Jump to content

User talk:Enuja/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Enuja

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wwelles14 (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 27 September 2007 (→Breaching Humpback FPC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
    • If I have left a 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.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
    • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #141

Monitor Picture

Hi, I am the photographer whoz pic was on sanctuary asia's magazine. I saw you edited the link back to original. Now let me explain. The original poster had given the link http://www.sanctuaryasia.com/sanctmagazine/index.php which changes every two months with new picture/magazine details.

http://www.wildlifetimes.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=227 this is what I wrote on my website about the monitor lizards actual combat sequence. I guess this website makes more sense than the other athoritative website as you call. Please feel free to use your decision to make changes. Anything is fine with me, just that, after a month the other link wont have monitor lizards on them. Its a link to a dynamic page. Jayanth Sharma jay@wildlifetimes.com India


Line 104: Line 104: The Freshman starring Matthew Broderick, is based on the delivery of and cooking of a komodo dragon. The Freshman starring Matthew Broderick, is based on the delivery of and cooking of a komodo dragon.

- Two fighting Common Indian Monitor Lizard males make the cover of "Sanctuary Asia Magazine" + Two fighting Common Indian Monitor Lizard males make the cover of "Sanctuary Asia Magazine" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.27 (talk • contribs)

  • Hi! Yes, I noticed that it was a dynamic link, and was going to look for a permanent link to the cover. Did any of your description about the photograph get published in anything? Because, as I said on the Monitor talk page, I do think it's somewhat nice to have a link to that information, but I'm still not convinced that linking to a forum is the best option. Now, I'm a farily new wikipedia editor, so there may be some obvious solution I haven't thought of yet. It would be nice if you registered as a wikipedia user so that I could reply to your talk page (as you did on my talk page) to be sure you saw my reply. And, just as a heads-up, it's generally frowned upon to post things in wikipedia that are about yourself. I don't know if anyone would consider this link about you, but it is something to think about. Enuja 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again! I'm glad to see you've made an account. Unfortunately, I eventually ended up removing your photo all together, as I described on the talk page for Monitor lizard. My perspective is that if you want your image on wikipedia, you should upload the image to wikimedia commons with a free license and then simply put the image in the article. Linking to an outside image is unecessary, as there are free good images of monitors already available for this encyclopedia. Also, in the future, please sign your posts with four tidles ~~~~ Enuja

Kilogram

I edited your recent addition to the kilogram page and added a citation needed tag. I noticed that you labeled the source you got the information out of in the edit summary, but not in the article. Since I don't have that source, it would be great if you'd check and make sure I didn't introduce any errors in my edit, make sure that the information near the fact tag I added is all in the reference you were using, and add your new reference as a footnote. Thanks!Enuja 08:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Enuja: I added the citation. It was late at night and I was doing the editing from my "non-standard" laptop computer while sitting on the couch. At that hour, I figured the added info wouldn't get tagged; at least I thought it pleasant to think so. (Wrong). I liked your edits but as you had it: “The international prototype is one of three made in 1879.”, it had the connotation that three "international prototypes" existed at some point. Quick fix. I also think the ratification by the 1st CGPM is certainly worthy of mention in the final sentence. Greg L 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Bell prediction

Sure, I'm up for it. Both are watched, and I'll make sure any unnecessary edits on the topic don't stay up there.JohnnyRush10 03:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Whaling page

Okay, neither your version of the one before is really sourced properly. After your comment I went over your edit more closely and your lack of references is no worse then the origonal version. I do agree that shorter is better if it can convey the same information. I wont revert your change again and I hope, that since this article is part of a wikiproject that those involved will see your changes as a reason to improve it and add references. Though your change did bring to my notice the pigs section, which if not referenced in due time I will delete that specificly. Russeasby 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Monitor lizards

Hi Enuja! Thanks for your note on my talk page. Don't feel bad about missing the note - I miss some notes regularly but, then, I think I am trying to keep an eye on too many pages. Now - to the chase - I wouldn't worry about "Answers.com" - the information is available elsewhere and I am just referring to it. I don't think there is any copyright infringement in just referring to an article - or even paraphrasing its contents - only if you quote long sections without permission (and, even then, the law is unclear).

