User talk:Enescot

Hello, Enescot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving--207.161.66.109 (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! MBisanzBot (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
CattleGirl  talk | sign! 00:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:cheers

This is a somewhat belated thanks for your removal of the vandalism on the analog v digital sound page :) Enescot 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome- it was really persistent vandalism! Someone was determined... Cheers- CattleGirl talk | sign! 00:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-economists

True, Frank Ackermann and Steve DeCanio have a PhD in economics. A pity that they forgot most of their training. Richard Tol (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortality

Greetings!
Thanks for your contributions to Economics of global warming. One of your recent edits included a link to mortality, a disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to articles. Thanks!

twirligigT tothe C 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The E=mc² Barnstar
For your great work on the climate change related articles, where you've managed to make large changes and improvements, that have gone mostly unnoticed (and unhindered) by the regular rabble of the GW crowd (good for you!). Keep up the great work. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Climate change, industry and society

The article Climate change, industry and society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

essay / original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Climate change and ecosystems

The article Climate change and ecosystems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

essay / original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 at New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

Hi, would you have some time to mediate over a 3O at an editing dispute on an emissions trading subject - Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#Issue_2_section_Basis_for_Allocation ? Mrfebruary (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of Wikipedia guidelines for mediation suggests to me that I'd make a suggested draft of the disputed section, and then others could could then review it. However, the section in question is so poor, I'd prefer to get on and make the necessary changes. Enescot (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"So poor". This is your opinion. The guidelines are there for a reason. You, or anyone else, is yet to prove a single thing I wrote incorrect. You just don't like it.Catonz (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enescot, thank you for your contribution. I agree with your characterisation of the section as 'poor'. Catonz, please read WP:NOT. Mrfebruary (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work at global warming

Just wanted to give you 2 thumbs up for the revising you've been doing at global warming, its been bloated for some time with patchwork edits. A little surprised that not many seem to care though...anyways excellent work in my opinion.--207.161.66.109 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Enescot (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ensescot, you raised a number of useful points in a long comment which was, reasonably enough, split into subsections to facilitate responding to each point. I've added a copy of your sig to each of the split sections of your comments to clarify who said what, if you don't like it please revert my change. In the past I've found it useful to sign each part of similar extended comments, in anticipation of responses, but of course that's entirely optional. Thanks for your work on this, dave souza, talk 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes. Enescot (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Enescot. You have new messages at Tarheel95's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tarheel95 (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And good work at Current Sea Level Rise, too

Thanks for that effort also, E. Much improved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Enescot (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation procedure

Hi E, Being interested in JJ's IPCC standard citation project I've been watching his page, and saw your comment. Could you please post an example diff(s) and point out an example of place(s) where important info was lost, in your opinion? I'm not looking for an exhaustive inventory, just an example or two. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've posted my two examples on Talk:Global warming#Citation of IPCC authors. Enescot (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could use your input at Talk:Global warming#Title specification. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some documentation up. Check out Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation and tell me what you think. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I think it's very good. Enescot (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I applaud your recent work at Effects of global warming. But there are some points I would discuss (and perhaps with less drama if we do it here).

  • Initials in the shortened form: well, this should be sorted out, but until some other issues are sorted out this has to be deferred. On-hold
  • Chapter title: I believe I was initially inclined to leave it out, but was convinced (didn't you do that?!) to use it. This seems to make sense: the chapter (of the IPCC reports) is the basic "work" to which the most specific, identifiable attribution can be made. At the very least include the chapter number, and I lean fairly strongly to using the whole title (well, one exception), as that is more informative than the just number. But tell me what you think.
  • "Definition of": (this is kind of minor, but since we are so close to perfection... :-) That isn't the actual title of the section referred to. More standard would be something like: Glossary: "sensitivity". (I follow CMS on that, but don't have the exact section at hand.)

I see you sometimes leave the period out of "et al.", which probably compensates my occasionally putting in two ("et. al." -- wrong!). Feel free to take my extraneous periods. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. I see there are still quite a few citations with the Harv link inside the author parameter, which looks bad. You want any help clearing those out? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I wasn't sure about the chapter titles - I thought you had wanted them removed? Anyway, I'll start putting them back in. Thanks for the Glossary suggestion. I'll try and get round to finishing off the article as soon as possible. Enescot (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I think it was you that convinced me that they should go in. I can see an argument either way, but presently believe it is better to put the titles in. Let me know if you would like any help. At the least it would ward of a charge of Lone Rangerism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I cringed when I saw you've been putting in {{Rp}} templates. (They are so crude and ugly.) Of course, adding page specification is good, and named refs doesn't have any way of doing it other than Rp. But why stick with named refs? Well, rabid aversion from some people if they even get a whiff of the "H" templates. But that is most likely the best way to go. And I can give you a hand with them if you want. (The templates, that is.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. By the way, sorry for taking such a long time with the citation edits on effects of global warming. I'd be more than happy if you want to lend a hand.
I've had my page numbers deleted in Harvard form on carbon tax, and that's put me off using them. However, I'd be happy to try using them again. Previously, I've cited page numbers in-line using Harvard citations, i.e.:
[...] The human influence on the climate can be seen in the geographical pattern of observed warming, with greater temperature increases over land and in polar regions rather than over the oceans (NRC, 2008:6).[1]
I could use the harvnb template in effects of global warming like this -
[...] The human influence on the climate can be seen in the geographical pattern of observed warming, with greater temperature increases over land and in polar regions rather than over the oceans.[2]
- with the full citation added to the references section:

