Note: Messages left on this page will be replied to on this page.

Talk archives

2003-2004 1 2005 2 3 4 5 2006 6 7 8 2007 9 10 11 2008 12 13 14 15 2009 16 17 18 19 2010 20

Today's motto...

Hi Sunray

I'm watching the mediation of this with some interest as I provided a third opinion on this a couple of weeks ago. I just wanted to advise that I'm happy to explain or elaborate on my opinion if you think it would be of any benefit. Good luck! Thepm (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind offer. I had read your third opinion and found it most useful. I found your comments about the two maps interesting, but wasn't clear why you favoured the scanned map. If you are able to elaborate on this, or any other aspect of the dispute, I would welcome that. Sunray (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer I reply here or at the mediation talk page? Thepm (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is good. Then if we think it would be useful for the mediation, we can link it. Sunray (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I should say that my knowledge of the History of Georgia was effectively zero at the time I offered the 3O. Since then it has improved, but only slightly!

My opinion on this matter, as I stated in the WP:3O that I offered, is that the need for either map is marginal at best. There already exists a map showing the Kingdom of Iberia and I am uncertain how either of the proposed maps would contribute further. I guess it's possible that they could provide perspective on where the areas lie with regard to the wider region.

Both of the participants were very strongly of the opinion that a map showing the Roman Empire was necessary. Iberieli actually suggested that both maps could be included. So, deferring to the greater expertise of these editors, I restricted myself to determining whether one of the maps should be included or both. If one, then which one.

The subject heading where the map is shown is "The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis". For that reason, it seems that the maps should clearly show these two areas. I noted that the created map does not show Colchis at all and does not show Iberia, except as a general area. The scanned map shows the borders of both areas, although for a casual reader it is not especially clear. For that reason, I opted for the scanned map.

Having said that, the scanned map was quite difficult for me to understand. Furthermore, it was published in 1907 and I would expect that there has been further research since then. If the created map showed the actual borders of Iberia and Colchis, then I would much prefer the inclusion of the created map.

I'll also note that Aregakn raised objections to the created map on the grounds of it being original research. I did not consider this a valid objection and largely discounted this in my considerations.

On balance, my opinion remains unchanged as being;

1. Neither map seems necessary.

2. If either is to be used, then the scanned map should be preferred.

3. If the created map were updated to show the boundaries of Colchis and Iberia, then the created map should be preferred.

If there's anything more I can do, please let me know. cheers Thepm (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray

I'm still observing this mediation and noting what appears to be slow progress. I was wondering if I might make a suggestion, but I'm not sure if I'm permitted to comment on the mediation page.

As noted above, personally I'm not convinced that either map is required. Having said that, the present situation appears to be one where each editor wants one map but not the other. The difficulty is that the article has been protected in a state that appears to favour one of the editors. This may create the perception that the current state is "endorsed" in some way with the current map, notwithstanding the disclaimer to the contrary. It may also diminish the incentive for the editor that supports the status quo to contribute to the mediation.

My suggestion is that perhaps you might want to either remove or include both maps until such time as mediation is completed. It just seems to be a fairer state for the article while the dispute is heard. As I said, this is just a suggestion and I'll leave to your judgment whether it's not appropriate. cheers Thepm (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. I have passed it on to the admin who protected the page. Sunray (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it isn't, that you are ignoring me on the mediation and that you just didn't notice my last message. Looking forward! Aregakn (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello....thank you for writing me.   And telling me your point.   But this is the thing.   While I understand what you're saying, the problem is why is it that many OTHER articles have wiki-links on their "See also" sections THAT ARE ALSO in the body of the article too?   In other words, I've seen it, and it IS done anyway, for handier convenience and for quick referral.

Also, that policy thing that you cited (which I appreciate), did NOT DOGMATICALLY say that links in a "See also" section could not be links that were in the main body of the article either.   It seemed to be an "it can go either way" situation.   NOT a dogmatic "rule" or "policy" per se.   But again, will you agree that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have the same wiki inter-links in both the body and the See also?  

