE have their way eventually, because I can't be bothered. But WP-wide consistency is desirable, and by what I can see, the only candidate with a chance of being used universally is AD/BC. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sunray, I don't understand why you've suddenly come out with all this religious invective, using pejorative and religiously loaded terms like "crusade" against me. All I was doing was reintroducing consistency in inconsistent articles - and choosing to use a notation that is familiar with most people in so doing. I don't know how the articles got inconsistent, but they did, and it's only right that the inconsistency is removed. I also note that I made the articles consisent on a term that gives rise to least offence, as the question today to the New South Wales Education Secretary in the Legislative Assembly demonstrates, and a term that is used by most Wikipedians, which helps the article remain consistent in the future.

As for earlier on the Common Era article, I don't understand what's objectionable about removing unsourced information inserted by an anon. OK, I could have moved it to the talk page rather than just deleted it, but I didn't see how the terms used for identifying years in the Chinese language were relevant so I just removed it. However, you and others seemed to think it was worth saying, and people who clearly could speak and write Chinese were able to come in to support the statement (well, to some extent, it needed rewording). And as long as what's written has been shown to be factually correct, I'm not overly concerned. But factual accuracy is important. So it's quite proper to remove unsourced info from an article, particularly when added by anons. Indeed, we should do precisely that or otherwise WP looks bad as it did over the Lisbon Tsunami incident. Kind regards, jguk 21:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this may come down to a misunderstanding. I have given a point by point reply on my own talk page. I hope you have now seen that I was imposing consistency on inconsistent articles - not changing articles that were consistent with the MOS to something else for the sake of it. I also note that you were not intending to be religiously offensive with the use of the word "crusade" (though it was still a bit harsh as all I was doing was copyediting in accordance with an accepted Wikipedia style). Hopefully now we have outlined our positions we can just put it down to being one of those things, and move on and edit together harmoniously in the future. Kind regards, jguk 07:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tommy douglas CCOTW

Tommy Douglas, an article you have voted for, is the Canadian Collaboration of the Week for April 2005.

Common era follies

I guess you're the punching bag du jour for Common Era. But did you check out my comment on the talk page? It shows exactly what jguk thinks about "consensus." Hope this helps. Cheers! --dablaze 09:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've placed the Common Era page on WP:RfC. I have outlined on the talk page what I see the dispute as being about - I have done this in a Q&A format. Please feel free to add more Q&As if you think fit, but please do not amend mine. I would add that I'd much prefer it if you were able to find an alternative, but credible, website that espoused the same views as Robinson - my objection to the link is that Robinson is hardly authoritative and that it is dangerous to Wikipedia when other users, on the back of our link, go quoting him as authoritative, which I have already seen. This is about intellectual rigour, not about pushing, or not pushing, a POV, jguk 09:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

renewable energy definition clean ups are good

thx. zen master T 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

logic

Vancouver prehistory

the ice age wouldnt matter, if you look at the natve views on things, the bering straight pland breidge thery is simply laughable, so this is why its put there. sources can be procured to support this if dsired.

Gabrielsimon 18:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there was a huge sheet of ice covering Vancouver up until about 10,000 years ago. Not likely anyone living there at the time. Sunray 18:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Numbers

Whole numbers from one through ninety-nine are spelled out." - The Chicago Manual of Style (your edit summary).

Ha, okay. I didn't see anything about numbers in the Wikipedia style guide (which explains my tentative edit summary before), but I guess when it's not mentioned, we should default to Chicago. I haven't consulted the CMoS in a while, and I guess working under a different company style guide has tainted me more than a little. Thanks, I'll edit accordingly in the future. --Deathphoenix 13:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE

