User talk:EMsmile/Archive 3

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you are not a native speaker of English, I apologize for writing in English. '''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thank you!! --WMF Surveys (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Unhealthy use of user space
You have been working on an article about community health clubs for two years. I think it is time for it to be considered for mainspace. I have moved it to draft:community health club. You are at liberty to continue improving it. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, please don't waste any reviewer's time on this, RHaworth. Please delete it. It's just from my sandbox where I put stuff that is not meant to go live. EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And where did my sandbox go now? It had some stuff in there that I use regularly. It seems to be gone? RHaworth? EMsmile (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that's OK, I found that thing from my sandbox that I was looking for. But please delete draft:community health club as I don't think it's good enough for review. EMsmile (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This might be helpful
Have you come across "Template:In use"? (I am not confident enough to put the actual link, in case if doesn't show up in preview, and then when I press publish, it messes up this page. But you can find it easily via Google.) I find it useful when sitting down to focus on one article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, good idea, User:Carbon Caryatid! Never used it before but will look into it in future. I was worried that someone else might work on the article while I was getting stuck into unisex public toilet. I have finished with it for now, would you like to take a look at it now? It still needs so much work but we are making progress, I think. EMsmile (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad my suggestions have been helpful. I'll look at that article in a couple of days: I know that if I dive in now, I'll drown! (Feel free to remind me if I haven't done anything by the weekend.) In the meantime, could I ask you a Wiki-etiquette favour? It would be helpful - partly for me, but mainly for everyone else - if you could link directly to the policy pages you sometimes refer to, and argue from there. For example, with regard to your recent merge proposals, could you specify exactly what you hope each merge to achieve? I thought I'd ask here, rather than raising the same point on several pages. Thanks. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Carbon Caryatid, always happy to comply with etiquette. :-) But not sure which policy pages you mean? With regards to the mergers it's for the reasons mentioned here: WP:MERGEREASON, mainly due to overlap. Or did you mean other policies? EMsmile (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Community Health Clubs in Africa
 The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! BluePankow  ✉  05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)  BluePankow   ✉  05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:EMsmile help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Menstrual Hygiene Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equity ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Menstrual_Hygiene_Day check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Menstrual_Hygiene_Day?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI
FYI, I think I added that more or less in 2011, yours is better thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am glad you like it, User:NewsAndEventsGuy. You have been with that article for a long time then! I only joined Wikipedia in 2014 and normally only work on sanitation and public health topics (WikiProject Sanitation) but now I am branching out into topics that affect developing countries. Could you help me by reviewing what I recently wrote about global warming in the developing countries article? - And what do you think of this idea: I want to propose (again) that the article on global warming gets renamed to climate change. And the article on climate change gets renamed to "climate change (geological timelines)" or something like that. Reason being that in all the new publications and media articles, everyone now uses climate change for the man-made thing. Perhaps back at the time when the articles were created, it was different. See e.g. all these articles and sub-articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_conference . What do you think? Would I have any chance at all with my proposal? EMsmile (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You will need a rock solid alternative for the existing Climate change article, and if you make a good job proposing it (with the right move tags and pointers to a central place for discusion) I will likely support it... I have tried to do the same thing. Search both the talk page archives for both articles first for "Title" and anothe search for "rename" to see prior discussions.  I don't have a lot of hope others will go for it but if its a well done proposal I would probably give a supportive WP:NOTVOTE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, good. Has there ever been a formal move request in the past or only the more informal discussions on the talk page (I've seen some of those)? NewsAndEventsGuy EMsmile (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Near as I know, the only difference between "formal"/"Informal" discussions is the presence (or lack of) tags on the articles themselves. I think I did that once.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy: I've searched the archives and the most recent discussion I found is this one (I think): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_72#Rename_article? It's a few years ago, so I think we could make another attempt now. My main point would be to give this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_conference  - everything at the UN level uses climate change, not global warming. What do you think would be the best new name to propose for the current article on climate change? My idea so far was: Climate change (geological timelines) - And maybe we could identify some of the strongest critics of a name change from the past and then approach them directly before making the official proposal? When I made changes to global warming recently I was very surprised how little oppostion or reaction I got. Perhaps the fiercest critics of change have moved on by now. EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable discussing this, just us, away from article talk.  