As to the Ecumenism article, it has NO "See also" section at all, and I, sincerely, felt a need for one, for EASIER access to those links that you mentioned that are in the body.   Meaning sometimes there are people who don't read the whole article right away, but skim or peruse parts, and then like to see the "See also" section for other articles related, QUICKLY.   Whether those same links are in the body of the article or not.  Meaning, IMHO, it depends, and it CAN be done.  At least from what I've seen.   And again, the Wikipedia policy is not dogmatic on that.  And that's all I was saying.  

Also, I was curious as to why you just didn't leave the "See also" section that I put there, and maybe (if you thought the links were redundant etc) simply put links there that you thought were maybe better.   (By the way, there WAS one term in the "See also" that was NOT a link in the rest of the article, the term "separated brethren".   That's not linked at all, in the body of the article.   So that probably could have remained in the "See also" section.)   But anyway, let me know what you think.   thanks... Sweetpoet (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Sweetpoet's here. Sunray (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's cool.   And I had the feeling that it is true that the better and more careful articles do stick to the suggestions more (though they are not absolutes as we both agree).   Also, I noticed that you did leave the "separated brethren" that's in the body of the article linked, from what I did, where it wasn't prior....which I do appreciate.   But yeah, not all articles HAVE to have a "See also" section, but I guess it's generally nice to have one though.  For easier or quicker access and referral.   Some extra links.   I was a LITTLE surprised that there wasn't one already.   I know that not all articles do, but it seems that most (from what I've seen, I could be wrong) do have one.  It depends.   Anyway, thanks for your help. Sweetpoet (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im finishing my exams and i will get involved. Thanks for your message! Iberieli (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to mail you smth? Aregakn (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy it, click on "E-mail this user" in the left hand column of this page. Sunray (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sunray, Could you take a look at the history and talk of Bay of Quinte. Probably trivial and not worth spending a lot of time on, but I'm not totally convinced I was out of line here. What do you think? Hope all is well.  BC  _{talk to me} 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he didn't like your revert either. His justification this time is WP:ELMAYBE point no. 3: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. ... A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page." There may be an interpretation problem here since the link could very well be interpreted as "well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations". To me, however, the tourism directory still looks like spam. And it's obviously a self-promo/COI thing, although, I guess this doesn't necessarily preclude his putting in a link that is otherwise "legal". Perhaps the "Links to be considered" section of WP:EL should be reconsidered or rewritten to eliminate matters of interpretation that could lead to edit wars. Cheers. BC  _{talk to me} 21:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information that I put into the Barack Obama article was neither trivial nor unencyclopedic. It illustrated a public perception of the President in Great Britain. It is especially relevant because it occurred during his first few months in office and was the first real international public reaction to an action on his part. It received worldwide attention and was reported in just about every major market. It's no less trivial than the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident which received its own article for some reason. If you don't feel that the information belongs in that section or in the article mainspace, then I can understand that, but I would like to know where you think it would better fit. HarlandQPitt (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it truly "illustrated a public perception of the President in Great Britain," then it would be a good idea to find a quote, from a reliable source, that says so. A good reference point is WP:NOR. As to the Carter article, I haven't read it, so cannot say how it relates. Usually, though, it is not sufficient to argue that something is o.k. because something similar appears in another article. The Carter article is no longer rated as a "good article," so it is not necessarily the standard to aspire to. Sunray (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. The article that I used as a source included the following quote "London newspapers are howling over a string of alleged snubs by Obama to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his visit to Washington last week — including a squabble over presidential gift-giving." The name of the article was "London aghast at President Obama over gifts given to Prime Minister Brown", from the New York Daily News. There were several articles with quotes insulting the president over his choice of gift, but I did not include them, because the information was covered in the first two articles and I didn't think it necessary to include a negative quote in his article that many would automatically assume was going afainst WP:NPOV. HarlandQPitt (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pursuing this question in a thoughtful and respectful way. I do agree with you that there was a great deal of coverage of this matter in the British press. Your comments led me to wonder what was going on. Part of the story was covered by the The Times ("First Lady Michelle Obama shows even she has a gift for the gaffe") on March 5.[1] The other part of the story was led off by the The Daily Mail ("To my special friend Gordon...") on March 6.[2] The Mail is a tabloid, so the story is standard fair for them. However, the Times is generally considered to be a quality newspaper, so I was led to wonder what's up with that. The whole affair seems so trivial.