Finally, I have (reluctantly) just removed our observations on the monitor lizard at our home in Cooktown - you are quite correct in your comments on this situation. Sadly (s)he died years ago - but my wife, son and myself really miss his/her company. Cheers! John Hill 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for wasting so much of your time. I will try to be more careful next time. I like your new wording but have just added in "seem to" as a qualifier in the final phrase. John Hill 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for your friendly reply. I thought I should inform you - I have also added a bit in to distinguish the "National Zoo" in Washington, D.C. from other "National Zoos" in other countries - but I don't think it should cause any problems. Best wishes :^) John Hill 05:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Whaling

I just wanted to say I am happy to work together with you on Whaling, improving it where possible to become fully cited and NPOV. I know you have done some great work on the article as I have been watching it for some time now. So if you would like to collaborate I am happy to when I have the time (see my userpage, I dont always have time, too busy out there sailing among the whales!). Russeasby 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Catherine Bell#Request for Comments - Use of the "truthaboutscientology" website

Hi. Please comment at Talk:Catherine Bell#Request for Comments - Use of the "truthaboutscientology" website. You should still count as "non-involved", I think. Thanks. --Justanother 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I count as "non-involved" anymore. I'm also unfamiliar with Requests for comments, so I don't know the general usage of the term "non-involved." I see real advantages and disadvantages to using the website, and I haven't decided if I think it's a good website to use. I'm generally in favor of compromise, so if anyone thinks the website is biased and inaccurate, my preferred solution is to find a source everyone can agree on. It would be nice to have a consensus on whether or not TSA is a reliable source, but I don't think its going to happen.Enuja 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No prob, I appreciate your input anyway so thanks! I do believe that neutral editors will agree with me, and perhaps with you, that the best thing is to just use the original sources and leave biased websites out of the equation. Take care. --Justanother 23:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism

Thanks for the useful suggestions! I've attempted to resolve all of your problems. The "history of typology" section no longer exists; the useful bits have been incorporated throughout the article, while the redundant bits have been deleted. If I have rectified all or most of your concerns, please consider changing your vote to Weak or Strong Support; if not, at least consider changing it to Weak Oppose and listing further concerns. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:31Z

  • The Lucretius quote has been removed, and several of the captions have been substantially trimmed down. Also, several unnecessary long quotes have been removed from the citations (also reducing the size of the article quite a bit). Let me know what you think, and if you'll consider changing your vote to full Support. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-16 14:35Z

Edit to Catherine Bell

Hi, I am not terribly interested in Bell or Scientology articles, but since I responded to the RFC reguarding the use of the TAS site, I have been watching this page. I think the content you removed in your last edit was inappropriate. That was properly referenced to a Scientology magazine, not to the TAS site. Its worth noting as well that the particular issue referenced is not even listed on the TAS site for Bell, so I do not see how you are associating the two to come to the conclusion you came too. I think your edit should be restored personally, or at the very least brought up for discussion on the talk page. Russeasby 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, so the incorrect citation got added durring the edit war, given you explaination I completely agree with your removal. Russeasby 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Coat colour

I just saw that you also picked up on the coat colour issue in the baby goat pic. It would be good to have a nice article on this. Some of the material in Equine coat color genetics and Cat coat genetics may prove useful. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about it to even propose how to get started. How similar are all mammalian coat genetics? I don't think we need a specific article on goat coat genetics, but a general one would conflict with both the equine and cat ones you linked. Could we convince people to put the two together into a general one? I'm honestly not terribly interested, but thanks for thinking of me. Enuja 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FPC nomination

