User talk:Sunrise

Please feel free to contact me here (or ping me) at any time. In fact, it's often the best way to get my attention; due to my time constraints, I try to minimize the size of my watchlist and clean it out semi-regularly. For the same reason, I may also edit without checking my watchlist, defer my responses on talk pages, silently leave a discussion, etc.

You can leave a new message by using the "New Section" button in the top right of the page. Please remember to sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~).

I keep a large offline database of sources and quotes for articles I work on, far more than any one person could use, so you're welcome to ask me about them if we’re working in the same topic areas. I may also have already added pre-formatted citations on-wiki, e.g. here, although these may not be fully updated.

Wikiphilosophy

BRD: edit freely, and don’t take reverts personally. AAGF: the more you truly understand WP:AGF, the less often you should feel a desire to cite it. CONCEDE: your time and energy is limited; if it is not spent most productively on the current discussion, then live and let live. NORUSH: if you're right, consensus will eventually get there; if you're wrong, consensus shouldn't get there. PRINCIPLE: follow the spirit of the rules, even if you dislike the outcome, so that others will do the same for you.

“ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary. ” — Observations on Wikipedia Behavior, #12

Please comment on Talk:Facebook

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Facebook. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine articles

Read the following content:

"Finally, and most importantly, citations. The point of citations is to make it easy for the reader to assess and access the original sources of information. Fulltext links, catalogue links, and page numbers all assist in this process. The only halfway respectable reason I can think of for removing such information is if one's publisher insists on a rigid referencing format which will not accommodate it. Wikimedia is not such a publisher. It seems to me that removing such information unequivocally degrades the citation. I can't figure out why you thought (or possibly still think?) that removing this information improved the encyclopedia. Could you please explain what you were thinking? Have you ever done this anywhere else on Wikimedia projects? You are right to say that it will take a lot of time to go through each citation and compare each one, and restore the degraded citations. That is why I am asking you to do it. I think that it is your responsibility. HLHJ (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)"[1]

Also read this comment.

In the edit summary the editor mentioned frustration.

In the edit summary the editor mentioned they are upset.

There is an editor who is unhappy with the content of a few articles. I think the editor is adding failed verification content and there may be a competency issue. When editing Wikipedia affects an editor's brain by making them unhappy then admins should step in. I don't think it is healthy for the mental state for the editor to continue to edit this topic area. I don't want to continue to cause mental pain to another editor just because I am just improving nicotine-related articles. I did not create this situation. The problematic edits continue.[2][3] The pages are under DS. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)