enuja/Archive 2

So… may I fairly interpret your recent edit to Mass versus weight as a tacit endorsement of the new location for the topic(?), or just an acquiescence to it? Greg L (my talk) 03:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I'm trying to integrate the new article into old articles, to make the encyclopedia more connective and to draw into the discussion users who have the pages I'm editing watched. I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I am concerned that weight is going to be a bit thin when it gets trimmed down to conform to WP:SUMMARY. I'm not going to propose a merge of weight and mass versus weight, but I'd support the merge if someone else proposed it. Yeah, I'm kicking myself for suggesting a new article, because I've realized I, personally, think that unless the two articles get bigger, right now there should only be one for mass and mass versus weight.

I am very happy that you have agreed or acquiesced to the idea that kilogram doesn't need it's own detailed discussion of the issue of mass versus weight, and I'm extremely grateful that you did all that work on it! Enuja (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I actually uploaded the wrong version of the photo, so I have replaced the correct version (the shadow is no longer in the photo). Just thought I should let you know since you mentioned that in your review. Thanks for your review though.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I do hope someone else weights in, with an opinion or advice for future shots, because your landscape-while-hiking is demonstrably better than ones I've done. Enuja (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha jeez, I like the fast response time!! Thanks for your input, really the scenery makes it easy to take pictures. Standing on a 200 foot cliff over the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon makes for an easy photo-op. I was actually just going through some of my Grand Canyon pics and I thought this was a pretty good one, and even if it doesnt go FP, it still is a good pic for the articles it is featured on. Thanks again!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your questions on the FPC page. --Janke | Talk 09:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think higher quality images are better on principal, it seems better to show one species well (whole animal, good quality, clarity, etc.) with reptillian features such as scales easily identifiable, than two species where neither is shown well (the anole is too small and only the head of the snake is shown). Feel free to replace the Blue-toungue image with something else of higher quality, of course. Benjamint 08:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Enuja,

I was reviewing this nom at peer review and was wondering:

Does the moire pattern in engravings count as aliasing? I'm not sure if the effect was intentional (I suspect it might have been). I'd appreciate it if you could shed some light on this. Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a much higher resolution image available on the source page, but I have no idea if it was Gustave Dore's intention to use the moire pattern expressively. You're right, it's quite possible. Enuja (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering that maybe you could make a squamate family tree. That would be great!--4444hhhh (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion, but I'm both not sure how to do it, and I'm unfamiliar enough with squamates that it would take a lot of work for me to make a tree. Would it be best to make an SVG image? A phylogeny somehow using wiki formating? For the tree, should be a time tree, since that's what the paper includes? Would that make it impossible to make the phylogeny with wiki formating, if its possible anyway? Do you want to make the tree? Do you have access to the paper I cited on Squamata? If not, I could email it to you. - Enuja (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Okay maybe you could check over my latest changes on the squamte page and give me some suggestions about the edit or make some editing changes. Leave a message at my talk page. --4444hhhh (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your very welcome. I got the info from the other articles from wikipedia.--4444hhhh (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for replying so quickly. The image is doing well on Commons FPC so I'll go ahead and put it up for Wikipedia FPC now. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, you stole my thunder (sob). ;) Durova^Charge! 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
lol Sorry! - Enuja (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm flattered you liked it that much. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your explanations at Talk:Chaos theory concerning my recent add to physiology. I've responded there. Cheers!Lapaz (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

^{Global Warming} Well, I don't need to site a reference other than the formula E=mc2. It is the only reference needed, for the pool of people who may understand it will quickly understand. It is quite obvious that you have no ability to understand it. I want you to personally read the following article and respond to it, proving in your response that you have some inkling of physics and/or algebraic understanding. Write this to me at (removed email address). If you do not, I will assume that you haven't the learning, capacity nor ability to be an intellectually sufficent editor; therefore, the article will continue to be placed, appropriately, I might add, into a rather shallow pool of understanding there. If, in what you write to me, you can disprove the following, I will gladly cease response. Wanting everything to fit so ridgedly into what you consider high brow discussion proof is like chastising children for coloring outside the lines, when, in fact, this is exactly what they need to do in order to later shatter the formalized glass ceilings of science.