References

  1. ^ NRC (2008), Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. A brochure prepared by the US National Research Council (NRC), Washington DC, USA: Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Academy of Sciences {{citation}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ NRC 2008, p. 6
I'd appreciate any comments you have on this. Enescot (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. By the way, I took the liberty (I hope you don't mind) of modifying your text above to illustrate the use of {{reflist-talk}}. It's quite handy for illustrating this kind of stuff. Also, it might be more convenient to use a sandbox as a work area for illustrating some of this stuff.

Do keep in mind the difference between the style of referencing known as "Harvard", and the Wikipedia {{Harv}} template. The latter is a good way of implementing the former, but neither necessarily implies the latter.

As a general comment: in your "prior use" example above the combination of Harvard style short citation (in the parentheses) and a footnote (with the superscripted link) is redundant, as one or the other alone would suffice. More typical is your second case, where the in-line link goes to the footnote, which has the Harvard style short citation (done with Harv) that links to the full citation. Though the point of doing that is so the full citations ("references") can be pulled out of the footnotes and kept in a separate list. And that is the essence of it all.  :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding your recent edit at Effects_of_global_warming#Health of "WHO 2009": I did some revisions. Note that inserting hyperlinks into citation parameters is often not a good thing (can mess up the parsing). And often not necessary, as there are parameters for that. E.g., |url= automatically links the title, and similarly with |chapter-url=. Also, you probably removed the |at= line because it conflicted with the page number. But that's one reason why I usually leave the page number following the template. (The other reason is more complicated.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that change. 20:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Always pleased to be of assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about butting in

Hi E,

Over [here] I just butted in some subsections in front of one you already posted. Apologies if that seemed rude. I did it because my comments were directly related to the examples JJ had posted, and thought it would be easiest for all to keep my questions as close as possible to those examples, for easy referencing. Have a happy, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

I liked this a lot. Thanks for caring NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Attribution of recent climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precipitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Views on the Kyoto Protocol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages HFC and CFC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment

Thanks for adding the paper to extreme weather, and I appreciate your kind comments. Enescot (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx  :-)

Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about clarification

What did you intend from your comment at the end of Talk:Global_warming#Add reference please regarding the velocity of global warming regarding the Physical impacts of climate change? 99.112.213.81 (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In case you did not realize it already Enescot this IP is the blocked GW external link spammer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. Enescot (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Physical impacts of climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precipitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoto Protocol

Replied at Talk:Kyoto_Protocol#Kyoto_successor. I mentioned my changes. Note that the text I took over from the talk page (and which I inserted into Climate change mitigation#Alternatives_to_the_Kyoto_Protocol_and_successor may still read a bit bold (although I did allready change the text to make it more balanced). Look at whether it's acceptable, and make it read smoother/more balanced if needed. 109.130.141.116 (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-consensus views: moved Henrik Svensmark's hypothesis from global warming to this article

Re [1]: I don't think you did, in fact... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. I didn't have enough time to edit global warming yesterday. I've just completed the edit. Enescot (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoto Protocol Covering 15%

With all respect to the esteemed editor, this editor is having a difficult time rationalinging why I have to defend 15% of global emissions going in the lede. A curt search on Google returns hundreds of sources citing the 15%. Here are a few which I have labored to add here but which I feel I should not have to. Are you not finding these very reputable sources and the figure of 15%?:

Please help me understand where you see bias? I'm assuming good faith here but the preponderance of the evidence is extremely black and white. the Kyoto extension is going to cover 15% of global emissions, it's a fact from hundreds of reputable newspapers are using the figure. I am a very busy person and am concerned that I am spending too much time providing support for minutiae. All due respect this is the second time I've had to provide numerous supporting entries to this editor over trivial points. Am I missing something?Justanonymous (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've posted my reply at Talk:Kyoto Protocol. Enescot (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your contributions to the article on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The link you refer to at the top of your user page is at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long wikibreak....

