User talk:Enuja

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #168

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a substantive message on your talk page please do not post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

However, if you are an IP user or I left just a generic welcome message or warning on your talk page, please respond here, as I don't have your talk page watched.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.

• To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Clarity

I think we lost quite a bit of clarity and direction in the section "very likely"; for example, Connolley and I are raising the issue of having the "Notes" section when the focus of the discussion was whether or not we should include very likely. To my understanding we are not necessarily against having that section, but against the invasive notation method I used earlier. Because of these confounders, I have this feeling that I'm raising the wrong issue in the wrong palce. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it too seriously. Sure, William M. Connolley reverts a bit possessively, but the long-standing consensus was to have no notes in the article (even in the references section). I don't think people really discussed putting notes into the references section and came to a new consensus: I think people just added a specific note they wanted, and no-one took it out, and that happened for a few notes. Then you came and asked if we should have a separate notes section. I said "notes fine, but don't use [Note #] format" and Andrewjlockley and Awickert said "notes good, [Note #] format fine". That's not a consensus: that's just four people on an article with lots of regular contributors, where three agreed and one disagreed. So, don't address the tone of people's edits, and get used to the fact that some people do try to keep Global warming fairly stable.

As far as where you should have what discussion: I never really know. You can make a new section, or edit in the section that the topic came up. Lots of discussions have been going off on tangents, but as long as all of the tangents are about improving the article, I don't much mind about the organization. So, I'd suggest you not concern yourself with the organization, except to allow old talk sections to be archived by the bot, and use an organization that gets the most eyes to your question. Personally, I usually try to read over the talk page as a diffs, so it doesn't matter much where you put stuff, although keeping replies clearly threaded (which you do) is very helpful. - Enuja (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your right, however I like knowing why before simply accepting it as is. I do not believe William M. Connolley owns the article as defined, but I do not agree with his attitude towards almost talking down. He sounds full of himself to the extent that his comments assumes the reasons to be self-evident; this makes the issue a personal one, and implies that WMC has to be defeated before the discussion can move back to a reason. I know that making this the focus of my arguments as an extremely poor choice, and I'm not going to let myself go that direction, but I also don't believe in letting him go either. You seem to have been around him a lot longer, can I ask you what you know? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had problems with WMC since i started on WP. I think you did right by including the notes ChyranandChloe. I think you could wikilink to them, as I said in the article. As regards WMC, you can't let him bully you. By all means take on board his comments and improve your edits, but don't give in to his arbitrary edits. Specifically, what I do when he reverts me is I go into the history, revert the edit, improve the complaint he's made, and usually it sticks. He's pretty good at catching rubbish edits, he's just dreadful at acting responsibly once he's found them. If you feel strongly, you can RFC him, but I just TP him with polite guidance when necessary. Eventually I'll have to escalate it, but not yet.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I was asking Enuja because I trust his judgment, he's been around longer than I have and I have a feeling that he understands the situation better as well. I believe in stability, and I believe that there are some good arguments against the Notes section—however we can't come to a good or adequate consensus unless WMC, myself, or another opinion actually gives it some thought. In a way I'm kind of pushing for the adversary system for cases like these, where we provide the best argument and decide from there. WMC hasn't really provided much, and that's what bothers me. Wales said in one interview "Wikipedia isn't a war between conservatives and liberals, but between the thoughtful and the [thoughtless] jerks"[1]. Strong resistance implies that the other side must have strong arguments, but I can't think or talk for him. What I'm asking is simply for Enuja's thoughts. I think he has a good amount of insight than I'm not grasping, and I'm particularly interested because it feels like the situation is not going to end well. I don't want to sound like I'm placing on any of you guy's shoulders, I'm just asking for some thoughts. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not stated my gender here, so please don't assume it. I don't know what thoughts of mine you want, or what you think I have insight into. Feel free to ask direct questions, and I'll answer them, but I'm not sure what you want to know. I don't see any situation that looks like it's going to end badly, and I suggest that a positive attitude is the best way to make sure that none of the constructive editing on Global warming ends, much less "ends badly." - Enuja (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:DERM

