User talk:Sunrise/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cell (biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glacier National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for making that request to RFPP. It looks in every respect exactly like what I just went there to request. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I already saw it and decided there was probably going to be nothing for me to say. I don't want to "pile on" and describe potential problems with another editor when those descriptions have already been made. :-) Thanks! Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if someone raises (specific, diff-based) concerns about me personally, i.e. in a way that singles me out, then I will respond. I think that is unlikely, but I don't want to give the impression that I am not available for discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have troubled you with this. Over-anal in notifying people, like I overdid what I wrote. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikibreak notification

I am currently on wikibreak for (at least) a month, starting today, for purposes of my education. I will not be logging in or reading my talk page during this time. I have also decided that when I return, I will stay away from heated disputes and other wikidrama. They consume far too much of my time, and there are articles needing improvement which said wikidrama has kept me away from.

When I am (fully) returned, I will archive this message / remove the DNAU. If it is absolutely necessary, I can be contacted by e-mail. I may not check it regularly, so please give me some time to reply. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

NB. "Absolutely necessary" includes things like "ArbCom case," "admin thinks I need to justify some edit(s) that I've made," and of course "Wikipedian sky is falling." I don't really expect any of these to happen, but you never know. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Current status: temporarily returned. Arc (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Very happy to hear you're back. By the way, I think your current username has a bit more style than Sunrise, if you're thinking about switching on the 'complicated' wiki. II | (t - c) 05:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi II, thanks for your comments. :-) This is only a temporary hiatus in the wikibreak. I like this name as well, but I’ve gotten a bit tired of it after ~6 years, and I’ve already put in the request. Arc (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Current status: wikibreak restarted. Arc (talk) 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Current status: temporarily returned. Arc (talk) 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Action against Vandalism

An individual has tried to repeatedly vandalize the following article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konnakkad

The user posts racist, derogatory and vulgar comments seemingly directed at a particular family/ set of individuals. He has been doing this repeatedly for the last 2-3 years as can be seen in the history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Konnakkad&action=history

I noticed that you have reverted one of the earlier edits by the same individual on 6 July 2013. As an experienced editor on Wikipedia, would you be able to keep a watch over/ add bots to the page (something I am not aware of how to do) to prevent this nuiscance. Thanks Vitaly1511 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vitaly! I have added a request for page protection to WP:RFPP on your behalf. If it is accepted, editors using IP addresses or new accounts will be unable to edit the page. An administrator will look at the page and decide whether to accept the request. Usually the protection will only last for a short time, but if the vandalism returns, another request can be made. Sunrise (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Unfortunately, there was a bug in the bot's code. I've fixed it, and undone the incorrect changes. Thanks for the notice. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My deleted addition is now peer reviewed

Hi, I'd added some content based on my research, which you had removed. The research has now been published in a peer reviewed journal.

This is the link to the paper. Please let me know if my content can be put back up again. http://www.romj.org/2014-01 Mauricesdevaraj (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia! While you don't need to ask my permission (be WP:BOLD!), you're definitely in a better position now. :-) Assuming that ROMJ is indeed a good journal, I would say that you could probably add one sentence to the article based on the strength of the source. This is similar to the amount of coverage that the other researchers have at Directed mutagenesis - the amount that you wrote previously would be excessive even for a paper in Science. You should also make sure that your wording follows Wikipedia's neutrality policy, WP:NPOV - again, the coverage of the other researchers is a good model here.

Feel free to ask me for advice again if any other editors object, or if you have any questions about Wikipedia policies. The Teahouse is also a great place to get help. Sunrise (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

More than peer review is required for inclusion. Typically we only use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm very much aware of that, thanks. :-) His first set of edits (which I reverted at the time for other reasons) didn't fall within the scope of MEDRS, so I decided it was more important to be encouraging to a new editor. It was the reformulation that turned it into medical content. Sunrise (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes was posting for the benefit of User:Mauricesdevaraj rather than yourself. By the way started discussion around management versus treatment on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that then. I will join you there later. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging WP:STiki accounts

Yes, I can do that, please submit a request at WT:STiki. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. :-) Sunrise (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ASIMO

Hello. Regarding this edit of yours and the related vandalism warning I think an apology is due at User talk:68.5.244.183. I have checked the page at th:อาซิโม and found that it is in fact a featured article. So the change the IP made at ASIMO was totally valid. De728631 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Nope, ASIMO is not an FA on the English Wikipedia. The list of enWP featured articles can be found at WP:FA. Sunrise (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's right. But the template in question marks feature articles at other Wikipedias. It adds a little star to the entry in the interwiki list. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see - thanks! Strikeout and comment. (Which I would have done anyways, of course! :-) ) Sunrise (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's great. And don't worry, we can't possibly know all of the many templates around here. Have a nice weekend. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

