User talk:Sunrise/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Noticeboard closure

That FTN discussion was being used as a final agreement, it could be stopped only if the result/closure were overturned. If there was agreement to overturn, that means you should overturn the closure. Would you? And also rephrase your summary, in the end you are just giving a suggestion and overlooking the clear community agreement. I also think that no one of us is going to participate on the FTN anymore but it can be opened as there is agreement to reopen or just boxed without any explanation, so that result cannot be used as justification. Current RFC is about a different page, not about the same page that was actually meant to be discussed on the FTN. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti! I'm not sure what you mean - could you please explain further? The outcome was that the closure would be overturned, which (I assume) is what you wanted. I can make an edit striking it out myself if you'd like.

Any editor can reopen the discussion, at any location. The last part was indeed just a suggestion, and you don't have to follow it, so if you feel this topic (or any other topic) is best discussed somewhere else, then you can. I don't see what agreement you say I'm overlooking. Basically, the result is that you can act as if the previous closure never happened. Sunrise (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Others don't see that way[1] who use that discussion as an agreement for content. All I was asking you to is follow the community agreement that either the FTN discussion should be reopened or just boxed without any results(like you said too). In this case you can remove the closure or just remove the result summary and link to your closure after rephrasing it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So you mean doing something like this? (section link) Anybody could do that, so I usually leave it for the involved editors, since in some cases they might know more details of how best to perform the result. Sunrise (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, also mention on AN closure summary, for future preference. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I overturned your strikeout on WP:FTN as an out-of-process and inappropriate bow to a WP:FORUMSHOP. jps (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How it is forum shopping? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Also see [2]. Bladesmulti (talk)

This is another part of why I prefer not to make these edits myself - it isn't me who gets reverted. :-) Anyways, if you're contesting my close and think I should have closed the AN discussion as FORUMSHOP, I'd have to disagree - and I would note that nobody cited FORUMSHOP over the week the discussion was open, so clearly most editors viewed it as legitimate. I do have to say (as I did in the summary) that a lot of editors had no issue with the content of the close, which is quite suggestive that the ultimate result will be similar. While I'm very much aware of the consequences Wikipedia can have in the real world, I think considering WP:NODEADLINE is appropriate here.

If the close isn't contested: Blades, most editors will probably accept the overturn based on the AN close, regardless of whether the FTN close is marked with strikeout or not. If it gets brought up anyways - well, we are not a bureaucracy after all, and the closer should take everything into account. (And there are definitely formal closures in the future of this topic area.)

Of course I'm willing to hear if you have any information I might not have been aware of, and I'm available to answer questions. Signing off for the night but I'll return tomorrow. Sunrise (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The close of the AN thread has no bearing on the FTN thread. The parties involved at FTN were not notified of any AN discussion and consensus at point A cannot trump consensus at point B. That's not how Wikipedia works. jps (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

They have commented there, they knew about it. You can also see the talk page of the FTN yourself. Changing FTN result was a part of this process as the agreement was to overturn the result/closure. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no precedence for the AN board to overturn results/closures of noticeboard discussions. The administrator's noticeboard is not an appeals court for the determinations of the consensus of content discussions. If you think a new FTN discussion is warranted, you can start another section at FTN if you wish. jps (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Where you have read that? You can read Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing, it says "all discussion closures" are subject to review. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That is informal guidance. It is neither a guideline nor policy. AN cannot overrule FTN. There is no community consensus for it. If you want to propose a noticeboard hierarchy, suggest this at WP:VP, for example. jps (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I could comment further, but I think it's clear from the discussions at Callanecc's and Huon's talk pages that the community disagrees with you in this. (Though of course, I remain available to discuss if there is anything else.) Sunrise (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

jps, The discussion on AN was precisely for challenging the closure and there is an overwhelming support that it was too quick to close in less than 24h. It was not a duplicate of the discussion at FTN. There is no AN overruling FTN here at all. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unjust Removal of Completely true informaion

