User talk:Sunrise/Archive 6

Nomination of Concision (media studies) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concision (media studies) 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 Articles for deletion/Concision (media studies) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Bangalamania (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Tipping Points
Hi Sunrise you have previously edited on the tipping points in the climate system page. I have posed some questions on the tipping points talk page re Observable warning signals. Would you care to comment? Yaklib (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have made only a single minor edit to that page, so contacting me over this is a little tenuous. If you think that the article needs more attention to be drawn to it, I would recommend the talk page of WP:WikiProject Climate Change. If you find yourself feeling frustrated (as I see this is the only article you've worked on over several months and a number of your edits have been rejected by other editors), you might find it helps to spend some time working on other articles you're interested in instead. Sunrise (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Rfc on Falsifiability
Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Just adding that I am not sure why we are disagreeing in the Falsifiability talk page. One explanation is that you simply don't understand what is falsifiability, especially the fact that it is a purely logical criterion. Let me share with you that having a purely logical criterion might seem to be a serious setback with respect to the notion of science based on concrete evidence, but it's only a setback that allows it to be very strong in supporting a rigorous scientific methodology that uses statistical tests, etc. Popper wrote that his methodology is hardly rigorous, but this was in the context of the Vienna circle who identified rigour with an inductive procedure of justification. Actually, his methodology is the rigorous methodology of science based on severe tests, but to strongly support it he needs a logical criterion, which is falsifiability. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I just read your wikiphilosophy, which includes "if you're right, consensus will eventually get there; if you're wrong, consensus shouldn't get there." I also uses the same philosophy, but after having tried a discussion. I stop after it starts to get heavy or when we reached a good common understanding, but not before. The point is that no consensus is meaningful without a discussion where people respond to arguments. Some times this requires in depth discussions about what the sources say. This is the most important part of my wikiphilosophy: no wikipedia rule is a miracle trick that can dispense us from discussing and understanding the sources and we cannot achieve Wikipedia's goal without these discussions and a good understanding of the sources. This understanding must go way beyond  looking at sentences there and there out of context to justify inclusion. I am not saying that you do the opposite of that. I am just sharing my view. On the contrary, I feel this comment from you invite a good discussion. It's only that many issues you raise deserve attention, but are not directly about the RfC. We first need to resolve the RfC issue, which is how to present the challenging, but intrinsic, logical nature (i.e., in terms of observation statements that are purely logical constructions) of falsifiability in the easiest way possible for a large audience. After this is clarified, every thing else will be easier. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I suspect that our most central point of disagreement is the logical criterion issue. I will reiterate that while falsifi ability is a logical criterion, it necessarily refers to the potential for falsif ication which is an empirical action, and describing the issue in those terms is a valid approach. In fact, there is a reasonable argument that "Falsification" should actually be the title of the article, e.g. it is much more common in Google Scholar results, and this is true even if limited only to philosophy of science.
 * I am generally sympathetic with your description of consensus, and I think in the past I would have agreed with it almost entirely. However, now that I have more experience, I would add that even if you’re confident you’re right, an important sub-skill is how effective you are at convincing other people. Part of this involves expressing your points clearly and concisely, and often discarding less important points entirely; if you can convince people of your central points, then in many cases everything else will follow. Furthermore, people have limited bandwidth for discussion (e.g. due to time constraints), and overwhelming them is a path to making consensus less representative rather than more.
 * To be clear, as in my previous comment, this is intended as good-faith feedback. As a further description of the perspective that I’m trying to communicate, you may find it helpful to read WP:Don't bludgeon the process. In particular, I would emphasize the rule of thumb that If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process. Sunrise (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see why you oppose my view on the importance of "having tried a discussion" with the requirement for skill in discussion, etc. I don't follow that at all, but I will follow your advice here and will not discuss more than necessary about that with you and will ignore any patronizing. Let's focus on the knowledge instead. The key reason for the logical nature of falsifiability is too remove any tight connection with falsifications. The logical aspect is good, because now falsifiability is for severe testing with both outcomes, corroboration or falsification, being useful. Sunrise, I believe that we have the same goal. I understand that the logical aspect of falsifiability is challenging and this is why we discuss it. But, the starting point is understanding the sources. Falsifiability is not for falsifications only. It's also for meaningful corroborations. Popper explains that without falsifiability a corroboration is not meaningful. The logical nature of falsifiability is what untighten it from falsification and this is necessary to make it powerful. It's also why it avoids all the problems of falsifications while allowing severe tests. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't clear, the second paragraph of my previous comment is not an opposition to trying a discussion in general. However, I do not have to personally attempt a discussion with you in order to read the talk page and observe your communication style. The most important point I was making, perhaps, is that said communication style is not very effective for the goal of finding consensus; see above for details. Also, my comments on this topic are intended as good-faith advice, and indeed I wouldn't have said anything if I didn't think you were capable of taking on feedback. No patronizing is intended, although I would point out that comments like the starting point is understanding the sources (among others) could easily be interpreted as patronizing as well. I do appreciate your attempt to focus here, and I suggest it would be helpful if you applied the same approach more broadly as well.


