User talk:Sunray

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 21 22 23 2011 24 25 26 27 2012 28 29 2013 30 2014 31 2015 32

Hello, Sunray, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I came across your viewpoint re. the first IKEA in Canada having been in Richmond, BC. Others wrote that the first was actually in Dartmouth, NS. They were correct. Very recent confirmation of this is found in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Saturday, January 23, 2016 pp B1 and B2. IKEA is returning to Dartmouth (now a community of the Halifax Regional Municipality) in 2017. Honour647 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Honour647. I'm glad that a reference was found. Sunray (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message at Requests for Mediation. The second party to that pending case has filed a lengthy WP:ANI complaint. I would think that can be taken as meaning that they decline to take part in mediation, but I don't know. I also think that this is a conduct dispute, because either the second party's very long complaint is correct, in which case the first party is guilty of various sorts of conduct issues, or the second party's complaint is mostly unfounded, in which case their own conduct is a conduct issue. Just my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Robert. I read over the DRN case and noted your remarks there. I've also reviewed the complaint at ANI. I've told the participants that I will review the matter. I'm inclined to agree with you about the conduct issues. However, I also hear a request from some of the parties to consider the content aspects. I'm not at all sure that this will be possible; we shall see. Sunray (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that you were referring to the initial ANI complaint. I'm clear now. BTW a diff to your remarks at ANI would have been helpful. 😅 Sunray (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the RFM has been blanked pending resolution of the current ANI complaint. The filing party at ANI seems not to understand that they can't request formal mediation and request admin intervention at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1] Here you changed the signature of my statement so that it looks like it was written by Kudzu1. Why did you do that? I made that statement ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It was transcription error. I've fixed it. Sunray (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Willie Nelson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the money instead to sign him to Pamper Music. On hearing Nelson sing "Hello Walls" at Tootsie's, [[Faron Young]} decided to record it.{{sfn|Kosser, Michael|2006|p=[{{google books|plainurl=y|id=DL6gHNXWToQC|page=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sunray (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, who are you, and what gives you the authority to speak on Wikipedia 'policies'? Who is in control of Wikipedia 'policies'? HAND T A Francis (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor of Wikipedia, which gives me the right to comment on Wikipedia policies. I've been editing here for more than a decade, so I know the policies fairly well. The policies were developed collectively by thousands of editors. No one individual or group is in control of them. Changes are made through discussions on a particular policy's talk page—for changes specific to that policy—or on in various common forums, for new policies. My observation is that Wikipedia policies usually work very well as a guide to dealing with issues related to either content in articles, or the behavior of editors. Sunray (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray, I see you have raised some of the same issues I have with the 2013 Mayflower oil spill page. Can I get your support on the Talk page for suggested changes, to clarify the important distinctions between "Oil" and Dilbit? I'd appreciate it! Thanks :) --Bill Huston ^(talk) 00:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've replied to you on the talk page. While I agree with the points you have raised, I'm afraid that you will find that you are out gunned on this matter. I tried to raise the very points you have on the Oil sands talk page (see Talk:Oil sands/Archive 3). More recently User:Petrarchan47 has taken up the cause. But s/he, like me ran smack into the problem of usage. If you look carefully through WP policies you will find that naming of articles depends heavily on usage. Sunray (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I think we can close the mediation now. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the mediation should be closed. I've been away, but will close in the next day or two. Sunray (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray,

I'm reaching out to still-active editors who have contributed to the Downtown Eastside article, and you're one of the very few people on that list. I'd like to get this article through to Featured Article status, and would like to get input from other editors. There has been very little discussion on this article since I started working on it. I've requested assessment for A-class status at Wikproject Vancouver and Wikiproject Canada. Any feedback, thoughts, or advice you might have would be very welcome. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Clayoquot. I will take a look at the article. Sunray (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot, I think that the DTES article will need a lot of work to get it to A-Class or FA status. The first thing that strikes me is that the article doesn't clearly delineate the boundaries of the DTES. While it talks about the "Greater DTES," much of the commentary focuses on the much more restrictive definition used by Scout Magazine of the skid row area bounded by Carrell, Pender, Jackson and Cordova. Which brings me to sources. Scout is a good source for some issues (local culture, social issues), but it isn't a reliable source for demographics or statistics. I think that a good article (GA status might be a good target to aim for first, btw) would discuss the various approaches to boundaries and would have a much more extensive discussion of demographics. There will be a problem of size. At more than 90K in size, the article is already fairly large. That suggests some tight editing to get it to GA, or higher, classification. If you like, I could make more extensive comments on the article talk page and we could get going on it. Sunray (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this! Yes, if you could comment further on the article talk page, that would be great. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a PSA regarding our future without renewable energy for my class and would like permission to use your photograph (EPAoilspillsubdivision2.JPG).