T.D. Jakes article

Hello,

I recently received your message regarding my edit. You state that the article was "better" before my edit. However, it seems that by "better" you mean incomplete? I say that because you give no proof that T.D. Jakes is now orthodox in his view of the Trinity. You provide no quotes from the Elephant Room wherein Jakes affirmed historical orthodoxy in regards to the Trinity. Furthermore, as you yourself can verify, his church's own website affirms the classic Modalist view. Thus, you may say that the article was "better" before my edit, which is completely subjective; but you provide no objective proof to your assertions, thus begging the question, at best. Perhaps you're unwilling to allow people the opportunity of seeing for themselves what T.D. Jakes believes? Anyhow, any person who is truly interested in learning what T.D. Jakes believes can peruse his writings and see that he is not orthodox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.90.197 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your question. I came across your edit while reviewing recent changes to Wikipedia. I have no personal opinion of Mr. Jakes, and in fact I had never heard of him before - my concern was about original research, one of Wikipedia's policies (follow the link to learn more). Specifically, the source doesn't actually state that his views are not orthodox - in fact, it's just a "belief statement" from the church's website. Since the source is both primary and self-published, it wouldn't really be sufficient for anything other than saying that he believes something; commentary on those beliefs, such as whether they are orthodox, would require a secondary source. Has there been any coverage in major news organizations that describe his views as unorthodox?

There were also a couple other minor things: you (possibly accidentally) removed the "References" heading then placed your text below the reference list, and you put your source in the edit summary (Wikipedia formatting uses <ref></ref>, which puts the citation in the text). These are things that can be easily dealt with though, and I'm happy to help. Sunrise (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Accidental comment removal

That seems to have been an edit conflict when I fixed the an edit of mine. That happens sometimes.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem - just wanted to make sure. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Isopoda

You are welcome to take on the GA review of Isopoda. I have been involved in quite a number of reviews, both as a reviewer and as a nominator and the criteria are quite clear (its interpreting them that is the problem). I note that you say that the topic is not your field. Well, it is not mine either, I thought I would work on it as one of a number of higher level invertebrate taxa in need of improvement. You can always ask for help or a second opinion at a later stage if you think it is needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to working with you. :-) Sunrise (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Location map Israel

Any editor who supports adding maps which place East Jerusalem within Israeli territory the same as Tel Aviv is, despite no nation in the world recognizing it as in Israeli territory, the international community explicitly condemning Israel's attempted annexation and declaring the annexation law null and void, and that the majority of the world's nations recognize East Jerusalem as within Palestine, clearly does not understand NPOV.

I certainly agree with your userpage that no information is better than wrong information. It is too bad so many of those supporting the POV map did so for it's higher quality rather than the NPOV map for it's correctness. If I had not found the NPOV map at commons I would have deleted all the maps as that would have been superior to the previous maps. Sepsis II (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sepsis – thank you for coming here. Like I said, I don’t endorse the previous maps either. However, apparently reasonable editors disagreed with you on the NPOV issue, so I was required to close the discussion accordingly. If the discussion had included sufficiently convincing evidence about the relation of NPOV to the depiction of Israel’s borders (for example, a link to a previous RfC that determined your viewpoint to be neutral), then the outcome might have been different.

The scope of a "no consensus" close is quite narrow – it says only that editors have not yet been able to agree. There is plenty of opportunity to work towards consensus with new proposals. I think the most productive way forward for you would be to proceed with small changes, starting with the ones that are most likely to stick - for example, in this case you might start with delineating the borders of the Golan Heights (not even changing the color). Once that has been resolved, either by RfC or by nobody objecting for a month or so, then you could proceed to the next issue. When you want to make contentious changes on Wikipedia, my experience is that patience works the best and gives you much longer-lasting effects. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sunrise. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Isopoda GAN

I am going to be away from my computer for a few days and will deal with the other points you have raised at the GA review on my return. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Take your time. :-) We'll be done soon I think. Sunrise (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm back. Esoxid seems to have dealt with the issues I left unresolved when I went away. Is there anything that has been missed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Isopoda

Thank you for undertaking the GA review of Isopoda. Your work was detailed and rigorous and we are both indebted to User:Esoxid, who knows more about the subject than either of us, for his/her input. I would point out that one of the criteria is that information should be "verifiable" but you chose to check as far as was possible that the source did in fact support the statement, thus giving yourself much more work than was really required to review the article. I had not intended to take this article to FAC but after such a thorough review, I might consider doing so. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for putting in such a thorough effort on this review. Thanks Cwmhiraeth for working on this as well. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 00:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks for your comments! Cwmhiraeth, I was actually wondering whether I was doing too much, given how long it became - for criterion 2, I was going by the statement in WP:RGA to "At a bare minimum, check that...[the sources] you can access support the content of the article." But in any case, good luck with FA if you decide to go there. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Arc de Ciel: Japanese Band or French Band in the Sky?