Hi, Recently you removed a section of information that I added to Columbia High School's Wiki page . Everything I said was true and I want the truth to be known to others. I don't appreciate you violating my right to add more completely truthful information about the topic and quite frankly it is fucked up of you. I will copy and paste what I previously stated every single day because the information should be known to others. You could at least give me an actual explanation as to why you like to censor out truthful information. Just because YOU want the school to look good doesn't mean I don't have the right to explain what happened to me at the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.26.120 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I came across your edit while reviewing recent changes to Wikipedia. I'd never heard of your school before that, so I don't have any personal opinion about it. I undid your edit because I don't think the information can be verified by reliable sources (follow the links to learn more). Our policies require that other people reading the article need to be able to confirm that the event happened. That is, even if it happened, we wouldn't be able to include it unless it came to the attention of the newspapers, or was otherwise reported on in some way. Sunrise (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sunrise. You have new messages at David Tornheim's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tornheim (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 February 2015‎

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I've been aware of this for years. :-) If you like, you can construe my response here as me being aware of most of the DS areas on WP, including ARBPS. Or at least those areas that are scientific topics.

In any case - if any specific concern prompted this notice, please let me know. (Also, doesn't the notification get logged somewhere, or does the DS system do that automatically now?) Sunrise (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We can't do that anymore, there are pretty strict rules for determining if someone is aware of discretionary sanctions. Just a general note, saw you were editing related articles and hadn't received the necessary notification. It's automated, if you go so someone's talk page and put discretionary sanctions alert in the "Tag filter" box and it'll bring up any alerts they've received (eg [3]). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Sunrise (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your edits to the IM article

It always pains me when I undo someone's editing, but I didn't understand why you removed every instance of "complementary" in the article on Integrative medicine. I believe the sources use the phrase "complementary and alternative medicine." TimidGuy (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Replacement, not removal. As a general rule, the sources use a mix of the two. The pre-existing consensus is that WP uses the term "alternative" to refer to CAM, e.g. complementary medicine and complementary and alternative medicine both redirect to alternative medicine. That said, I don't see it as a major issue, and if you feel that "complementary" better reflects the sources in this case, then I won't object.

Also, I would say you shouldn't feel bad about the undo button at all, per WP:BRD. :-) Sunrise (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hi

Further to your message concerning Coalition of the Radical Left I have never, to my knowledge, even accessed this page let alone edited it. Think there must an an error in the system somewhere as this is not the first time I have received such a message.

Brian BTP51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.91.179 (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian - you're probably receiving a message intended for another user of the same IP address. (Your edit history shows that your IP address made this edit.) For example, this can happen when you're accessing Wikipedia from a school or work location. The easiest way I know to prevent this from happening is to create a Wikipedia account. I've left you a note at your talk page with some useful links. Please let me know if I can help with anything. Sunrise (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I don't understand this. I HAVE a Wiki account (BTP51) and I only ever edit Wikipedia rarely nowadays and when I do so I do it from my home computer. I am a retired teacher and thus have no other computer. As I said, this is not the first time I have received notification that I have edited a page which, to my knowledge, I have never even visited, let alone edited.

BTP51 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)BTP51

That's strange. I'm guessing that maybe your IP address changes rapidly? I've posted a note at WP:VPT - they should know more about how to solve your problem. If there's a better place to ask, hopefully they can point us there. Sunrise (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your IP comes from a dynamic pool, so it was probably allocated to someone else before you (see this). You can just delete that warning from your talk page and don't worry about it. If you use your BTP51 account, this problem will not occur. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Xvideos problem

I tried adding a citation on his profile xvideos.com/profiles/mandingo-1 but get an error telling me that xvideos.com is blacklisted.Martin slad (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin. If a website is blacklisted, that means you'll have to find a different citation to include it in Wikipedia. You can also request an exception to the blacklisting here, though I don't think a profile would be considered a suitable source for the information (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Sunrise (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A minor edit

Hi, Sunrise, In the Master of Science page (the section was India) there was a mistake: it said "...Universities does...". I corrected it to "... do..." but you changed it back. Anyway, I'm changing it again, because I can't tolerate bad grammar. (I'm writing all this because you asked me to tell you if I thought you made a mistake.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.88.166 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2015‎

Hi! Thanks for your message. Actually, grammatically speaking, both "do" and "does" are unsuitable in this context. However, I undid your edit because you actually changed "does" to "doe," which is clearly a misspelling of something but I couldn't figure out what. :-) Sunrise (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lloviu virus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lloviu virus. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, thanks!