Even if we mean no harm, others might jump to conclusions and start talking about WP:CABAL or WP:CANVASS which I don't believe is going on this well intended discussion.... nonetheless, I recommend you float the idea for all, as you have for me, at article talk.  You could say something like "I'm thinking of crafting a formal proposal and for right now am just looking for preliminary thoughts...."  See what kind of response you get.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try. But I don't have any amazing arguments or a big case to build. It's just so obvious on my opinion... EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, see talk page of global warming EMsmile (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I have yet to look and yet to form an opinion, I appreciate your effort at good process. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

TIP, just WP:Focus on content. The other editors have been around the article as long as I have. I try to ignore the noise.. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that tip is fair enough but I hate that kind of negative talking that those guys are doing. It is very offputting for new editors whom we are trying to attract... Also could be offputting for female editors (I wonder if there is any research out there that female editors would be less aggressive in their commenting than male editors? What we do know is that there are far more male editors than female ones on Wikipedia).EMsmile (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re Women... if you don't know about them already, you may be interested in WP:EDITORS, WP:WikiProject_Women, and WP:RETENTIONNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

TIP, IMO any successful major change at global warming will require (A) broad RFC and (B) extra effort at brevity (something I am challenged with myself) .... In my experience, (too long, didn't read) is a common tool of dismissal when one tries to change long standing anythingNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links, they look excellent - will browse them! Also thanks for the tip on brevity - you are so right!! Will try to improve on that one. - How can we get that broad RfC done? Should we place some notes on some project pages maybe? There are already a lot of page watchers of both articles who should be taking note and chime in. Actually should we place a note about the discussion on the talk page of climate change? How is this best done and is there any danger of it being WP:CANVASS? EMsmile (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is targeted outreach to likely supporters and that's not what we're talking about. Just posting at other reasonable venues to cast wide net among both supporters and opponents builds a strong consensus and is encouraged.  There is an WP:RFC procedure; and the pinpoint links to the threads are
 * * Your original Talk:Global_warming
 * * My suggested alternative Talk:Global_warming
 * [{Talk:Climate change], sure. Village pump maybe.  Project for featured articles maybe. I don't plan to do any of that, but would happily cheer you on if you ahve time NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

please stop
please stop editing. lets collaborate on next step NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * this is a housekeeping request to minimize crossposting chaos not an effort to canvass. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * for starters I suggest you delete the RFC thread entirely. No one has responded yet so that's ok. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. You know better how to do this. Please go ahead! :-) Thanks! EMsmile (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am simultaneously working on something else in real life. Should not be away for more than one to ten minutes, but I may use the full 10NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two savvy options. Either you could add the RFC to your own comment that started the thread, or you could thanks everyone for their initial responses and say you're goint to ask an uninvovled ed to apply Template:Archive top to the thread. In your place I would do the latter, then retreat with responses so far, and think. Before trying again, I would deveope a complete proposal so there are no wishy washy "we could do something like (whatever)" type statements. Instead, try to formulate a concrete (male thinking?) proposal and fight for it with succinct punch. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and Id probly spill check carfully NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the RfC for now. The RfC was your idea and you have more experience with this, so I'm happy for you to talk the lead on that... The point is though, I don't yet have a clear favorite for what I would do with climate change. That's what I need the discussion for! My proposal is to either change it to "climate change under geological timeframes" or have a disambiguation page for it, but I need inputs of many peope to collectively do some brainstorming and come up with the best solution. For that reason, I cannot "develop a complete proposal so there are no wishy washy "we could do something like (whatever)" type statements". I need a brainstorming session for that with lots of different people, which I am hoping we are currently doing on the talk page of global warming.EMsmile (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Had I been you, I would not have started with the MoveTo tags because that looks like a formal proposal rather than a brainstorming session.  To turn the clock back, here is what I suggest
 * You and I both agree to "hat" the current discussion. If we both agree, I seriously doubt anyone else will object to our use of the Template:Hidden archive top tag to close the current thread.  That's OK with me.  You?