I'm just curious, but did you use the name Arc de Ciel because you like rainbows and France or because you like the Japanese band? TIA if you satisfy my curiosity, and TIBelatedness if you can't so then I'll still thank you for all your work on WP and the wonderful LessWrong links on User:Sunrise (I just learned that if I mention you with a wikilink, your notification badge increments).

Also, would it be LessWrong of me to steal those links & hidey-code to put on my user page if I also credit stealing them from you? Heh. I really like your thoughts on your user page, and I was actually looking for something like LessWrong to help my sister-friend learn about such things.

Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Geekdiva! Feel free to take what you like from my user page; I'm flattered by the compliment. :-)

My previous name was intended to translate as "arc of sky" - I liked the sound of the soft-c "ciel" from French, and it also served as a play on "arc en ciel" (rainbow). I think that is the official name of the band as well (L'Arc-en-Ciel), which I'd actually never heard of before now. That said, I don't know much French, so I was never able to confirm whether my translation was correct. Sunrise (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Need some help trying to make a bad article a good one...

To begin, thank you for being so generous of your time in order to bring temporary closure to the edit conflict and past ANI discussion regarding the issues with Steven Emerson, IPT, and my attempt to merge, delete and replace IPT with an accurate article worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia without violating WP:NOR, or worse, WP:BLP by using the IPT article to do so. Much to my surprise, redirects to IPT were created for The Investigative Project, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in what I believe is a violation of WP:NOR, not to mention the fact it was a disruptive action considering I've been working on a new, improved, and correctly titled article with accurate information for The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. The problem I'm having is finding reliable sources that do not originate from IPT's own website, or from published government documents. Also, Talk:Steven_Emerson was recently archived, therefore your note for not merging requires an archive search. You stated Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. I have tried everything I know to do to resolve the WP:NOR and potential WP:BLP violations regarding the IPT article, but to no avail. Perhaps you would be kind enough to help, or at least guide me through the proper procedures. I lack experience with regards to the latter as evidenced by your opinion that my invitations to 3 different editors to join the merge discussion were "indeed non-neutral". My opinion was that I did follow guidelines by including the "rationale" which I also included on the Talk page, and that I did not "canvass" because I only invited 3 editors, two of whom were already involved, and one of whom was uninvolved. I interpreted WP:Canvassing to mean "spamming", "vote stacking", "campaigning" and other activities that could be considered sending invitations to a large group of editors on Wikipedia, not just 3 editors I thought would improve the quality of the discussion. In retrospect, I now see how my intentions might have been misinterpreted. Atsme☯^Consult 19:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You’re welcome; I’m glad to be of help. :-) I would rather not get involved with the specifics of the dispute, but am happy to offer advice to you or anyone else. (Please note, of course, that I haven’t read any of the relevant talk pages other than the merge discussion.) From your comment here, you seem most concerned about making a distinction between the IPT and the IPT Foundation. But from the merge discussion, at least one editor disagrees that this distinction exists, so that’s the first thing you would have to establish.

So, if you haven’t tried these already, options include DRN, RfCs, noticeboards, etc. In each case (though less so for DRN) I would advise having a very specific idea of what you want to get out of it. DRN would be my first choice when relatively few editors are involved; editors have to agree to participate, and it’s non-binding, but you get input from an experienced mediator. If that fails, I would try an RfC. Even though you’ve taken this to ANI, I would consider that a last resort, when all possibility of collaboration within WP policy has failed. Of course I can’t say whether this was the best or not, since I don’t know your full history with the other editor, but given the lack of interest from uninvolved editors, I’m not seeing much likelihood of action.

All that said, I would keep in mind that sometimes a dispute will end with consensus against you, and if it is then the best way to react is to accept it. I think that on Wikipedia, a lot of editors persist with particular issues even when diminishing marginal utility makes it counterproductive – the point being that in the dozen hours you spent on one discussion, you could have improved other articles that you care about just as much, and in a less frustrating environment. There are some specific points that are worth standing for, but IMO such cases are rare. And even if things don’t work out this time, maybe an article won’t reflect consensus for a year or two, but many WP articles have problems, and we fix the ones we can.