The Guardian perhaps gives part of the answer. They saw the coverage by The Daily Mail as "an example of the British press's apparent mission to feel snubbed by Obama on Gordon Brown's behalf - and obsession with the passing of the special relationship with Bush." [3]

So it seems to me that the question you are posing is: Doesn't this amount of coverage make the story noteworthy? Looking at media coverage generally, there are two basic approaches. When an event has significance, it gets coverage by dint of its importance—and the meeting of a president and a prime minister is certainly noteworthy. In such cases, its noteworthiness is reflected through coverage of the event itself and quotes from prominent persons. The other approach, (and the one usually taken by tabloids) is to manufacture news through speculation and innuendo. Such a story is usually generated by the media, rather than the event. A key feature of such a story is the absence of quotes from anyone noteworthy—as in this case.

We need to bear in mind that this is a featured article—an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. When one looks at the section you placed this item in, the story seems to pale in comparison to the other examples of cultural and political image.

So that is my take on this issue. If you are not satisfied with my explanation, I would be happy to take our discussion to the talk page. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your point of view on this, and after reviewing the information, I have to say that I do agree with you. In relevance to other major events, it does pale in comparison. The information might have fit better in Obama's first 100 days article if a section were to be created about Great Britain, as it could be considered to be more of a major development in reference to 100 days rather than four years of presidency. I also considered placing it under the Public image of Barack Obama article under the section titled "Political Image" as this was certainly an incident that shaped his political image at least in one major part of the world.

Although as you point out, neither the prime minister nor the president have commented on it, and it seems to be mainly the people who were upset with it. So perhaps it's best to leave it off unless an official statement is issued (which I seriously doubt).

As for pursuing the question in a thoughtful and respectful way, I don't see any other way to interact with people. If someone questions something that I did, I leave a note on their talk page explaining why I did it. If I want to clarify or discuss an edit or action with someone, I also leave them a note. I've had people leave me nasty notes on my talk page or make personal attacks against me during AfD or other discussions enough that I know it does absolutely nothing except cause editors to forgo rational thought.

I appreciate that you took the time to respond to me and demonstrated that you fully researched and reasoned out your action before taking it. Thanks, and I look forward to working on articles with you in the future. HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I need to work on making those edit summaries descriptive, yet civil. The other interesting insight for me was to consider who this story was actually about. As the Guardian article pointed out, it is really between the British press and Gordon Brown. The coverage wasn't about Obama at all (hence, I guess the scant attention paid to it by the U.S. media). Glad to meet you too. Sunray (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already said it in the title, but anyway, just to let you know how gratfull I am that you had accepted to mediate this polemical issue. It has been a long debate that took place mainly on the talk page of Draža Mihailović article for two or three months now, and has also been parcially involving the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism and, in minor scale, some other related articles. My reasons have been explained several times in detail in the discussion that we had on the talk page, but I just wanted you to know that whenever you feel need to have me clarifiying any of mine positions, please, let me know. I´ll try to be as present as possible and whatever rythm you choose, for me it will be fine. I really hope your presence will bring more civility and respect on behalve of all participans, and whatever the outcome will be, I hope that this is going to be a positive experience for everybody (it´s my first participation on some WP mediation). Thanking you once again, I send you best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I regret that I was unable to begin right away. I had thought that another mediator was going to co-mediate, with me. However, it looks like that is not happening. At the same time, I became busy off-wiki. I will be back in the next couple of days to begin the mediation. Thank you for your patience. Sunray (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sunray,

I noticed the adjustments you made to the "The Toyota Way" entry. I think they clean up the article and are thus a good improvement. May I give you an input for consideration? My intention is not necessarily to get you to change the article. Rather, I am curious to see what you think after reviewing the following comments.

The words "The Toyota Way" refer to at least three things:

   1) The way that the Toyota Motor Corporation does things, i.e., the management philosophy of the Toyota Motor Corporation.