The elements of Global Warming herein identified are symptoms of a deeper cause. In March 2006, Popular Science reported that the earth received from meteorites alone over two hundred tons of mass debris daily; this does not include other forms of mass increase. Knowing this and applying the mass accumulation into E=mc2, we know that an acceleration is taking place. Unless some phenomenon halts this, then logically and very much realistically, earth can accelerate itself into energy. On this path to energy, primarily due to acceleration, heat will increase. This is the real cause of global warming. As doctors in the medical field mask symptoms because they fail to discover cause, so scientists today are dealing with the mere symptoms of global warming, rather than the real issue, which is earthly mass increase that causes acceleration, which acceleration is attended by heat necessary for transitional phases from mass to energy. Yes, really think about it. The consequential symptoms, atmospheric gasses including the actions and inventions producing such of mankind who have been so arrogant so as not to see their own actions calculated and affected by forces which affect the earth, can and will only give a variagated explanation without ever addressing the actual cause, which is, again, attendant heat that accompanies mass increases.

Phillip Frank, a contemporary physicist with Einstein, wrote in his book, Phillip Frank, that if a body is know to be gaining mass, it is also known to be accelerating in direct relationship with its mass accumulation. Some have tried to counter by arguing that even though it is gaining in mass, that all the other universal variables, changing accordingly, hold its surge toward energy in check. However, this is a weak argument, since if mass on the atomic level, surrounded by a microcosmic universe, accelerates with its increase.

This is not my personal version of anything. The formula for energy has already stood the test of time. Its says this: if mass is increasing, it is accelerating. The earth is increasing daily in tons of mass. Plug the mass gain into the formula E=mc2 and let the figures formulate your truth. It is accelerating. The mass expansion, along with the acceleration cause heat. For example, take a round, deflated balloon and cup it between your two hands. When it expands by being blown up very rapidly, you will feel heat upon the skin of the balloon. The rapid, molecular expansion causes heat. For example, take a round, deflated balloon and cup it between your two hands. When it expands by being blown up very rapidly, you will feel heat upon the skin of the balloon. The rapid, molecular expansion causes heat. Though this example is not an exact one, it will do as an illustration for the elementary mind of those less steeped and matured in the law of energy transformation. That light is affected by gravity had to be proved by shooting a laser beam past the moon during an eclipse because there were those learned, but elementary scientists who simply hadn't the visual acumen to imagine what Einstein had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymes2 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Even the article on Mass-energy equivalence includes citations. You say above "Wanting everything to fit so ridgedly into what you consider high brow discussion proof is like chastising children for coloring outside the lines, when, in fact, this is exactly what they need to do in order to later shatter the formalized glass ceilings of science." However, if children were "helping" with their parent's presentation at work, they'd need to color inside the lines. There are tons of ways to "shatter the formalized glass ceilings of science", if that's what you want to do. Posting on wikipedia is NOT one of those ways. No-one is trying to stop you from convincing other people that you are correct. This simply isn't the place to do it. If you want to get your own piece of paper out to color outside of all the lines then get your own website and post this information there. - Enuja (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving your recent report to Wiki: Administrators' noticeboard over to Wiki: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That board is better suited for handling such issues. Thanks. — Satori Son 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry about that. I did really try to find the best place to put it. - Enuja (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Did not see that. Thanks for fixing my mistake.- Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

This is in response to what you wrote on my talk page.

I had already put that information about polar bears in the polar bear article.

The reason that I also put it in the Effects of global warming article is because that article had already mentioned polar bears in 3 different parts of the article, all in a very pessimistic light, and I wanted the article to have balance.

The other 3 mentionings of polar bears in the Effects of global warming article were all very pessimistic. They all said that global warming was making the polar bear population get smaller.

I wanted the article to have balance. So I posted proof, from a U.S. federal government website, that global warming has been accompanied by an increase in the global population of polar bears.

Theory claims that global warming will make the global population of polar bears get smaller. And this theory is mentioned 3 times in the article.

But my real world evidence, back up and sourced from a U.S. federal government website, proves otherwise.

Why did you erase what I wrote, but leave those other 3 things intact?

Grundle2600 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Grundle. I have Effects of global warming watched, although I haven't read it in a long time. So I only notice changes that people make, including the change that you made. In other words, I didn't know that polar bears are mentioned three times in the article; maybe it needs to re-organized a bit? I did look at your contributions and didn't see the edit to polar bear - I guess I didn't look at enough of your contributions. Sorry about that.

