User talk:Sunrise/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

MEDRS FAQ

Hi! I noticed some time ago you'd been working on WT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/FAQ; coincidentally I had also previously made a start at User:Alexbrn/sandbox/MEDFAQ. Some kind of FAQ is still sorely needed and could cut out a lot of wasted discussion time. How about combining efforts? I'm also pinging:

• WhatamIdoing who kicked off the FAQ page, and from whom I have borrowed for the text on when primary sources may be usable.
• Jytdog who wrote User:Jytdog/Why_MEDRS?

I'll start my merging my effort in to WT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/FAQ. Perhaps with more hands on deck we can get this into a shape where it'd be ready to use ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! I had just recommended moving to WP space as a way to help attract more attention, but this works too. :-) It might still be a good idea since the current setup doesn't allow us to have a talk page for discussion - do you have any objections? (I don't think the page is anywhere near complete, so perhaps a draft or sandbox tag could be added.) Also, could I prevail on you to comment out the questions that don't have answers yet, like I did for mine? I think it makes the working copy more presentable and easier to work with, and perhaps the list could preserved on the talk page if it would help discussion. Sunrise (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good but the mainspace version will definitely need a "draft" or some kind of in-progress tag. I should have some time to add to this during the week (and yes I'll comment out the unanswered q's) ... Alexbrn (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey

I saw your long comment at VPPR. Can you help me sort it out?

Statement from the study

"editors in the experimental condition produced slightly fewer revisions that would need to be reverted (W = 5869081, p-value = 0.007)"

Statement in the proposal

"New editors who use VisualEditor...are no more likely to be reverted"

Now I know that you think that the positive benefit might have been random chance; that's fine. What I don't understand is what you think ought to have been said in the proposal. After all, the proposal did not say, "New editors who use VisualEditor are less likely to be reverted" (even though such a claim could plausibly be supported by a finding that they were less likely to be reverted at p=0.007). The proposal only said that they're "no more likely to be reverted" (i.e., could be a better rate or could be the same rate). You seem to be saying that you believe that the rate is exactly the same, but you are unhappy about a statement that obviously encompasses the possibility that the rate is the same. What do you think it should have said? "Might have actually been a better rate, but it's uncertain"? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

With respect to the result for revert rate, I don't mind the "no more likely to be reverted" formulation. However, I would point out "In fact, there's a slight reduction in the burden on admins," which I assume is (mis)quoting the finding that there was a decrease in revert rate with p<0.05, i.e. reduced burden on current editors. I also wouldn't really say that the effect only "might have been" random chance – at least given my knowledge of statistics, it almost certainly was random chance. Essentially, the multiple comparisons problem means that whenever you do an analysis containing more than one statistical test, your significance thresholds need to be more stringent (the simplest correction for this is to divide: if you did 10 tests you need p<0.005, if you did 100 tests you need p<0.0005, etc).

That said, I don’t believe that the two are exactly the same – rather, I believe there probably isn’t a (major) difference, and the distinction between those two statements is important. This relates to a more important objection, which is the presentation of "no difference" findings as definitive. It isn’t theoretically possible to conclude that there is no difference from this type of analysis - you have to say "no difference was found" or something like that. We often do use that or similar language as an informal abbreviation, cf. point 7 from the Meta discussion, but in my opinion (even putting aside the point that accuracy should be considered more important in this context) the description went beyond what is reasonable in this regard. Sunrise (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Also

You might find that this script helps you learn useful information about other editors on wiki. Add it to User:Sunrise/common.js if you want it at en.wp only, or at m:User:Sunrise/global.js if you want it at all wikis on the SUL.

// [[File:userinfo.js]]
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

Reload the page (or whatever's necessary in your browser), and then take a look at the top of user pages like User:Jdforrester, or even your own user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks – there’s no intention to suggest User:Jdforrester isn’t an experienced editor, just that he isn’t experienced with this particular process, which I do happen to have spent a lot of time on (I did, in fact, look him up beforehand out of curiosity). We don’t really give much guidance on writing a good RfC question, although what we do have includes WP:RFC#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. A number of the principles are the same as for writing a neutral talk page notification while avoiding WP:CANVASS violation – there might be an essay on that. I’m happy to offer feedback on the specific issues, and/or maybe to write an essay, if it would be helpful.

(As an example, to take just the first sentence, the “no negative impact” wording frames a lack of difference as a positive result rather than a neutral one. “X and Y are approximately equal” would have been a neutral way of writing that.) Sunrise (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Jdforrester: I've expanded on the guidance at WP:RFC with an essay at WP:Writing requests for comment. The focus is on content RfCs, but perhaps you might find it useful. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your willingness to discuss and explain your "fringe" position. I think this overall change is small but very useful. Departing significantly from the single leading theory should not be enough to call something "fringe". So I am satisfied with this and don't intend to seek anything more at this point. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for your willingness to discuss as well. :-) The one reservation I have at this point is that in some cases there actually is only one non-fringe position, in which case the plural "views" is unwarranted, but I don't mind much since it could still be construed as referring to a single view held by multiple people.