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.67.246 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that photo isn't mine. It is in the public domain as it was taken by a member of the Environmental Protection Agency in the course of their duties. You can use it under the fair use doctrine. In fact, you could use almost any image for educational purposes. Here's a definition of fair use: "(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder." Good luck! Sunray (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Closure: A Story of Everything is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closure: A Story of Everything until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material you included in the above article back in June 2016 appears to have been copied from the copyright web pages http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-detail/landowners-launch-site-c-dam-court-challenge-first-nations-next/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what led you to conclude that I added that material. As I was cleaning up the article and removing copyright violations, it seems highly unlikely that I was responsible for that copyright violation. What led you to that conclusion? Sunray (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added in this edit of June 27, 2016 appears to have been copied from this page. The content was very closely paraphrased; your addition was almost identical to the source. I found the copyright violation in June 2017, when copyvio added by a different person was detected and removed.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the material added in that edit; it has since been hard deleted. You use the term "paraphrased." Paraphrases are legal. But it is hard to know what you mean when you say "closely paraphrased." I was an editor by profession (not just on Wikipedia), so I understand the ground rules for paraphrasing. That said, I do make mistakes. I would be interested to see the actual text that was removed to compare with the source. Sunray (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the work you did in 2011 extending the Wiki Stewardship page. I am not a Wiki expert but believe that you added a considerable amount of material. I am trying to derive the source of a key line, which is ‘…an ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources…’. This has been copied - thanks to you - a myriad number of times. It'd be great to know where it came from. Thanks in advance if you can help!85.133.81.32 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't take any credit for adding that material. The editor who added it was Aquaterra and he is no longer editing the wiki. The original addition is here. It is credited to the "Stewardship in Action" program of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Sunray (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray. In 2009 you successfully mediated an editing dispute that I participated in (thank you). The result was this sentence in the article Rick Warren:

Two weeks before the 2008 U.S. general election, Warren issued a statement to his congregation endorsing California Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The inclusion of the final ten words in that sentence was at the heart of the dispute; my recollection is that editors who fought their inclusion were concerned less with serving the reader's understanding of the subject than with casting the subject in a positive light.

Occasionally I peek at the article to see whether our hard-won compromise has survived; today I discovered that it has not. A couple of years ago, an unsigned user deleted those ten words with the following explanation: "(→‎Political and social views: Removed "right to marry" phrase in paragraph on Prop 8)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Warren&oldid=671347987)

I don't have much experience with un-doing the work of other editors, and no experience with doing so when another editor has (presumably inadvertently) overruled the result of a mediation. I would like to restore the sentence to the version that resulted from the mediation, but I dearly wish to avoid another protracted negotiation. So I thought I'd seek your guidance. Shall I simply click "undo" next to that edit? How can I phrase a friendly explanation that I'm restoring the sentence to a version that resulted from a mediation? Would it be helpful for me to provide a link to an archive of the mediation? And if so, where can I find that archive?

Thank you!