Hello! Thank you for your kind comments about my contributions - its much appreciated! Well, I agree with you that consensus is in favour of promote for this image, it says on WP:FPC that usually if an image has four or more support votes it warrnats a promotion however many images get more than four support votes and more than four oppose votes and dont get promoted, thats why its best to follow the expected 2/3 of support in order for promotion (so if their is 4 oppose and 15 support for an image; a promotion would be in order), I'd be happy to close this as promote, its a long process but I dont mind, if you ever need any other favours, just leave a message. Thank you for your comments and happy editing! The Sunshine Man 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, all done! If there is anything else I could do for you, just drop a note! Kindest regards - The Sunshine Man 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. You were nice enough to introduce yourself when I joined Wikipedia. I do have a question: First of all, I don't even know if I am adding to your talk page appropriately. Do I just pick an area like this and type in a comment/question?

Also, I wrote extensively to update the biographical stub on Rene Laennec. How do I request that it be 'peer reviewed' to change it from a stub?

Lastly, I figured out how to find and add a picture from the Wikipedia site, but I don't know how to incorporate a picture from the internet, for example. How do you find out the licensing status, how do you import it, etc?

Thanks for your help. Queequeg804 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Queequeg804

Hi! To add a new comment on a person's (or an articles') talk page, go to the very bottom of the page, add a new head line by typing it between two equals signs (== Headline ==), and you've got a new section. If you are responding to something someone else said, just respond below their comment, indent with a colon (:) and reply.
I know little to nothing about the rating system for Biographies, but I looked around and found some good resources. First, I would look over Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography, especially the section on "Structure." Once you've done that, then go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment and request an assessment for Rene Laennec. An editor recently added a clean-up tag to the article, so if I were you I'd go about trying to organize and format the article more like other biography articles before I asked other editors to rate the article. For more resources on format and style for biographies, go to the manual of style for biographies.
On adding pictures to the encyclopedia; this is something else I know literally nothing about! However, there is a ton in information, and links to even more, on Wikipedia:Images
Happy editing! Enuja 23:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alligator sounds

Hi Enuja! Thanks for the encouraging comments. The best I can do is direct you to this page: Wikipedia:Media_help_(Ogg)- wikipedia prefers the ogg file format, which isn't supported by default in Windows computers, so that may be the problem. Luckily, it doesn't seem difficult to enable ogg functionality. I got the sounds from http://www.fws.gov/video/sound.htm (these are in mp3 format, which may work better for you)- but their website is down at the moment. Borisblue 17:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

oops- sorry- Borisblue 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review#Brain-mapping

Well, originally I’d planned to mark and distinguish all colours with the utmost care however I’m somewhat lazy so it’s still unfinished – shame on me. What do you BTW mean with »in the neck«? Do you mean the shoulder? --FSHL 13:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NesjavellirPowerPlant.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:NesjavellirPowerPlant edit2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 10:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to Kilogram article

Enuja. I responded to your suggestion here on the Kilogram Talk page. And per your suggestion, I really revised the structure of the article. Please note that Yath only eighteen minutes later made a wholesale-deletion of an entire three-paragraph section titled “Mass vs. weight.” The following link to the section is here if he hasn’t deleted it again. I restored the text and put the issue up for a vote here. I hope Yath respects the consensus of the voting community; I know I will. Please read the section in question and vote your conscience. Greg L (my talk) 08:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Resolved. Greg L (my talk) 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram article

Enuja, what do you think of the kilogram article now? Greg L (my talk) 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dried Seahorse

I've changed my vote to neutral because of the new information. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the fact that it seems to contradict the text of mummy but because I think that that contradiction will be resolved, and being in two articles (seahorse and TCM) is quite enough anyway, I'm comfortable with being neutral. Enuja 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you close an RfC?