On what should best go in the article, though, the website you used as a source isn't a reliable source. It's a collection of quotes, and the links from the quotes don't go to scientific papers but things like an academic website, news articles, and a press release that doesn't have the words "polar bear" in it at all. If, indeed, polar bear populations are increasing because of increased temperatures, or are just staying the same, then this would be important, but this causal relationship would need to be explained in the reliable source used in the article. If the US fish and wildlife service has published population estimates, then those should be cited, not a website that says what the USFWS says. Since I've done some more checking of these sources after your comment on my talk page, I'm going to remove your addition to polar bear as well.

These two additions of yours are not very well integrated into the text and effects of global warming is really very discombobulated. What that article really needs is someone to read the sources and organize the article. Many editors drop relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) facts out of context into articles but, this really doesn't create a very readable end product. - Enuja (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My source is a U.S. federal government website that quotes a U.S. federal goverernment agency. That's a relaible source.

Before I added that to the aricle, the article had 3 claims that the polar bear population would get smaller in the future. So I added some real world information that disputes that claim. I guess the doomsayers are afraid of people finding out the truth - only their point of view is allowed to be in the article! Grundle2600 (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone writing for a senate committee can (and often does) say whatever they want to say to try to convince people. There is a reliable source for the current population of between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears on polar bear, but that population size doesn't belong on effects of global warming. I've replied on Talk:Effects of global warming and I am replying on Talk:Polar bear. - Enuja (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've read your comments. Thank you for explaining it. I'm done with these particular articles for a while. I trust you. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow! It seems to me that you are going through my list of edits, and undoing all of them!

In the Biofuel article, you erased everything that I wrote. You said the info was already listed elsewhere in the article. But my info expanded on what was already there. I don't think it's fair that you erased it.

Also, in the very same section of the article, there are about 6 or so unsourced claims. But you did not erase any of those.

Then in Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton you erased almost all of the quote that I added. The amount that you left was so small that it renders it as being almost insignificant.

Also, since you commneted on my using youtube as a source for Clinton's quote, I'd like to address that. The reason that I used youtube as my source is because the mainstream media is very biased against nuclear power, and would never print the words that Clinton stated.

After seeing these newest edits of yours, I am now going back to my original claim that you are biased, and you want certain viewpoints to be suppressed, even if they have a source.

How do I know that? Because in the same section of the Biofuel article where you erased my stuff, you left intact quite a few other things by other people that did not have any citations.

So even though my stuyff has citations, you are erasing it.

I think you are tring to prevent people from seeing opinions that are contrary to the environmetnalist hysteria. That's the only explanation that I can think of for why you would erase my soucred entries, while simultanesouly leaving intact things that are not sourced.

Now, you may say that I am making a "personal attack" on you. But the fact is that you are following me all around wikipedia, erasing everything that I add, even though I am citing my sources. But when other people say things without citing a source, you are leaving those intact. So from everything that I can see, yes, you are biased, and yes, you are afraid of people being exposed to certain points of view.

You are not suppoed to erase things that cite a source. You are biased. And you are trying to suppress certain points of view.

If you want to claim that I am making a "personal attack," well, all I can say is that I have evidence to back up my claims.

Go and look at the Biofuel article. You erased all my stuff, even though my stuff did indeed make the article better, because it expanded on that info. But you left intact about 6 things that had no sources.

You didn't "make the article" better. Instead, all you did was suppress a certain point of view.

Please cease from erasing or shortening any sourced things that I add to any articles. If you disagree with what I am adding, then please post another source that disagrees with it. Pleaae stop erasing my stuff.

My policy is that I never erase anything that is sourced. Instead, I add my own comments with my own sources. I believe in free speech, and I oppose censorship.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with your policy of only adding, not erasing and not editing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. The facts need to be tied together to create a cohesive article that uses its own voice, in its own words, supported by outside sources, in order to coherently describe a subject. A neutral encylopedia article is not composed to quotes from two sides; it's composed of fair treatment, in proportion to the importance of the opinion or fact to the article, of all relevant sides.