		The Wise Advice Award
		THANK YOU for your sage and timely advice! You saved my bacon in act of perfect kindness. — Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem! I'm glad I helped. :-) Sunrise (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you I would have dealt with this but I was too lazy to gather the diff J8079s (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

diff

When you look at the diff [4] then the response does not seem "off the wall" J8079s (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think it was. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:South Beach_Diet".The discussion is about the topic South Beach Diet. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I just remembered that I had been planning to come back to this. Sorry about that! :-) Since I presume from this that you're still interested, I'm happy to return to it once the DRN is complete. (I don't think I have any new thoughts to share on the scope of the DRN as framed, though I'll keep an eye on it.) Sunrise (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Sunrise! Thanks for the note and I apologize for the delay; I'm traveling at the moment. Hang tight, and I'll follow up in the next day or so (before I'm unfortunately offline again until the following week). Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Me again, briefly. I'm about to be offline for several days, but I wanted to give you an indication of my thinking. Which is, basically, I still think the intro material we discussed on the SBD Talk page is sub-optimal, but I've decided to let it go. Between the incomplete nature of the sources and general skepticism toward SBD, I just can't imagine turning around the consensus anytime soon. I will post likely once more on that discussion page to outline some parting thoughts on how I hope others will develop the article in the future. Although a closed matter for me, I remain interested in what you were going to write, simply because I try to be receptive feedback. Anytime you have a chance, that'd be great. Meantime, thanks for hearing me out. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll write up my thoughts probably over the next few days. :-) Cheers, Sunrise (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain what you meant with "Addition of the note to the lead image caption seems to be unopposed" in your closing comment here. I don't understand which note ("the note") you are referring to. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Debresser! I refer to the note that was added in this edit (the use of "<ref group=note>" renders as "[note 1]" in superscript). The edit was made last week and nobody contested it. That said, if you oppose it, I'm sure it isn't too late to do so. Sunrise (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, that is a informative and well-balanced note. I seem to remember it verbatim in some other article here. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Sunrise! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

teach me basics ofevolution

pls, i dont give ashit abiut creation ok?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.145.107 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

says you learn evolution and teach about scienxe quesrions

iam raised from benos aires and come to United States and i learnd abut creation im secondary school but i no longer am chsirtian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.145.107 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC) can you teach?? soery my english is not good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.145.107 (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that you're only here because I reverted your vandalism, I'm a bit skeptical. However, if you're actually sincere, I encourage you to ask your questions at the science reference desk. Sunrise (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars for you!

		The Bio-star
		Thank You *Very Much* For Your Excellent Contributions To The "Abiogenesis" Article - Including Your Recent Help With The "Frequently Answered Questions" Section On The "Abiogenesis Talk Page" - Thanks Again For Your Contributions - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank You *Very Much* For Your Outstanding Contributions To The "Abiogenesis" Article - Including Your Recent Help With The "Frequently Answered Questions" Section On The "Abiogenesis Talk Page" - Thanks Again For Your Contributions - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always great working with you. Sunrise (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC and a couple requests

First, I want to thank you for all of the time that you have put in at WP:ANRFC. You are moving right along, and I think that is wonderful. I wish there were more people willing to spend a little time managing that board. Second, I'm wondering if I can convince you to add |done=yes someplace in the {{Initiated}} template call when you mark a section as done. Doing this will make the automatic categorization work correctly and prevent the archive page from showing up in the categories. Finally, I was wondering if I could convince you to update your signature to HTML5 standards. If you are interested and willing to do this, I suggest replacing:

'''''[[User:Sunrise|<span style="color:#FF6600;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Sunrise</span></span>]]''''' ''<span style="font-size:x-small;">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</span>''

with:

[[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <small>''([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])''</small>

which will result in a 130 character long signature (25 characters shorter) with an appearance of: Sunrise (talk)

compared to your existing 155 character long signature of: Sunrise (talk)

— Either way. Happy editing! {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Technical 13! I only just realized your signature makes it easy to ping you. :-) Thanks for the message - I've split your comment in case the MoodBar discussion gets complicated. I found out about |done=yes recently, but please feel free to remind me if I forget. Do you have any thoughts on what should be done when the request doesn't contain the {{Initiated}} template?