Sorry, it's been open for a while in nuclear power because i didn't know that or how it was to be closed. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! All you do to take it off the list of science requests for comment is delete the template. I've already done it. [1]. Enuja 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image on Portal:Energy

Thanks. The discussion has been helpful, although not all of the problems have been fixed, but the RFC was very helpful in bringing clearer heads to bear on the issue. Oh and thanks but no thanks, if an IPuser can't do something, I'm not interested, and the only way to find out is to not register a username. 199.125.109.135 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I put this in a new section, as the comments above are about an RFC on Talk:Nuclear power not the one on Portal talk:Energy that you're involved in. I certainly think it makes sense to leave the RFC tag on the energy portal image issue because it could still use more editors with comments. On the username issue, I registered simply because I consider it a serious privacy concern that my IP address would be not only logged but also public if I contributed anonymously. WikiScanner can't attribute edits from registered users! Enuja 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are many reasons for registering. So far none seem of any interest. 199.125.109.105 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess the issue is that it's easier for editors you are collaborating with if you are registered. It's not that it's a benefit for you, it's that it's a benefit for the rest of us. For example, I went and tossed in a new subject heading and un-indented your comment, CERTAIN you were talking about the image on the energy portal. I didn't notice that you were involved in BOTH requests for comment, because it's much easier to recognize names than numbers, and looking at the contribution history for a few of your recent IP addresses didn't show me your activity on the nuclear power RfC. So, I apologize for creating this section, and I respect your decision to continue editing under a range of IP addresses. However, other editors aren't going to stop asking you to register, because its easier for us to figure out what's going on if you are registered. Enuja 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose if someone else got blocked from this ISP I might register a name, or then again I might not. Only time will tell. Being confused with someone else is not my concern. I prefer to let the edits stand on their own merits regardless of who makes them. I wish to prove a point, as well, which is that unregistered IP users contribute a majority of the edits. 199.125.109.105 02:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Master lock padlock

Ok, new version uploaded here. I tried different lighting with a longer exposure for less blown areas, which came at the expense of noise. Any thoughts? Thanks for your notes on the old image. thegreen J Are you green? 00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a lot of noise, but I'm at a computer lab instead of at my own computer, so I certainly can't vouch for the settings and quality of this monitor. I do notice one thing; the background goes completely white at an inconsistent distance from the lock. One easy to find section is the top right of the lock, the first part of the actual image most people will see when they look at the full version. What does your original image look like? It might be best to just leave the background as you shot it, instead of altering the background to make it all white. Enuja 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's one of the source images, unaltered from camera, save compression. You're right; I guess I was a bit hash in removing the background. I dislike the low-contrast dim white background, which has varying brightness, though. thegreen J Are you green? 20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you do focus bracketing? The U is not sharp in that image, and you say "one of the source images," so that's my first guess. I would just suggest you nominate two images, one with the whole lock in focus but no other manipulations, and one with the background made white, and see what the voters have to say about it. I'm a bit torn, myself, as you are correct that the low-contrast dim white background isn't too snazzy, but the all white background, esp. because of the edges, just looks too artificial.
It's so strange to have people asking my opinion about images, as I honestly don't even own a digital camera. I used to "do art" in high school, but I was always more into drawing, painting and sculpture, and my sister was the one with the photography magazine subscription. I still have a low-end SLR I bought about ten or twelve years ago, and I was actually taking pictures like a maniac with it at Zion National Park a few weeks ago, but what I have to offer wikipedia about images is what they look like to me, not any even remotely technical details. I'm happy to be of help whenever I can, though! Enuja 21:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, your opinion is always accurate and helpful! I did use focus stacking - it's on the image description page hiding under "aperture." thegreen J Are you green? 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dianazene RFC

Thanks for your comment on the subject. Not that this makes a difference, but from your answer, I realize I should have provided more details surrounding the issue, so I added these immediately under the RfC template on the Dianazene talk page. Raymond Hill 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Status on kilogram article