Your additions of quotes to articles that I deleted, in my opinion, actually made the articles worse, because the quotes were not relevant or redundant. Yes, I did look at your edit history, and the common strategy of adding quotes (often the same ones!) to articles without integrating the quote into the article looked problematic to me. I hoped that my comments in replies to you, in addition to my reverts and edits to your very recent contributions, would convince you to try to integrate information into coherent articles. I am not trying to wikistalk you; I saw systematic problems with your edits, and I'm trying to fix them and convince you stop making these particular errors. I read only sections of articles just above and below your additions before I removed or edited your addition, so I have no position whatsoever on uncited statements in those articles. Personally, I need to find sources for articles that are much more important to me personally before I need to find sources for Biofuel.

I have a personal policy of one revert per article per editor; this is not a wikipedia wide policy and people can (and you did) take advantage of that by having your version sit in the article by reverting me. It may be your personal policy of never erasing sourced material, but that is not a wikipedia wide policy, nor my policy, and I will not follow your personal policy. If your policy was a wikipedia wide policy, the articles would all very quickly become unreadable collections of unrelated facts and quotations. - Enuja (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In the "Carbon emissions" section of the Biofuel article, you erased the thing that I wrote, even though I cited my source. However, that same section has 6 other things that all say "citation needed." But you did not erase any of those 6 things.

Also, you erased what I wrote about the polar bears in some articles. You claimed that my source was not legitimate, even though my source was a website from the U.S. federal government.

Please explain to me why you think that 6 things that all say "citation needed" are all more reliable than one thing that has a link to the U.S. federal government as its source?

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Grundle. I did not address anything in the Biofuel article other than your contribution; I read this diff [1], scanned the rest of the section, and then undid your contribution. As I said, you need to directly cite the papers Pimental and Patzek and whoever else wrote instead of citing news reports based on their articles. When you cite either an article or a news report, you need to use your own words instead of quoting the language from the article or the news report. I was not reading or editing the article as a whole. I have no position on the statements with fact tags. If I were to do something about the statements with fact tags, I would look for sources to support the statements. I simply don't have an interest in that article that leads me to look for sources in it. I did, briefly, have an interest in trying to help you contribute more constructively to the encyclopedia by pointing out problems with your edits in talk and by reverting your inappropriate contributions.

If you do not understand these two comments [2], then I don't know what it will take to make you realize the minority or majority reports to committees are partisian, polemic documents that exist to convince people, and are not editorially reviewed reliable sources. The "U.S. federal government" as represented by members of the legislative branch, is not a reliable source.

This is the last I'm going to say on this issue; I've brought your edits to the attention of more regular editors of those articles, and I'm quite comfortable leaving the quality of the articles in the hands of people who are interested in them. I'm sorry I haven't been able to convince you that US senate reports are partisian and unreliable, nor that collections of quotes make very poor articles. However, since I haven't been able to convince you, nothing else I say will change your mind. We'll just have to agree to disagree, and hope we are very rarely, if ever, interested in the same articles, as we appear to have incompatible positions on the quality of prose and the reliability of sources. - Enuja (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did convince me. I erased it myself. Then I found a better source and put that in. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Enuja,
you seem to be a very knowledgeable person in everything from astronomy to underwater life. I hope you might appreciate some my knowledge that I am going to share with you. May I please ask , if you remember this Green turtle the one, which you opposed and stated in your oppose:
"...Personally, I do like the composition, as in my experience, sea turtles swim quickly away from the camera, not toward it, and spend more time in deeper water farther away from the bottom. This turtle is coming to say "hi" to the photographer, and is posing is just the most perfect way. This doesn't excuse the technical problems, though. "
So here's the knowledge I'd like to share with you please. I do not know what is your experience with sea turtles, if any, but I've seen and photographed dozens of sea turtles all over the world and never a sea turtle changed the direction of it swim because of my presence. They simply never cared about me. Always I was the one, who gave them the way. I'm not sure how much time they spend in a deeper water, but whatever place and whatever month I've been to Hawaii I saw them (and many of them) in a very, very shallow water and also resting at beaches next to people and I have many pictures to prove my knoledge. Tahnks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on doing so well with this image on the Common Picture of the Day. Personally, I still don't think the that technical quality is high enough to be a featured picture, but I don't mind being in the minority. However, your comment here makes the image seem less impressive. From my experience, this appeared to be a rare opportunity to take the picture, but you are saying that this is a very common occurrence, which indicates to me that the image should be of high technical quality. - Enuja (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• I believe a good underwater camera should have been added to "the very common occurrence". Besides I really believe this is a very good image and voting on Commons proved it. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Here's one more "rare" image  , in which a turtle came to say "hi" to me. BTW have you seen that I nominated the original image for delisting? Maybe you would like to support that delisting nomination please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Enuja. Why does the SI table have to go at the end of the article? I generally like the idea, but in wide windows (≥1209 pixels), the picture above it crowds down into the section and gives that screwed up effect. Is putting it down low something other articles are doing? Greg L (my talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I suppose I can live with the trade-off. Just wondering how enamored you were with the new position. Greg L (my talk) 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Or maybe not. I don’t feel strongly about this, but I put it back for the reasons stated in my edit summary: having the SI table in its original position keeps it from being crowded by the ‘diamagnetic levitation’ picture in ≥1209-pixel windows, and it also breaks up a monotonous string of six contiguous paragraphs that have no other graphics of any sort. It also seems that addressing the entire concept of SI prefixes warrants greater prominence than being dead last. If you really think it is supposed to be down there for some good reason or another, go ahead and undo it. I personally think the page works better this way. Greg L (my talk) 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enuja,