• I used to add the template as a reference for the archive, but you may choose to just leave it out. The important part is to mark it as done=yes if it is there otherwise it will add the categorizations (like admin backlog) to the archive page which is undesired. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made some updates to my signature based on your suggestion, so I'm now using:

[[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <span style="font-size:x-small;">''([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])''</span>

I'd like to keep the current font size for my talk page link, but I'm happy to adjust further if there's a way to do that. Sunrise (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no concrete minimum size per se, but WP:SIGAPP bullet four says it can't be so small that others can read it and poking through the archives for the talk page it would appear to me that 85% or 11px is about that threshold. You currently have it at 10px, which is just under that goal. That said, to bring it up to standards using your current font size it would look like:

[[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:10px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i>

for Sunrise (talk). Alternatively, to make it meet SIGAPP in many editors eyes would be:

[[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i>

for Sunrise (talk). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I've updated my signature to the 11px version. Sunrise (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

MoodBar

Finally, I see you worked on closing the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 118#Turn the MoodBar back on discussion. I do think that discussion should go to WP:VPR for a formal RfC, and I would be happy to assist in the closing if you wanted to start the discussion. I JethroBT's opinion that There's actually no point in relisting it. The WMF has already already weighed in on this discussion here stating that the proposal to re-enable Moodbar at Enwiki has been declined. seems a little misguided after I looked at the discussion he linked to. Yes, that was said on the page, but Whatamidoing (WMF) could also be quoted as saying I think you may be over-interpreting that. I've heard of no plans to cancel Flow, or even to de-prioritize it from its current level. What Lila says in those comments is that the current version isn't good enough for most uses (which is something that I frequently tell Quiddity myself  ;-) and that we may need multiple tools, including specialized tools, to do multiple jobs, including specialized jobs. which suggests to me that the WMF might consider bringing back the moodbar as one of those "specialized tools". It's all in the way the discussion is cherry picked and interpreted. I never used moodbar, and could care less one way or the other, but I think it is important that the community gets to decide if they want it or not. If they do, while the WMF might not work on the code directly itself, it could also be redone as an extension that we could use. There are options. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against writing an RfC question for VPR, though I'd like to get I JethroBT's feedback since they made the close. Could you expand on what question(s) you're interested in? For example, I could imagine:

• should the community ask the WMF to allocate resources towards MoodBar now, separately from Flow? (I'm assuming that they already intend to include it, or something similar, as part of Flow.)
• should the community ask the WMF to re-enable MoodBar as it is now despite their declining phab:T88954?
• should the community finish development of the MoodBar independently?

In any case, my main concern would be to establish that a positive result could actually be implemented, e.g. by getting WMF agreement (for #1 or #2), or by finding volunteers willing to do the development (for #3). Thanks! Sunrise (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd think a multipart RfC. Part one, does the community still want moodbar back. Take a little time to briefly sum up in a paragraph or two what moodbar was exactly, what objections and complaints people had about it, and what it's good features were. Part two, explain that why it was disabled/taken away, and that multiple developers suggest in that phab ticket you pointed me to (which is no longer declined btw, I've claimed it - set it to lowest - and reopened it as stalled) that the experiment was successful and all of the data indicated that it should be a permanent feature and continued to be developed. Part three, ask if the community wants to ask the foundation to pick back up on the development or if we want to continue to develop it ourselves. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hey @Technical 13: and Sunrise. I don't think it will be productive to relist the discussion if the intent is to make another request to the WMF to turn it on again given what they've said already. But it's your call. That said, if there are editors who want to get involved in the work of turning of Moodbar Feedback again, I think a more productive conversation would be to ask the WMF to provide or direct us to the code and documentation for the program so that it can be worked on and improved by interested editors in the community. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! T13, any thoughts? I'd assumed that the code was already available, but if it isn't I agree that requesting it should be the first step. Sunrise (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1692 Subbotina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1692 Subbotina. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Identity theft in the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Identity theft in the United States. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Closure at WT:NPOV

Hi Sunrise, Apologies for the interruption. Per WP:CLOSE, I am requesting reconsideration of your close at WT:NPOV.