On canvassing, writing neutral messages is difficult! I think of it as writing so that the recipient won’t be able to figure out which side you’re on (which in this case is made clear by the use of phrases like "hodge podge of inaccuracies"). Ideally, even someone familiar with the dispute (if we suppose they don't see who wrote the message) shouldn't be able to tell which side you're on. Either way, the easiest way to achieve this is to not describe anything about the dispute at all, and just say “your input would be appreciated on whether X should be merged into Y.” A second point is that some editors would view even the fact that you selected who to send the messages to as non-neutral, because you might have (even unconsciously) chosen editors who you suspected would take your position in the dispute. So the best places to ask for outside input (besides noticeboards) are Wikiprojects or the talk pages of related articles, where anyone interested in the topic can see them.

I know a lot of this is nonspecific; I’m not sure if it’s what you were looking for. It’s as long as it is because I’m trying to cover all the main points you raised, but please let me know if you'd like me to add anything. Sunrise (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Violations of WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup by User:Serialjoepsycho. Thank you.

Your ANRFC review was mentioned in the ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 23:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don’t think I’ll have anything to add since the close doesn’t seem to be a point of contention, but I’m watching the discussion. (My response to your questions is in the previous section.) Sunrise (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Jimbo link?

Many thanks for adding to WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard but what did you mean to link to, as I don't see anything about Subud etc on that Jimbo page? Testbed (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! That page moves very quickly, so the discussion is archived now. I've responded at FTN. Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

I don't know if this is the right way or place to raise an alert, but Joshua Lederberg's page seems to have been pranked. His nationality reads "African" on the right hand side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Lederberg

Please raise an alert if this is incorrect. Apologies if this is the wrong way to go about it!

Maurice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricesdevaraj (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for letting me know - I've gone ahead and fixed it. In the future, if you want to get a faster response, you can also fix it yourself. :-) Sunrise (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comments and help. Indeed I am a recently retired biochemistry professor, still involved in research on nutrition and human aging, have studied consciousness also. I had my nutrition classes for many years edit wiki pages to make them accurate with proper citations. But I have never mastered proper wiki editing. I just would like the content to be accurate when scientific concepts are relevant. Is there a way I can become a resource person to provide accurate citations and information relevant to nutrition and aging? Rocordman (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! My first suggestion would be to consider joining one of the Wikiprojects, which are informal groups of editors interested in a particular topic. I would recommend Wikiproject Medicine, since health-related content has special standards in order to make sure readers aren't harmed by inaccurate information, and they're probably the best place to get advice on the specific details. The main page is WP:MED, and their central discussion area is WT:MED. For medical topics, the best rule of thumb is to cite only review papers and textbooks - it's a bit more complicated than that, but that will work in the vast majority of circumstances. Though I have to say that once you know this, you already know the most important thing about this topic area, and I would encourage you to edit yourself as well. It's a learning curve for everyone, so don't worry if you make mistakes - you'll make fewer than most. :-)

Of course I'm happy to discuss this further - I also know a couple of editors who have more experience than I do in the nutrition or aging topic areas, and I'm happy to connect you to any of them. I look forward to hearing from you! Sunrise (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Sadly, life is busy even though I am officially retired. Knowing about human aging, I actually plan to live to 300, so now I need to keep earning enough $$ to live comfortably, so no social security until I am 70. Plus teaching keeps me around youngsters, whose optimism, energy, and pheromones keep me full of life. Check out http://www.blueberrystudy.com/teaberrystudy/ which is my latest effort to slow the process of human aging. But I will put Wikiproject Medicine on my TO DO list. Thanks so much. Rocordman (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all, and I hope you succeed! Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sunrise!

Happy New Year!