Benccc (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray, I went ahead and edited the article to restore the portion that had been deleted, and I left a brief explanation. If you know how to find/view the mediation for the Rick Warren article for which you were the mediator, please let me know. Thanks. Benccc (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay in responding. I think you've taken the right course of action. Let me know if anyone disputes your restoration of that text. The archive of the mediation is here. The discussion of Proposition 8 is in a sub-archive (#7). Sunray (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Benccc (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a Mediation Committee proposal for Wikipedia.pt, may you help me based on the practice of wikipedia.en, would it be possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe da Fonseca (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How could I assist you? Sunray (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nechako Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince George (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Wikipedia_dispute_resolution_for_complex_disputes. As you've previously been involved in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate your thoughts there, if you have time. As I am sending this to quite a few people, the text is somewhat impersonal :) Steven Crossin 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Sunray. I'm taking a look at the references for Consensus decision-making and notice that you added a reference to Earlham College's consensus process, adapted from Quaker practice, some years ago. Sadly, that link is broken now, and I can't find the source on Wayback or anywhere else. Should I simply delete the reference? Best, Douginamug (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard original post. After some further effort, I did manage to find a Wayback archive, and added it. Nothing to do! Douginamug (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for that Douginamug. I had been meaning to do that. I was sorry that the College didn't continue that program. One of the profs had collaborated with me in writing parts of the article. Sunray (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rachel Maddow without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I'm unclear on the reasons behind your revert. Here's why I removed that term in my first edit:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a worldwide readership. In the other English-speaking democracies, and Europe the term "liberal" has a different meaning than it does in many parts of the U.S. Where I live, "liberal" implies a centrist politics, which usually translates to a centre-right government that is invariably neoliberal. Maddow, herself, is likely well aware of this, having obtained her PhD from Oxford.

The first reference is an opinion piece. In the second reference she refers herself as "a liberal," but qualifies that as being "... in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform." That is a nuanced view, worth mentioning in the article. I don't see why the label should be included in the lead though, given that the word has very different connotations around the world and has become somewhat loaded with a segment of the U.S. population.

Maddow herself says that she works hard to ensure that her reporting is fact-based. That is apparently more important to her than her political views. Thus, I believe that the liberal tag is misleading. If you disagree could you share your views with me? Sunray (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

This block appears to be due to my use of Apple Private Relay. I am a longtime editor. Could you fix this please? Sunray (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not seeing anything in your block log since 2006. Is it showing you got hit by an autoblock? —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I get:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

::This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. See below if you do not believe you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range ‪2A02:26F0:0:0:0:0:0:0/29‬ has been blocked(disabled) by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

This range is blocked because it is an anonymizing proxy. Please read the instructions below to edit.

This range is owned by a content delivery network provider and is believed to be used as an anonymizing proxy. Anonymizing proxies are routinely blocked in order to prevent abuse.

Solutions:

Turn off your VPN or traffic anonymizer. Services that use this method of anonymization include Apple Private Relay and CloudFlare WARP.

If you are an established editor, you may request IP block exemption.

We apologize for the inconvenience."

Could you help me with this?

Sunray (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have mentioned this situation at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption and mentioned you by name. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sunray, if I understand correctly you got hit with an IP autoblock because you opted in to using a VPN that is blocked. You should certainly be able to not use the VPN for editing here. If you have a good reason why you need to use a VPN then yse you can open a ticket using the email at Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Used_for_anonymous_proxy_editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Founding Fathers and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 24#Founding Fathers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray. I just discovered the mediation mentioned in the archives: Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 30#Mediation Outcome. An "explanatory note" is mentioned (Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 30#2. Add new explanatory note), but I can't find it in the article or its talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long time ago. It would take me a while to read my way back into that space. There might be a faster way. For instance, if you asked me a question about what your particular interest is. In other words referring to what the explanatory note is about. Would you be able to do that? Sunray (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was with whatever happened to it. Was it ever posted, and where? I think it deserves a spot like a permanent FAQ does at the top of the talk page.

The reason I even stumbled on this was my discovery that Roman Catholic Church redirects to Catholic Church, which I consider a travesty. The latter should be the mother article covering the 24 subdivisions of the Catholic Church (Sui iuris), each worthy of its own article. Catholic Church should be the main, mother, article, with Roman Catholic church, Russian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, etc. briefly mentioned in that mother article.

Currently, after the mediation decision, Wikipedia has taken sides with the Pope and the Roman/Latin Catholic church in the centuries-old battle between the different branches of the Catholic Church. We shouldn't take the side of the Pope in Rome, who wants a patent on the term "Catholic Church", yet that is what's happened. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm pressed for time right now (for the next week). I would like to fix it though. I'm surprised that the article is named "Catholic Church." Was that the conclusion of the mediation?

What you are saying here makes sense to me, but I will have to read over the mediation next week. Sunray (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rural ecovillage.jpg, which you've attributed to www.yarrowecovillage.ca. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mattbr 21:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this research. I'm sorry I wasn't able to participate in this survey, but circumstances were such that, well, you know… Sunray (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]