Thanks for your patience, E, but I did not get to the draft for global warming, and don't expect to have time to give it justice. I like your writing, we only disagree on the appropriate emphasis to place on IPCC as the be-all-end-all. If I had the time, I would advocate for greater reliance on secondary sources, and include several voices that believe IPCC is underestimating. Since I don't have time to really work on tweaking your draft, have at it. I may make a drive by appearance now and again, but I've returned to school to start a 2nd career. Caio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for telling me. I'm sorry to hear that you won't be contributing as much to Wikipedia as previously. I wish you all the best with your plans. Enescot (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

Hi Enescot, I was wondering whether you could look at [Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Removed_section:_Making_the_emitting_of_CO2_illegal this talk entry]. This is a very important section that has been removed. Thanks in advance. KVDP (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I replied to KVDP at his talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted my reply at Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Removed_section:_Making_the_emitting_of_CO2_illegal this talk entry. Enescot (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI, a recent editing pattern at an article where we're both active has inspired me to start a generic edit-warring discussion. In addition, since the editor who inspires this question has opined that you are a straight shooting editor, I'm hoping you might offer some wikietiquette commentary to help nip any edit warring or battlegrounding in the bud before a cascade leading to AE sets in. Thanks for any help you can offer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help, but I'm not entirely clear on what it is you want me to do. Do you want me to comment on the thread that you've linked to? Enescot (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is not about content, but behavior. If you see behavior that is likely to lead to AE sanctions, and you see that Boundarlayer is not changing their ways despite other peoples' efforts to provide guidance, please consider reiterating the guidance. Boundary might respond to somone (s)he sees as a content-ally more than those (s)he's pegged as a "censor" and an "accessory to murder". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

I have restored my edit to Global Warming, deleted by you. And I have properly called it vandalism. You may not like the message, but it was properly sourced and referenced, and on topic. If you don't like the message (it was neither extreme nor unscientific) please confine your actions to editing rather than the clumsy vandalism of a lesser species. Santamoly (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edit to global warming was not a good one. You completely ignored Hansen's comments about the "stand-still", and wrote something that implied something completely different from what Hansen was saying. Removing it (as i've also done) was the correct response. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Global warming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equatorial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate change mitigation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to climate change mitigation, including ...

Thank you for your attention to climate change mitigation, including wikilinks to industrial Revolution & anthropogenic. Please see wp:Tea. 108.195.136.174 (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, from frequent interaction, the above IP is the sock of a blocked editor; and I question the link to Industrial Revolution, but I have no objection to your reinstatement of the blocked editor's comments if you feel them appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayesian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nit police

A minor nit in your otherwise excellent File:Global sea level rise projections 2000-2100.png: several of the footnotes have wikilinks, but they are all self-referential, linking to this graph.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AR4 nit

Hi E, Awhile back you posted a different sea level rise graph (I forget where offhand), and I pointed out that IPCC AR4 explicitly said they were only giving a range for certain processes but due to large uncertainty with other processes they said explicitly that they were not providing an upper boundary. The new graph again erroneously depicts an upper boundary for the AR4 estimate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking it up, that matches my recollection. I think they hinted at deliberately not considering (inter alia) sea level rise from land based ice sheets (Greenland or Antarctica or both) sliding into the sea. I don't recall whether it was an explicit omission, or if everyone simply knew that's what they were alluding to.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the thread the last time this was discussed. They explicitly said they were not giving an upper boundary and cited uncertainty particularly in terms of dynamic ice sheet responses.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've posted both of my replies at Talk:global warming#Section on natural systems. Enescot (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Effects of global warming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent revert

Please reply here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Reply Prokaryotes (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Climate sensitivity & Radiative equilibrium

Maybe you can give some advice to resolve some recent edit issues? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_sensitivity#Edit_needed and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiative_equilibrium#Remove_of_tone_notice Prokaryotes (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Enescot (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Friendly suggestion, Prokaryotes (talk · contribs).... at present I have no opinion regarding the content of your edits. However, the version history of one of those articles suggests you might benefit from studying WP:EDITWAR, and be careful not to make the common mistake of assuming WP:3RR means everyone has permission to use edit-war mentality up to but not beyond 3 changes per 24 hours. I'm not saying you EW'd. I'm not saying you did not. The only thing I'm saying is that a 1-second look at version history sends up a red flag, and my only goal in this remark is to help you stay out of the muck - which includes undeserved and unintended muck. See also WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i currently try to resolve this via talk page. It would be great to get more opinions from users who know the specific science. Maybe someone knows a good place to ask or specific users? I tried the climate change task force but there are currently not many people around it seems. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at radiative equilibrium. It's not a topic I'm familiar with. All I'd suggest is to try and discuss the situation calmly with other editors who are interested in the topic. You may already know of it, but I've found Wikipedia:Etiquette a useful guide. Personally I've found that it can help to have a break between article edits. Enescot (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned on ...

You have been mentioned on ... a Wikipedia global warming contributors discussion; of interest? (",) 141.218.35.19 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Context on User talk:Anna F remote, in which it history it was embedded, is potentially more understandable.
It is good to see you still contributing to wikipedia. You show great care in your efforts. Thank you. (",) 108.73.114.51 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, and I appreciate your comments. Enescot (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for your hard work on Global warming. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate change and agriculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Enescot. 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)[reply]