 * Falsifiability and falsification are tightly linked, to the point that they are inherently part of the same topic, and trying to minimize this connection is counterproductive. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the difference between falsifiable and falsified, or anything like that. For instance, I would agree with the statement "Falsifiability is the logical possibility of falsification" (and indeed it is implied by the suffix "-ability"). However, the natural followup question is, what is falsification? Trying to discuss one without the other is unlikely to lead to anything coherent.


 * It appears that the current article is trying to minimize description of falsification, particularly description of its empirical nature, which I think is a major source of its poor comprehensibility. That said, it could also be that all the unnecessarily complex language is making this seem like more of an issue than it really is, and fixing that would solve the problem in itself. Sunrise (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not write long paragraphs to discuss your style or anything about you. I do write short sentences recalling simple principles, but it's not directed toward you personally. Yes, now I do write about you, but it's about specific and lengthy content that you wrote about me directly. It's completely different. I only respond to your accusations. I won't respond further than that to these accusations and your patronizing, including your false accusations that I also patronize you. Let's focus on the content. You wrote Falsifiability and falsification are tightly linked, to the point that they are inherently part of the same topic, and trying to minimize this connection is counterproductive. The article does not hide the connection. On the contrary it describes in details the connection. However, first, to make a good connection between two concepts they should not be conflated. They should be described separately, clearly distinguished and then connected. Second, the article subject is falsifiability, not falsificationism. Falsificationism is related and should be covered so that a connection can be made, but the article is already doing that. You wrote It appears that the current article is trying to minimize description of falsification, particularly description of its empirical nature, Well, it contains a lot about the problems of falsification. It was even done in the second section before you moved this section at the end. Yes, the article emphasizes falsifiability (the logical criterion), but it's the subject. So, this is what should be expected.  You wrote it could also be that all the unnecessarily complex language is making this seem like more of an issue than it really is, and fixing that would solve the problem in itself. There is always room for improvement. This last sentence of yours is completely different from the other ones. It does not say falsifiability is simply the ability to be falsified. (Again, this incorrect definition faces all the problems of falsifications, which the correct logic-based definition avoid). It does not express a disagreement on what should be explained, but ask how it should be explained. I created the RfC to discuss that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Illusion of explanatory depth
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Random question!
Hello! First, thanks for closing the Adam's Bridge moratorium. I was not involved in that discussion, but I was going to close it ... before I realized I wasn't actually sure how moratoriums are enforced, and I was randomly hoping you might be able to explain it to me (time and desire permitting, of course). My understanding of WP:CCC is that a consensus at one point in time cannot bind future discussions. And, obviously, editors that seek to re-test a consensus very soon after it's found will often be found disruptive. But how does that blend with a moratorium? I can think of two situations where this might come up: Thanks for any insight you can give!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) No one on that page is still there for 6 months, and then the editors who are on that page decide to have a discussion and overwhelmingly agree that it should be moved. Does the prior moratorium invalidate the new consensus?
 * 2) A new influx of users wants to restart the discussion, and there are enough of them such that the editors trying to enforce the last moratorium can't revert/close the new discussion without improperly edit warring. Are the editors who want the moratorium, effectively, allowed to petition ANI for an injunction stopping the discussion? And does it matter if a majority of editors on the page don't want the moratorium to apply?