I recently started the Dermatology task force and want to create a subpage for the taskforce that addresses dermatologic photos, giving guidelines/recommendations for good images. On that page I was simply going to link over to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria, but also wanted to added a few comments specifically geared towards dermatologic photos (like something about always having a ruler, etc in the picture to keep size in perspective, etc.). I also found a paper online (see [2]) and thought I could integrate some of its pointers into the page. However, I am a dermatologist, not professional photographer, and therefore wanted to know if you, or any of your friends, would help me develop this page? kilbad (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a professional photographer, an amateur photographer, or a dermatologist, so I'm not sure how I can help you. Good luck, though. - Enuja (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I'd really appreciate it if you could comment on the RFC against me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Andrewjlockley You clearly have an opinion and it's a bit 1-sided right now.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrewjlockley, when I look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, I see that an RfC is "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." and that "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information." The important person there is you, not me. I've told you what I think about your edits, and what I think you should do. I don't need to "defend" you on the RfC, because the point of the RfC is supposed to be to bring a broader audience to your behavior, so that the broader audience can convince you to chance your behavior on Wikipedia. Me, I don't think that an RfC is the most effective way to change your behavior (talking with you seems like the way to go to me), and I'm certainly not someone to give outside input.

Right now, actually, I'm really frustrated at the way that editing on Global warming is going. Everyone just criticizes each other and each other's understanding of the issue on the talk page, without ever bringing up suggested new language for the article. You seem to be just about the only one making edits to the article based on what you say on the talk page, but you still aren't suggesting language on the talk page, or talking about language on the talk page, and the language we're ending up with is pretty horrendous. You and I aren't expert enough in the field, and we aren't good enough with pretty writing, to make an acceptable lead.

So, no, you don't want me at the RfC, and I'm not going to comment there. Everything I say on any talk page is public record, and if you want to cite that public record at any time, I certainly can't stop you.

My current suggestion for you is to put an edit summary on every single edit you make. - Enuja (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Briggs Initiative

I got the information from the California 1978 election Statement of Vote, which I found at my local library. —kurykh 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Enuja (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

U ok?

not seen u for ages on GW pages. R u ok?Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am doing well, thank you. I decided that I wasn't being helpful on global warming, so I decided that it didn't make sense to work on it or have it watched, at least in the near future. I was afraid that my contributions were contributing to a lack of stability of the article instead of improving the article, and I wasn't being particularly nice anymore. I was editing that article to provide a helpful welcome to new editors, and I did a great job with skeptics. With you, however, I didn't seem to be helping the article, and I was getting rude and snide. Since I was only on those articles to lend a lay-person's eye to the article and to smooth over conflict, it seemed that I should leave. So I haven't been on the global warming articles because of the conflict initiated by you. - Enuja (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been pretty peaceful since you left actually, so perhaps you did a great job in creating peace! The article's much better - take a look. Stay in touch and let me know what you're working on.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

bedbug caption edit - Thanks!

Specifically, for this: [3].

Because the article drowned in WP:NOTHOW, WP:VERIFY and general logorrhea problems for so long, the "texture of the text" (style) ended up uneven: scientific in places, almost babytalk in others. Because this bug is of some interest to almost everybody, the right amount of scientific terminology and phrasing makes the article more useful and credible. Beyond that point, however, you repel people who could too easily feel they've strayed into Deep Entomology. After all, nobody wants a lecture from a Buggy Professor when their skin's breaking out.

I think you left this caption with just the right balance. Getting the whole article rebalanced in that way, though, well ... some days, I just try to keep up with spam, WP:V problems and vandalism. Some days, I can't even bear to look at its recent history. Yakushima (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. What the article apparently needs is dedicated cadre of 20 or more editors willing to improve or delete constant counterproductive good faith edits, but I think bedbuds are a topic that most people arrive at with panic and then get sick of: they don't want to just hang around doing the slow job of improving the article and keeping it from going downhill. I'm a mostly inactive editor at this point (completely unrelated to the fact that I live in a neighborhood that seems to have bedbug infestations in every single building), but when I get the urge to edit Wikipedia seriously again, I will try to direct some of my energies towards this needy article. I wish you luck on keeping interested and in good humor about the article, and I hope you get a more help from editors who can really improve the article. Good on you for trying (instead of just dismissing the article as unsalvageable and working on other things). - Enuja (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. You could even use the source for bedbug information. Just let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no interest in dermatology: I was just doing minor edits to clean up a bug article, and that included cleaning up links that went to a redirect. -- Enuja (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2010 (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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)