Enuja: R*chard Ste*ner (I don't want Google hitting this note) is the physicist at the N*ST (picture of the guy here with his full name) who is working on the watt bal*nce. I've exchanged about a dozen e-mails with him Friday and today (Monday) regarding the stability of the kilogram. As you know, it used to be said that the IPK “lost” 50 µg of mass. Then it “lost” 30 µg. Words to this effect used to be on the U.K. lab’s Web site. Then it was an instability of 30 µg over the course of a century. The wording now at the U.K. lab’s Web site says something equally nebulous along these lines (but nothing about “loss”). The most recent and best source of what’s really going on is a report from the CCU published in a Nov. 2003 document by the CGPM stating that “… the prototype is known to vary by several parts in 108 [several tens of micrograms; i.e. ~30 µg] over periods of time of the order of a month…”. This is what is currently stated in the Kilogram article. R. Ste*ner is trying to track down the data underlying the CCU’s recommendation. Even though he’s officially working on the watt bal*nce, both he and I both want to get to the bottom of this. I personally suspect that the international standards body (the B*PM and its various committees) and a notable standard body (the N*ST) came to a reasonable conclusion based on an experiment performed by one G. G*rard in 1990, and only later did the real nature of the problem (temporary instability) surface. This would be one way to handily explain the backtracking I’ve seen over the last few years and the change at the U.K.’s Web site. (quietly bury the issue). Please consider the ‘stability’ section of the article a work-in-progress for the moment. Some of the citations may have to be papers that aren't available for on the Web.

By the way, I just checked my e-mail archive. I've got 240 e-mail exchanges to experts regarding other Wikipedia articles, and about 60 of them are to the ex-head of the BIPM (on the nature of either Kelvin or the degree Celsius) and an IBM researcher who published three landmark papers on the nature of absolute zero (on the subject of thermodynamic temperature and absolute zero). I try to do my homework. The difficulty, when doing this is getting easily accessible citations that others can download. The Ph.D.'s tend to e-mail me their papers and the only way for anyone else to get copies is to register with certain on-line journal houses and pay $8–$12 for the article. At least they’re proper citations.

Please delete this note at your next convenience. Greg L (my talk) 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like you've got a lot of resources, and a ton of good work to do! I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to indicate on kilogram talk that you needed to come up with more web-available sources. Instead, I was trying to apologize for not coming up with sources on my own and I was trying to indicate that I'd be glad to use sources you added in additional appropriate places, if they were available to me and once I'd read them. Personally, if it's published, I consider it available and accessible enough to be a very good wikipedia source. In fact, if a source is a journal article in an even somewhat available journal, it's probably really easy for me download the article, as I NEVER leave the university campus so I've always got online subscription status to a dizzying array of journals. It should also be fairly easy for most other US-based readers and editors to simply go to the nearest public university and pull up the articles on the computers or walk the journal stacks.
I think organizational suggestions might be the most helpful thing I can provide for kilogram, so if you have time and energy to reply on the kilogram talk page in the near future, it would be great if you'd address organization first.
Why do you want me to delete this note, by the way? Enuja (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Personal info. But that's OK. Leave it. Greg L (my talk) 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
When you linked to that image on your talk page, in a reply to me (edited after I'd replied) I was pretty upset to be described with a negative gender stereotype. I ignored it, this time I can see the smiley and the image certainly isn't referring to me, but that doesn't mean it's a nice image to link to.
Geez you’re quick to take offense. “Negative gender stereotype(?)” Puhleeze. I was referring to myself via comedic metaphor to Sally Field’s Oscar acceptance speech. You know, I receive a barnstar (thanks again) and act silly and appear all superficial. Get it? Greg L (my talk) 23:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer, your question, no, the editing hammer is not going to fall anytime soon. First I have to read all of the sources you've added, then I need to improve the mass, scale (weighing), and weight articles and add appropriate links to the kilogram article. Then I'll bring up the issue of any information I still think is superfluous on the kilogram talk page, and, if there isn't a consensus from active editors, do another RfC and this time also list it on the WikiProject physics page. And, since kilogram is very readable and apparently quite correct right now, I work on alligators, and alligator is a horrendous mess, I need to fix alligator before I do most of that long list of work above. So, I'll probably be active on that issue again when the encyclopedia is done. Enuja (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
“When the encyclopedia is done.” There. See? Your humor bone isn’t broken. Greg L (my talk) 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Whaling