 * Hi Jerome! Personally, I would tend to see the enforcement as being outside the scope of the closure, unless it's an active point of contention in the discussion that requires a resolution. As such, I don't claim any special insight on the enforcement. That said, I think of moratoriums like any other topic where a consensus can be established. So for point 1, I'm inclined to say that the new consensus would stand based on CCC (and IAR or NOTBURO if necessary), especially because the lack of attempted enforcement by even a single person implies that support for the moratorium is so low that consensus for the moratorium clearly no longer exists. For point 2, the situation could potentially indicate a shift in consensus, but the people who are edit warring against enforcing the moratorium would be acting disruptively. So it would definitely be legitimate to petition ANI, but the focus would be on those editors.


 * I would also distinguish between the consensus on the discussion topic and the consensus on the moratorium, as the latter can still be discussed freely. So for example, if the situation changes drastically before the moratorium expires, one could first open a discussion about ending the moratorium early, and then only continue if the first discussion is successful. If it was necessary to close off any of these possibilities for some reason (maybe a history of sockpuppetry sufficient to obscure consensus), then I could imagine e.g. seeking a formal AE sanction. Sunrise (talk)</i> 11:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the insight! I'm a relatively new editor, and while I've done a few closures ... I also steer clear of ones if alarm bells go off in my head, even if I don't always understand why they're going off. Thanks so much.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Lede stuffing
Hi Sunrise, I do appreciate your timely addition of the latest (and important) B/Yamagata info to the flu B page here. However, this does belong to the body f i r s t, and then an extract of it should appear in the lede.

Otherwise it is lede stuffing. Cheers, Wuerzele (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Wuerzele, I simply added the information to the article in the only place where it was already under discussion. In addition, while a strict summary-style approach is always the "most correct", I would consider it to have relatively low importance in this particular situation, given that e.g. the information clearly has sufficient weight to be discussed prominently. But if you have a different opinion, simply adjust the article as you think best. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Missing refs to be filled by bot
Re this edit summary. You'll be pleased to know that I (not a bot), have just found the last one. Sorry it took me five years. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I remember this - I see that when I went back to fill in the missing refs, I didn't bring over the targets of the short citations as well. Thanks for cleaning up after my mistake. :-)


 * At the time, I was under the impression that when copying between articles, if there were named references that weren't defined in the copied content, then you could leave them undefined as long as you linked the original article in the edit summary. I thought that a bot would later come by and check the linked article to fill in the missing ref. As you can see, it didn't happen and I ended up doing it manually. Would you happen to know anything about this? I never saw it happen afterwards, so I don't know where I got the idea from. Maybe I'm just a hallucinating AI language model... <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think there is a ref that can sometimes rescue refs from an article's own history, and I do recall seeing one years ago that came up with suggestions for references from other articles where the refnames matched, but I can't put my hand on an example of either at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've found User:AnomieBOT which can rescue refs from old revisions of an article. You might have seen that in action. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That could be it. I also see "Copy content for orphaned named refs from linked articles" in the list of tasks. Searching the bot's talk page archives gives this discussion which mentions getting a link from an edit summary. However, the BRFA mentioned in that discussion only seems to refer to all pages wikilinked from the current page and all pages that wikilink to the current page. I've posted at the bot's talk page to request clarification. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)