In response to your ping from WT:FRINGE, I would say that incompatibility is an indication, but it's not necessary. For example, the "three-headed alien" example is explicitly compatible with everything (because of the qualification that they left no evidence). More relevant examples can be found for fringe medical claims - because of the complexity of biology, almost any claim of the form "plant X cures disease Y" will be compatible with general mainstream views until scientists have specifically studied plant X and disease Y together and found no evidence of effect. It would be unusual for such a claim to already contradict mainstream knowledge when it's made. Sunrise (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sunrise, I hadn't thought of that point about people having identical views. I happen to be writing something about the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution right now offline, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments (plural); I would like to see some executioner argue that he's executing only one shoplifter, not a plural number of shoplifters! But you have an interesting point, and why should I argue with it if it helps me?  :-) As to incompatibility, you may want to convey those ideas to Rhoark...I was just trying to give him a little boost without expressing an opinion of my own. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sustainable energy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sustainable energy. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veganism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veganism. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Infectious medicine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Infectious medicine. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Operation Onymous

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Onymous. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of brightest stars

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of brightest stars. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Firefox for mobile

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Firefox for mobile. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Self-creation cosmology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Self-creation cosmology. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Great list you made. :) Keep up the great work! Calaka (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually just forked it into a new page, but thanks. :-) Sunrise (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenIndiana

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:OpenIndiana. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Séralini affair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bzuk, and same to you! Sunrise (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Energy Drink

Hi Sunrise, I saw your contributions to the Energy Drink section. I have found this page to be very informational when it comes to some of the health claims that are made by energy drink producers.

Thanks.

--Bluezell (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bluezell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for the link. It can't be used directly for information about the health effects of energy drinks, since we use a higher standard of sourcing for that (WP:MEDRS). A website like this is most useful where it supports higher-quality sources (like textbooks or review articles in scientific journals) or points us to them, or where it's used for non-health statements like regulation, sales figures, etc. I'll take a look. Sunrise (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CobraNet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CobraNet. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi Sunrise. You chipped in a couple times recently where I pointed out some poor sourcing. I was hoping you might take a look at a couple other sources real quick:

• This source was added here

• This personal blog was added here.

I have my usual COI on both pages. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM. I've removed the first one as a copyright violation, since it's a copy-paste from the source. I'm not sure about the second, since it looks like the personal blog of a subject-matter expert (a "self-published expert source" in the language of SPS), and I don't have the background to evaluate whether it's appropriate to use in this context. Happy New Year, Sunrise (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hightail

Sorry to keep bothering you about this stuff. Looks like an obvious spam/plug for a graphic designer. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 13:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Question; is it correct that I am not to editorialize in any way in my writing or is a certain amt of leeway allowed? Randall.h.parkersr (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Randall.h.parkersr: What are you thinking of as editorializing? In general, we report only what the sources say; otherwise, we would break the prohibition on original research, which is one of the central policies of Wikipedia. But we do need to exercise editorial judgement and discretion, especially in deciding which sources to use and how to describe them. The ultimate ideal would be a straightforward, factual description, such that anyone could read the article and say, "this is an authoritative guide to the current state of human knowledge about [topic]." If you'd like to read some examples of best practices, the list of Wikipedia's featured articles might be a good place to start. Sunrise (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, in retrospect it was a dumb question. The link on OR and featured articles were helpful. In short, I have been frustrated by not being able to find secondary sources but this exercise has motivated me to look harder; different Google searches and to delve deeper into the search results. As a result, I'm finding new sources. As always, thanks for your time (I know it is a scarce resource) and guidance! Randall.h.parkersr (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a dumb question. :-) I'm glad to help, and I'm glad to hear that you're finding new sources. Sunrise (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planet Nine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planet Nine. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism(ish)

Can I bother you to take a look here? I have a COI. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 16:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I'm assuming it was added in good faith (therefore not vandalism), but I've removed it as non-RS. That said, could you please avoid bringing these to my talk page in future? Nothing personal, of course; it's just that repeated requests like this could be interpreted as canvassing and/or bypassing the usual editing processes. If you maintain a list on your talk page (or a subpage with a direct link from your talk page), I'd be happy to watchlist it as long as there are other editors responding as well. Maybe the people at COIN would be interested in making a page analogous to Category:Requested edits for COI editors to request review of specific edits that they can't correct themselves. I could see that kind of list being much easier to clear and having a much better turnover rate. :-) Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. COIN posts tend to just get archived without response when it's someone actually asking for help and often prompt COI witch-hunts. Request Edits are typically backed up more than 6 months (and filled mostly with spammy junk anyway). But I can leave you alone if you don't want to be bothered. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of better options for conflicted editors than just pinging someone. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 20:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do with being bothered! I'm willing to look over edits if you can set up something like I just described. It's just that on principle, I don't think this kind of thing should be done via personal requests. Sunrise (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human sexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages

Thanks for the [thank]. :-) Please feel free to help me improve that page. I'm picking kind of random entries, and normalizing them to actual policy, as well as to the intent and depth of their counterparts at WP:AADD when they exist, as well as giving them their own shortcuts, and the {{ATA shortcut notice|type=Wikipedia}} template under the shortcuts, and cross-referencing between the AADD and AADP entries. I think the main reason no one bothers to improve that page is it's very difficult to cite anything in it due to lack of shortcuts (who wants to type out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement) instead of WP:NOWORK?), ergo no one sees it, so no one works on it. It's amazing how much solid advice is already in there, and how much WP:LAME WP:DRAMA could be avoided by citing to it frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Yeah, I think it could be a really useful page, and I was glad to see someone else working on it. I'm hoping to edit it more myself as well. Every now and then, I find that I want to cite AADD except I'd need to explain why it applies, which I think would really defeat the purpose. Last week, I wanted to cite AADP without confusion in an essay I was writing, so I finally transferred a lot of the useful material from AADD with corresponding modifications (although the overall changes were fairly superficial for the most part, and I knew there was more to do).

I agree with you about the shortcuts as well. I've been wondering how to deal with the degree of duplication/overlap with other pages - maybe differences will emerge over time, but ultimately I think sections like WP:JUSTAPOLICY will be essentially identical on both pages even though the shortcut points to AADD. Maybe disambiguation is an option, or maybe there's some way the whole series of pages could be reorganized. Sunrise (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, after this page is properly developed, the stuff that applies most generally should merge into AADP, I would think; i.e., if someone entered WP:JUSTAPOLICY, they would come here to the section here. I think that could take years to get to that point, though. In the interim, I've been thinking of alternative shortcuts, and sometimes alternative names. A few sections so far have diverged significantly from AADD's version, because the generally-applied principle has much broader scope and implications than the deletion-only version. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Inaction by editors, which I deliberately did not adjust to AADD's "previous inaction by editors" since the broader point is valid and important in many discussions (especially with regard to unreasonable filibustering demands, while at AADD it really mostly is going to be about what didn't happen yet before the AfD started. For the whole "JUSTA..." series we should probably have a consistent sent of alternatives that are memorable. Nothing comes to mind yet. "ONLYA..." won't work (a construction like "ONLYAPOLICY" seems to imply something nonsensical like a "that's only a policy" argument. Bears further thinking. It's probably most productive to work on the easy ones first, and let ideas flow as they will over time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :-) Sunrise (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety based on the five proposals made at the GMO crops talk page here which you have either commented on or made your own proposal. The Wordsmith and Laser brain have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'll take a look and see if I have any comments. Sunrise (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You're Arc

I was going through the talk page at GMO controversies, trying to put together a history showing the use of the scientific consensus phrase for the upcoming RFC, when I noticed a post saying you had changed your name. I don't know how I missed it the first time. Trawling the archives made me nostalgic and thinking about how many good editors no longer edited in this area I was glad to see arc was still here. AIRcorn (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn. :-) I wanted to make it clear I was the same person, given all the accusations that have been made on those pages. At the time I'd decided to give up on editing controversial subjects for a while, to let me focus on areas where it's easier to write new content. I have to say I'm still not motivated to do a lot of editing in genetics, but I'm participating because I view the consensus statement as important. I was glad to see you editing more in the subject area as well - perhaps I'll join you a bit more if the conditions improve after the RfC.

I know the feeling of nostalgia from looking over old discussions. Please let me know if I can help with finding diffs or anything like that (just give me a few days to respond). Cheers, Sunrise (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have always seemed to edit those pages in bursts and I don't see that changing. I pretty much had them to myself in the early years and ended up getting a bit bored. Jytdog brought me back when they suddenly started popping up on my watchlist again. I took a break for a couple of years (removed almost all my wikipedia pages from my watchlist) and missed most of the recent pre Arbcom action. Actually being pinged at arbcom for some really strange accusations regarding edits I did years ago got me back into the topic. At least I can't say it is boring anymore.

I think I am alright with difs for now. Just wanted to locate the early discussions on the topic and I think I have most of them now. AIRcorn (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Smartbond

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Smartbond. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Hopwood Jeans. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jaguar (microarchitecture)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jaguar (microarchitecture). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Life at Earth.

In my opinion, the Earth article gives very little attention to life on Earth. Mostly what is discussed are the physical aspects of our planet. Do you have an opinion on this? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

AjaxInlineDiffs.js

Hey Sunrise. Do you know a way to use this script on all wikis (the global.js)? It's because I plan to use it on the Wiki I am most active in (the Spanish Wikipedia) and on others. Thanks Vítor (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vítor. I've never used the global javascript page, but maybe try it and see what happens? :-) I'd be interested to know if it works. Also, if you haven't seen it, there's a documentation page for the script here. Sunrise (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sunrise. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cinchona

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cinchona. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milky Way

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milky Way. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pedophilia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedophilia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:JavaScript templating

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:JavaScript templating. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (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) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do chime in

Notability within bios (more specifically

application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!)

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Pekin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Pekin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xbox One

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xbox One. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calendar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calendar. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Taxonbar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Taxonbar. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Google memo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Google memo. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)