I just wanted to thank you for your comments, which have been very helpful and appreciated. I've left a longer message on Slrubenstein's talk page further articulating my position in taking this action, and why I had chosen to stay out of the debate. You know, I had literally no idea this would be such a problem considering ancient Iranian history has no connection with Christianity, and I have no idea whether or not I should go ahead with this at this time as it seems very futile until Wikipedia policy on this issue is either changed, expanded or clarified. C'est la vie. SouthernComfort 01:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support, and I very much appreciate your thoughtful words, but with User:Jguk and the other one (their behavior verges on harassment), it seems very much pointless. There has got to be a better way of going about this. If these guys have their way, all Iranian history articles will adhere to BC/AD eventually. This is why I strongly feel a second proposal will be necessary if these people end up closing down the first one. That is to say, a new proposal which will expand Wikipedia policy as pertains to non-Christian articles. Otherwise there will be only useless reversion wars of attrition with POV bullies who have too much time on their hands. What do you think? SouthernComfort 16:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting - they were there to immediately revert your reverts of their reverts of my edits. Anyway, I just reverted back as well. The way it looks to me, they ain't gonna back down. And that's fine, 'cause I won't either. ;) But this is part of a bigger problem in regards to ancient history, and as you clearly stated on the talk page of List of kings of Persia, BC/AD makes absolutely no sense in regards to this subject. Anyway, I hope we will be able to figure out a more permanent solution sometime soon, because it is simply not right for these type of people to needlessly engage other users in reversion wars for what seems to be the sole purpose of getting users banned or blocked, which seems to be their intention. Again, I sincerely appreciate your support for this, and I hope that this will ultimately lead to a truly NPOV solution or compromise. SouthernComfort 17:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea of a revision to the policy. That will take some time. However, if we stringently apply the policy now, we can build a case for arbitration. If we stick to the Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) remain NPOV and civil, we will build a very stong case (essentially we have the beginnings of that now). Jguk has been the subject of disputes before over his incessant and POV reverts. Many people will provide evidence. Sunray 17:31, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has basically suggested the same route, and as you both seem to have a very firm grasp on all this, I'll trust your judgement. If it has to go to the Arbitration Comm (which seems inevitable considering the two users in question), I have to be honest with you, I've never dealt with the underlying technical and 'legal' foundation (in regards to all these policies and processes and so forth) of WP and I'm probably going to need help with all of that, so I greatly appreciate everything that you're doing. SouthernComfort 19:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. I keep forgetting that these accounts are actually customizable somewhat. Anyway, hopefully all of these efforts will not have been (and will not be) in vain. SouthernComfort 22:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The behavior of both of you is in direct violation of the consensus-making being attempted at the BCE/CE voting that is ongoing. Your unilateral changes are not acceptable. RickK 22:02, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Don't eat that Elmer! Sunray 06:28, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

You may find a proposal more to your liking here. Kaldari 00:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation

Please review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks. I think your changes to Belinda Stronach were not correct. 204.40.1.129 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was going by my recollection of The Chicago Manual of Style. I will double check. Sunray 15:02, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

What I am referring to is the part of the Wikipedia Manual that says:

When punctuating quoted passages, include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. This is the style used in Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, for example. (A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler's Modern English Usage and other style guides for these countries, some of which vary in fine details.) For example, "Stop!" has the punctuation inside the quotation marks because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. However, when using "scare quotes", the comma goes outside.

Other examples:

Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The full stop (period) is not part of the quotation.)

Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)

Arthur said that the situation "was the most deplorable he had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)

204.40.1.129 15:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I hadn't seen the first example before and wanted to see what the Chicage Manual of Style said about it. Elsewhere in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, there is reference to the Chicago Manual. Sunray 21:23, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style seems to invariably put periods inside double quotes, though not inside single quotes. I do believe that The Chicago Manual is regarded as authoritative by Wikipedia. Sunray 07:21, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Unprotection

My pleasure. I hope that the problems can be sorted out now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk RfA

I am filing an ArbCom complaint. If you think you have cause to get involved/something to add, go here [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The case is still open, go ahead (follow the emplate carefully, include time stamps and links) Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Check out the Evidence page. :-)

Yet more time I'm spending on this boy's nonsense, but hopefully it will help put an end to it. –dablaze 00:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Good work

Keep up the good work on fixing questionable edits on the War of 1812 and other articles. It's a thankless job -- until now: Thanks!

BTW, the "All things are connected" quote by Chief Seattle is likely apocryphal, in case you didn't know. Peace! --Kevin Myers 07:44, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. All involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)