Thanks for the positive comments. I tend to ebb and wain a bit with the comments on the illustrations, like I don't really think I've commented on one since the lungs in January - I guess I sort of take little wikibreaks after a few comments, then after a while see one that I can't resist commenting on and start again :-).

They do often take a lot of time just to comment on in any sort of depth, and repeated or detailed comments often seem to lead to a fair amount of offence to the creators or other users. Even after all that, I'm often still not convinced that the accurate final version is truly FP material, even when promoted; they're often just good serviceable illustrations.

I can understand the people creating them getting upset about the picky comments made on them. They've most likely put a lot of work and time into it already, and there's sometimes conflicting opinions on what needs to be done to improve them. On the other hand I guess that's part of what they have to expect when nominating at FPC/PPR. It also seems to be mainly the 'Lady of Hats' ones that I comment on, I spose because she mainly does the biological ones which I'm more interested in than say maps, but I'm sure she must think I've got something against her! Perhaps I should learn a bit of Illustrator myself so I can do my own edits of nominations, which may ultimately be easier than making the extensive comments; I'm just not sure how much editing you can do without the original.

You would think there would be some wikiproject where they could take them to get them fully accurate, before bringing them to nomination at FPC/PPR; or even just take more care while creating them. Maybe there is; maybe there's some reason they don't go that route. Really we should just be commenting on the general 'quality' of the image itself, but we often seem to be picking out errors of fact, or just simple things like typos, missing labels, poor alignment, or inconsistent use of capitals (occasional minor errors you can understand, but they're often quite significant). It also makes you wonder sometimes - if we're seeing the best of the best and are regularly picking out significant errors in them, then what else is out there illustrating articles?!

Sorry for rabbiting on for so long. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lady of Hats keeps nominating them, often with reasons along the lines of "the comments I get here make the illustrations better" so I don't think she minds! - Enuja (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, maybe so. But see what I'm talking about on this other nomination. Phew! :-) --jjron (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Enuja. I notice you undid my edit to talk:whaling here. This was an unintentional byproduct of a proxy I was using at the time. In future, please don't simply revert such edits, but look at what has happened and fix it without removing my addition, which I'll re-add now. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry my January revert bothered you. I will continue to revert edits that contain unexplained and apparently unconstructive edits to links throughout a page. I'm glad you've apparently solved the issue with the proxy. As far as the whaling article goes, it's currently quite poor and no-one is working to improve it, so suggestions on the talk page are not particularly helpful. It'd be great if you improved the article, though. - Enuja (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes the article is poorly written and needs much more references. Especially the section The arguments for and against whaling - why argument for? "The economic argument" this subsection is based on two sources only. And there is not much information in the article about Effects of Whaling and its impact on marine ecosystem. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 

Hi Enuja,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Moon Crescent - False Color Mosaic.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 4, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-04-04. howcheng {chat} 05:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole article on global warming is biased, I'm offering a diffrent opinion.