   2) A phrase ("The Toyota Way") that Toyota began openly using in 2001, with the publication of an internal Toyota booklet.
       An excerpt is here:   http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mrother/Extras_files/The%20Toyota%20Way%202001.pdf

   3) The title of a book written by my colleague Professor Jeffrey Liker of the University of Michigan, published by McGraw-Hill in 2003.

Many researchers have worked to understand and explain the management philosophy of Toyota, myself included. Toyota has said that its philosophy "The Toyota Way is a set of values and manufacturing ideals summarized in the five principles of Challenge, Kaizen (improvement), Genchi Genbutsu (go and see), Respect, and Teamwork. Professor Liker, based on his investigations into Toyota, summarized his observations and findings in a set of 14 principles, which he published in his book.

The number of principles is probably arbitrary; Toyota says it is five, Professor Liker says it is 14, and the next researcher could say it is (put number here). The point is this: To assist Wikipedia readers in learning about what is "The Toyota Way" it may help to know where the information is coming from. This is particularly the case since we tend to seek clear, black-and-white answers and may too easily take one person's perspective at a point in time as the way things are.

Both Toyota's explanation of "The Toyota Way" and Professor Liker's are excellent and they help us to see further. One is from inside the company and one from outside, and presenting that simple fact could make a significant difference in how the Wikipedia visitor takes up the information (s)he reads in this entry. At the moment the entry is an endorsement and advertisement for Professor Liker's book.

Below, for example, is an opening text using the existing opening paragraphs from the "The Toyota Way" Wikipedia entry, but presented in a way that reflects the above comments and makes the entry more neutral.

Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,

Mike Rother http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mrother

The Toyota Way is a management philosophy of the Toyota Motor Corporation that includes the Toyota Production System. Since the 1980s, Toyota and Lexus vehicles have been recognized for their quality and are consistently ranked higher than other car makes in owner satisfaction surveys. This is due in large part, according to Jeffrey Liker, a University of Michigan professor of industrial engineering, to the business philosophy that underlies its system of production.[2]

Under the two headings, or "pillars," of Respect for People and Continuous Improvement, Toyota has summed up its philosophy, values and manufacturing ideals with the following five principles:[3]

• Challenge
• Kaizen (improvement)
• Genchi Genbutsu (go and see)
• Respect
• Teamwork

According to Professor Liker, the main ideas of the Toyota Way are to base management decisions on a "philosophical sense of purpose", to think long term, to have a process for solving problems, to add value to the organization by developing its people, and to recognize that continuously solving root problems drives organizational learning.[1] Professor Liker summarizes the Toyota Way in 14 principles.

Thank you very much for your comments and the example. One of the problems I have had with this article is the lack of articles, other than Jeffrey Liker's, on the subject. There was scant information available from Toyota itself.

I am curious about your statement that begins "This is due in large part, according to Jeffrey Liker..." Do you have a citation (including article and page number) for the statement? It is the kind of statement that needs to be sourced. Otherwise, I will be happy to adjust the lead in line with your example. Sunray (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray,

Thank you for your response. There has indeed been scant information from Toyota, which leaves room for interpretation. That's why in my previous message I referred to the following information from Toyota:

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mrother/Extras_files/The%20Toyota%20Way%202001.pdf

I think room for interpretation is ok, if the reader is aware that (s)he is getting an interpretation.

The sentence you mention already appears in the online Wikipedia entry as below. With my example I only tried to make it easier to recognize that this is the viewpoint -- certainly a good one -- of an external observer of Toyota.

The main ideas are to base management decisions on a "philosophical sense of purpose", to think long term, to have a process for solving problems, to add value to the organization by developing its people, and to recognize that continuously solving root problems drives organizational learning.[1]

Whomever wrote the sentence cites the Liker book, page 37, which you can view here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19137446/14-Principals-of-Toyota-Way-Summary

Mike734 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question does not appear to be supported by the source cited. There seems to be an overall problem with the citations. I will take another look when I have a free moment. Sunray (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be interested to see what you think. If I can assist further let me know. Mike734 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time: this. We need more anthropologists here ... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic

Hi Sunray. First, be advised that a party to this mediation case has added another editor to the list of parties[4]. This is typically only done when necessary, so the edit may be worth a more detailed look. Second, I'm wondering what the status on this mediation is? Will it be getting underway soon? Do you need another mediator to assist you with the workload? Let me know what I can do to help. Regards, AGK 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vigilance, AGK. My situation was that i took the case thinking that Atama had indicated he wanted to co-mediate. For some reason, we never connected on that possibility. Meanwhile, I got busy off-wiki. I did communicate with one of the parties (above on this talk page) and they communicated with the other participants. I admit, that I could have been more communicative with them. However, I'm back now and will notify the participants accordingly. Sunray (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the addition of Isidoradaven. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, I agree that he should be a participant. Sunray (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes sense. Glad to see that you've gotten the ball rolling. I hope the mediation goes well. If you need support or a second opinion at any point, do drop me a message. AGK 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm here, I'll ask about the status of the History of Georgia mediation. Is party inactivity preventing that case from getting off the ground? AGK 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the parties (Iberieli) has been unavailable. He did communicate that he was writing mid-terms, but that was some time ago. He has been inactive since April 21 and does not have e-mail enabled. I've left a final note for him to sign-in in the next by May 15. If he doesn't, I will close it as inactive. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I'll leave you to it. Regards, AGK 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry if I reverted your edits a bit brutally, but it appears that there was some misunderstanding on my part regarding the implications of the mediation. If it is "usual practice" (but does "usual" mean "compulsory" ?) not to touch the article while the mediation is going, then I feel it would be completely counter-productive. I have had no real interest in the mediation from the start, and only accepted it as a gesture of goodwill, and most of all as a favor to another editor, so he could discuss in a more formal manner, with a mediator.

To be absolutely honest, I hadn't even realized initially that I had been reverted by the mediator, that's how interested in the mediation I am. I'd hate to waste your time and to disrespect your efforts, but I'd also hate not to be able to work on the article, as I precisely have the time to do so these days (and believe me, it does need an awful lot of work). So if the mediation means that I can't work on the article, you may count me out or just cancel it as far as I'm concerned. There is a talk page for discussion, after all. I am perfectly able and willing to discuss, but if "discussing" means "not being able to work on the article", then I'm not interested. Thanks and best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed my comment on the article talk page. To put it plainly: Articles are usually protected during a mediation to prevent edit waring by participants or major changes to the article that are not agreed to by all participants. Unfortunately, both these conditions seem now to be in play. You are one of the participants taking initiative right now, and I have recognized that on the mediation talk page. I would urge you to find a way to collaborate on that page. I think you have something valuable to offer. Sunray (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the intrusion, but here are my thoughts, if you'd like them. Usual does not mean compulsory, of course; Mediators are not security guards. But an uninvolved administrator is likely to take especially strong action against somebody who edit wars instead of participating in consensus-building through mediation, so any editing of an article undergoing mediation should be undertaken very cautiously. Having said that, good-faith editing of the article to update its content in line with what is roughly agreed by the parties to the mediation is all part of the process; be bold – revert – discuss, and all that. Regards, AGK 10:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray, I've been on holiday, but have now added my opening statement, as well as a comment to the discussion. Best regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We are making some progress, I think. Welcome aboard! Sunray (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do lose my temper at times, that I am aware of. I do, however, admit when I am wrong. Even though I would not style them personal attacks, my comments were inappropriate and I apologize.

In addition, I feel I should have a word with you. The central issue itself is not a very complex one, once you get through the obscurity of the subject matter. The issue is, quite simply, whether someone may or may not use the word "collaboration" in any way at all when referring to Draža Mihailović during World War II.

This wording was in use in the article for a very long time, supported by a large number of good-quality sources presented by other editors and myself. The term was introduced after a very long, very thorough research I conducted on the matter some eight months ago. User:FkpCascais removed the wording and the sources abut two months ago and proceeded to edit-war over his edit. He stopped (eventually and after much persuasion) and discussions started properly. As can be seen on the talkpage, they consist essentially of users listing the sources in support of collaboration, and User:FkpCascais claiming they are misrepresented. It seems its up to you to basically decide whether they are misrepresented or no.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask you whether you would like to review them, and if so how should they be posted and organized? The current "brawl" on the mediation talkpage is not very helpful, I imagine... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]