Hey, there. I noticed you had contributed to the main whaling article, and I was wondering if you'd like to contribute to the History of Whaling article? You know, add photos, suggest what should be added, etc. I've added what will be a history of modern whaling section there, as I don't believe any such section exists; and the ones that chime in on the subject are often inaccurate. If you know anyone else that would like to help on this project, be sure to have them contribute. Beware, though. Anything added will need citations, as often people add info that is merely popular knowledge about whaling history- which is usually false. I won't accept books or other sources that don't have notes or references themselves- WorldLife library series about cetaceans, popular guide books, amateur and NGO websites (neither of which should ever be used), etc. Jonas Poole 01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, I only contributed to Whaling in the sense of trimming down bloated wording and keeping the page on watch to respond to editing or vandalism. There are lots of other articles that I actually have knowledge and interest in the subjects of, that I need to contribute to substantivly. I will continue to keep History of Whaling on my watch list, but that's all you should expect from me there in the future.
You say above that you don't consider NGO websites to be reliable sources; however, there are certain non-governmental organizations that publish information that they also put online that should be considered reliable sources. On relevant source that comes to mind is the IUCN's red list and, of course, the International Whaling Commission should be used to source that organization's policies. Enuja (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, when I say NGOs, I mean Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, and other similar organizations. Their info on the HISTORY of whaling is often inaccurate, as I would imagine any info they have on current whaling. I should have been more specific. Jonas Poole 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Enuja. The CG IPK was nominated for Featured picture status. See here. Greg L (my talk) 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC request

Hi there -- hope you're well. I'm currently on the other end of a review, finding myself the only one who's giving a close read to an actor bio article up for FAC: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emma_Watson. You're a discerning reviewer who was very helpful re Cillian Murphy, so if you have the time and inclination, please give Emma Watson a read and weigh in at the review. Many of my concerns have been addressed, but the more complex issues of tangents, an overreliance on the subject as a source, and a lack of major facts re critical opinion and box office information have not yet been addressed. I thought that you might be just the person to help provide guidance to the editors on these issues, and to help weed out attribution problems as you did on Cillian Murphy. Thanks! --Melty girl 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I glanced over Emma Watson, and I must say I'm not a big fan of the current state of the article. My biggest problem with the Watson article is that it's essentially one solid compliation of a lot of press junket interviews, and I just don't like press junket interviews. So to oppose would sound like I'm opposing because of the type of article it is; biography of young starlet. Your comment about an over-reliance on the subject as a source is right on. Also, I don't really like Emma Watson, so I'm not interested in doing any substantive work on the article. I added this featured article canidacy to the Wikiproject biography to-do list, so that might net a bit more attention. Sorry I'm not of more help! Enuja (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your issue with the sources is a valid reason to oppose. "Major facts" are missing, because of the reliance on junket interviews and the absence of critical opinion and box office info. But if you're not feeling like you should oppose, of course that's up to you. Thanks for adding it to the to-do list. Cheers, Melty girl 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. When this image was on picture peer review, you said you'd probably support it. I just wanted to let you know that I'd put it up as a FPC here. Thanks.--Eva bd 19:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Breaching Humpback FPC

Thank you for you input on Image:Humpback stellwagen.JPG, I found it very useful. Also I saw that you beat me to the punch on the Humpback Whale discussion page, so I appreciate that. Just writing to say thanks! Wwelles14 04:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enuja/Archive_1&oldid=160629057"