Would it be alright if I added a section with all the evidence against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratanuva66 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 

Hi Enuja,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 19, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-05-19. howcheng {chat} 23:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I've been using wikipedia for while and finally decided to sign up, and because the ip address from my office got blocked. Not exactly sure what barnstars are for though, if anyone can give them doesn't that cheapen them? --Wiki11790 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can say "thank you" or pat you the back, but it's nice to get both of those, yes? Same with the barnstars. - Enuja (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enuja, It's been almost a year since you suggested this, but now I think the time has come. At this point I'm not thinking of it as a way to achieve my own goals as much as I hope to use it to generating a bit more understanding for what has been achieved so far. Moreover, if it can help to safeguard some of the largest structures already in place and clearly define a few goals, then perhaps the entire project can move forward and at the same time become a little less dependent on my personal efforts. What do you think? Do you have the time? I could certainly use your help. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been doing very poorly at contributing content-related things to Wiki English. I'm still interested in improving the crocodilian articles, and some other people have started to improve those articles, but in the past year I really haven't gotten any of that work done. In other words, if my personal history is any guide, I'm not going to be of much help. I love trying to find solutions to conflicts, but I don't seem to be a very dedicated encyclopedia writer. So, more power to you on codifying a snake project, but, unfortunately, I won't be of much help. - Enuja (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. We need our conflict-resolving people too! Perhaps I should think about it some more anyway. You were right, though, in that it will be a lot of work. Thanks anyway! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really important but just in case you're interested (since you're posting on my page regarding user:Gefreiter) here is my response about it and my appreciation for your comment: [3]. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

At WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, we recently did a purge of the members list, which your name was on. Please re-add your username as well as your area of expertise at our list of participants if you plan to stay active in this Wikiproject. Also, a discussion is going on regarding the standardization of taxonomy in lizard articles, located in this section. We'd like to have some more voices in this matter. Thanks everyone! bibliomaniac15 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your welcome - although I've been editing and contributing to Wikipedia for years! A few weeks ago I consolidated my Wikipedia and Wiktionary accounts and subsequently lost all history of my contributions here. I contacted Wiki for assistance but received no (useful) help - just a rather terse and rude response. Any suggestions, please? MonoApe (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your further help. I will attempt to get support at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki:Help_desk , as you suggested. Cheers! MonoApe (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've taken on board your comments and made a few edits that reflect them. I hope you like it. There's no more important article on wikipedia, so let's make it the best we possibly can!!! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you put the structure for the GW article in the sanbox so we can mess it up? :-)Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You can make your own sandbox, but I see no reason to make a second sandbox in my user space for the organization of global warming. Really, I think that talking out the organization on the main page is the easiest and best way to do things. - Enuja (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What's up with the lead? have we got a date for posting yet, or have we just given up?Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We have no consensus on the talk page about a new header. I decided to suggest modifications bit by bit, but that doesn't seem to be getting a very positive reaction, either. I think that this [4] version of the lead is too long and goes into too much detail and speculation. What do you think about the shorter version? [5] I not going to work towards getting the longer version on the article and I'll continue to argue on the global warming talk page that a general overview is much better than details in the lead. Why do you think it's necessary to mention specific positive feedbacks in the lead instead of just saying "positive feedbacks?" - Enuja (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Well, maybe the piecemeal bit will work. I know we're supposed to be Bold, but on this article (and this article alone) I really do like to leave a suggestion up for at least a day to see what people think before I edit the article. - Enuja (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Piecemeal is OK, lets drip it in and see what sticks. You'd be surprised how people will ignore drippy stuff and then fight like savages over stuff they notice. The reason I think the clathrate gun is worth mentioning in the lead is because of it's potential to completely overwhelm existing warming leading to runaway climate change.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much progress in GW atm. Shall I just do a few edits and see what sticks?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you Enuja for your peacemaking efforts in regards to the lead section of Global Warming. Your personal communication on my talk page is also very much appreciated. doviel (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Just so you know, though, I'm using your objection to the current wording for my own nefarious purposes :-) (to get stuff from my sandbox onto the main page). - Enuja (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with that:)doviel (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on GW debate. I appreciate being slapped down - makes me better, makes us all better. (Not when some people step over into bullying). Keep up the pressure.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been continually impressed by your positive attitude about criticism. Keep it up! When you have the criticism onboard (using reliable sources to construct articles, instead of to cite what you already know, avoiding mentioning personal behavior, such as bullying, except in polite notices on the offending person's talk page, and working towards unbiased language on the articles) you will be an invaluable asset to Wiki English. - Enuja (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Check out arctic methane release and see if you like my cleanup. I clean up my old work without prompting when I find it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I note your crit. of my desire to include RACC in the GW lead. I'll be extending coverage of it in the body before putting it back in the lead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your name in vain at Wiki: Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.