Sunrise,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Draft:Science

Hi Sunrise, I note that you restored a table to our working draft of the science article. I agree that the content of that table is important. For your information, I had removed the table because it sits like a brick in the middle of the text. By removing the table, however, there is nothing implied about whether or not its content is important, but, rather, it comes down to how we end up working with the text and this is, certainly, a high priority. One of the things I'm considering, in collaboration with @Ancheta Wis, is how the material is ordered and organized. I have my opinions, of course, and I know that others do as well, but I'd like to experiment with the structure of the article. I imagine much of the material in the table could be discussed, if at least in an abstract sense, in the "Motivations" section that we're outlining at the top of the draft. Still, I (again, just my humble opinion) would like to avoid long lists of scientific accomplishments and, instead, discuss science in a more general sense. See also the other outline sections at the top of the draft. Would you be interested in commenting on the outline sections at the top of the draft? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, that makes more sense, though I would have thought it simpler to leave it in until something better is obtained. Of course I have no objection to presenting it in a non-table format, although IMO it is something that needs to have a separate section (in addition to being discussed in the motivations). One approach I have used in the past to avoid misunderstandings like this is to copy removed material to a talk page so it's clear that you're still working with it. :-) Sunrise (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why we copied the material to a draft page. The actual Science page still contains all of the original material, including the table. The draft space is just for actual work. Don't worry, I'm very sensitive about the issue of balance. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the draft page is going to be copied over the original page, the issue is the same. :-) It's a matter of keeping a record of what is and is not in the draft at any particular moment. Sunrise (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I must admit to being skeptical of some parts of the outline at this point, but it depends on how a lot of the material is presented, and overall it definitely seems like it could be an improvement. Possibly my most important concern at this stage is the same point raised here by J8079s - that it is important to make it clear when we are referring to ideas that are relevant from a historical or philosophical perspective, e.g. Goethe comes to mind, but are much less relevant for the practice or understanding of science today. Sunrise (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have a different outline, or a new outline section, or, even modifications of the outline we have, then please have a go at it. Your perspective on biology and natural science is welcome. FYI, I'm a geophysicist, so I inevitably come with related baggage. Hence, my invitation for you to weigh in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping to motivate a presentation that is not just made from mini-page versions of history of science, philosophy of science, and scientific method -- which is how I see the present page. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Right now I'm just planning to see how things develop and chime in now and then, but I'll have another look at the outline later. With regards to "mini-page versions," that's actually the preferred style, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. A section on (e.g.) the scientific method in the Science article should be a summary of the relevant parts of the Scientific method article. This is similar to the way that the lead must reflect the body of the article per WP:LEAD. Of course, though, there's a lot of flexibility and room for judgement within these constraints. Sunrise (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Please note the discussions at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#West_Virginia_University_M.B.A._controversy, Talk:West_Virginia_University_M.B.A._controversy#contents (noting the reason being given - to show her personal complicity) and the additional edit at [1]. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy‎

I have a COI. I was wondering if the redirect should be left behind in this case. I know it creates a redirect automatically when performing article-moves. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Good point. I'm not too familiar with deletion policy, but I'm guessing it can't go through WP:CSD, since the only BLP-related CSD criterion is G10 (attack pages). So I assume your best option would probably be WP:RFD. Sunrise (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I left a note on Talk with a proposed statement for the redirect discussion as follows: "The article was renamed due to BLP concerns. Leaving a redirect behind seems to defeat the purpose of moving the page." I didn't really think we needed an essay or anything. To be honest, since the rename discussion already shows consensus that the title is a BLP concern, it may not even need a separate, dedicated discussion, but I leave that up to you. CorporateM (Talk) 15:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no essay required. :-) FYI, I'm not an admin (and don't particularly want to be!), so I wouldn't be able to bypass discussion myself anyways. (And if I were, it would probably be a bad idea now, given how the discussion is leaning.) That said, I believe the redirect's search ranking will drop once Google updates. Sunrise (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hi Sunrise. I can't imagine what you thought I'd done to MasterChef Australia that prompted you to point me toward the sandbox, but I can assure you there's been a mistake. I edited out only one sentence which, as I stated as the reason for my edit, was simply derogatory. To paraphrase, it said the show was "effin shyte". That's all I did (unless I managed to inadvertently click on something). In any case, I was certainly trying to be constructive. :) FTR, I don't edit much unless I see something blatantly rude or a glaring grammar issue that I can help with. I can appreciate that you're doing your best to insure quality info as well, but in this case, I'm completely baffled as to what transpired that caused the confusion.

Karmaleigh (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Karmaleigh - sorry about that! I was indeed doing quality control and it looks like I misclicked. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I hope that you're enjoying Wikipedia, and please let me know if I can ever help you with anything. :-) Cheers, Sunrise (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Pottawatomie Massacre

An editor has asked for a Move review of Pottawatomie Massacre. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: FWIW, let me know if I can clarify anything for you. I do know that the MOS disputes can get heated, but I've never felt they were that important, so the main thing I care about at this point is minimizing drama. Sunrise (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, reversing the unanimous opinion in an RM discussion doesn't seem likely to be a way to minimize drama, does it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course I still close according to my best judgement on what's best for the encyclopedia. And you know that there isn't unanimous agreement given the context of the previous discussion. If there are two identical RMs one right after the other, then speaking generally, if circumstances haven't changed then a different result is unlikely - even though when I considered the specifics of this example it did come pretty close. But really, if you want to discuss, then I'm happy to oblige. Sunrise (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise, thanks for considering the new info and reversing your close. Could you take the appropriate steps to have the article actually moved now please? Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course! I've filed a TR. Sunrise (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)