Closing notes: To the extent that changes or clarifications to the policy are being proposed, consensus is against them. To the extent that questions are being asked, those questions have been answered. To the extent that this is a content dispute, it should be taking place elsewhere. Enough editor time and attention has been spent here, to the point that continuing this reaches the level of disruption. There are thousands of articles waiting for improvement where this energy could be better spent.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you on some aspects of these closing notes; a) That there is no consensus for changes to the policy. b) To the extent that this is a content dispute, it should be taking place elsewhere.; I am requesting reconsideration on the closure of some aspects of the discussion.

I believe that there were still open questions, which had not been substantially discussed or answered, prior to the close. I include in these my own questions raised here, clarified here on Factors to consider in determining if assertions are "contested". This was a good faith attempt to discuss application of the policy in the abstract (not limited to the content dispute), and had been responded to constructively by other, uninvolved editors.

I believe that there is value in pursuing that line of discussion, with a view to providing guidance to editors who find themselves trying to determine if & how NPOV applies.

If you are not comfortable with a wholesale reversal of the closure, I would ask that this aspect be re-opened in a new thread.

Finally, while I again wholeheartedly agree that it would be best for the project for editor time and attention to be spent improving articles, it may also be prudent to remind editors that they need not feel WP:REQUIRED to involve themselves in discussions.

Many thanks for your time & consideration in reading this. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ryk72! No problem at all, and thanks for coming here. If you feel that anything still needs to be discussed (which is different from the main issues from the closed discussion), you're always free to start a new section. For example, this comment that you linked was made near the end of the closed discussion, and in the abstract I agree that it's a reasonable topic of discussion. However, since it's still substantially related, I suspect that other editors would interpret that as a way of continuing to argue the same points. As such, I would suggest that you wait a few months to hopefully let tensions die down - after all, the questions will be relevant for years, and there's no urgency - and then choose a new example in order to focus the discussion away from Gamergate. Does that address your concerns? Sunrise (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FAQ

Thanks for expanding the MEDRS FAQ. I think the more important question about "fringe" topics is to help editors decide whether a subject is actually fringe. For example, if FRINGE's definition ("an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field") is actually correct, then the utility of acupuncture and chiropractic care are not FRINGE, because the prevailing view in mainstream medicine is that it's okay to refer patients with pain problems for this kind of care. (The idea that there's some undetectable energy field being manipulated by acupuncture, or that chiropractic care can treat diabetes, or whatever, would still presumably be a fringe claim.) But there seems to be a disconnect between the definition and its enforcement. I don't know how to solve this problem, or to explain it to new editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I think that's a good point WhatamIdoing, and I don't really have a good answer either. My 2¢ is that there's some tension between MEDRS and FRINGE in this regard. For example, we can presumably source the statement that qi doesn't exist, and/or that "qi exists" is a fringe view. But given that, what's the status of a statement like "acupuncture cures the disruptions in qi that cause disease"? Presumably it's a medical statement and thus requires MEDRS, but it's logically incompatible with "qi doesn't exist" which is not a MEDRS statement. And of course for the latter, per PARITY we don't need (or often even expect to find) high-quality sources to support it, and per EXCEPTIONAL we need very high-quality sources to suggest otherwise.

So in this example, one option is to simply avoid mentioning qi when possible, and to attribute it otherwise. I think the current article largely takes that approach, though I find that somewhat unsatisfying as a solution - among other things, the fringe concerns are still relevant, since e.g. any statement that some evidence has shown some treatment to be effective, without context, can still carry implications that are favorable to the underlying belief system. One way to add context might be to start with the broader perspective and write something like "qi doesn't exist and there is no evidence that acupuncture works for most of the conditions it's been used for, but some evidence suggests that for some conditions..." and then go into a discussion on the state of that evidence. If written well, I think that sort of structure could satisfy both MEDRS and FRINGE, but I don't think it's likely to happen any time soon. :-)

For the FAQ, what would you think of a question addressing the distinction between the MEDRS statements of efficacy/utility and the underlying non-MEDRS beliefs? I think the enforcement of FRINGE is generally aimed at those underlying beliefs, but the beliefs generally come packaged with medical claims (which I guess is another way of stating the same problem), so enforcing a separation between them could be useful. Sunrise (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ask.com

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ask.com. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Since

Since you were interested in the Halfak's study, you might be interested in an upcoming plan, which he's beginning to set up at Wikipedia talk:Labels/VE experiment edits. The idea is to have different people provide human insight into what happened in a sample of edits. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)