 * Start work in your [{WP:SANDBOX]] to write the question you want to ask as succinctly as possible; since it is an open ended question for an RFC I do not believe CANVASS is an issue and I'd be happy to offer feedback. As a preliminary thought.... I'm going to be a tough sell when it comes to renaming "climate change" but I have an open mind and always welcome questions that challenge my current opinions.
 * When you are ready to ask the question to the whole world, then add the RFC tags and move it from your sandbox to wherever you think it will get the most participation. It may makes sense to also manually archive the current thread at that time, to help focus new discussuion on the question you meant to ask in the first place.
 * Does that approach seem reasonable to you?, as a matter of housekeeping and procedure, what do you think? We already know you don't want to rename either article, but would this be an OK way to back up and start over with the question E wants to ask? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You know the Wikipedia procedures better than me... But could we keep it open for a little while longer? Perhaps some new people will come out of the woodworks with some really good ideas... could we keep it until the end of the week maybe? I put up the move discussion because I felt that previous discussions on the talk pages quickly disappeared into the archive pages and were never really taken all that seriously. That means, a couple of people said something and that's it. The "move tag" made it more real and serious, in my opinion. - If I take it to my sandbox then I doubt that I'd get many people to help me formulate the different options and think through the implications. Hmmmmm.... I don't really have the full solution and don't think I can derive it on my own. I think I have identified the problem though and would like to see it solved, one way or another. EMsmile (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it is already a discussion with different options in it. But neither of you put forward your ideas just specific proposals. For instance I think something like the one above "climate change under geological timeframes" but chopped down to "Geological climate change" is quite a bit better than any of the options with brackets. As I said on the talk page we should not be trying to write an article into the title. Less is more. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile, sure do as you like but it does rather look like the scientist who wrote a grant which said "We're not sure exactly what we will research. The purpose of sending in this grant at this time is to think up a proposal. So please fund us."  In my opinion you'll get nowwhere without a lean mean format, brevity, and process.  I'll probably drop out of the conversation since this is still in brainstorm mode. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dmcq I like your new suggestion and have added it to the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy I am not so familiar with the processes within Wikipedia. So far, I think the discussion is still making progress and not going round and round in circles. So personally, I think it is fine to let it run for a little longer. But perhaps I am missing something that you, as someone with more Wikipedia experience can see (?). You are not enjoying brainstorming modes? To me, that's what talk pages are for. Consensus building is really important in Wikipedia. Doesn't brainstorming form part of the consensus building process? EMsmile (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Brainstorming on priority topics is great but for me tweaking climate change is not a priority - I'm happy to leave it alone!  If you produce a complete proposal I'll think about it then NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Although we seem to be bogged down over "global warming" vs "climate change" I do appreciate the clean up work you are doing on the body of the article, and exporting low import text to to sub articles NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll gently continue along those lines, bit by bit (to allow others to intervene if they object). I think people sometimes lose sight of the principle of "overview article" and "tree of articles". Having too many details in an overview article is not good, where suitable sub-articles already exist.EMsmile (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I was napping
See my changes at Climate change, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a long nap indeed, as I made that change already in June, after asking you on the talk page. :-) Anyhow, I have replied on the talk page there. It would be good if more of the other editors also spoke up so that we can collect several opinions on this subject, not just yours and mine. EMsmile (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI
FYI I tweaked a subsection at Talk GW where you had a comment. Please let me know if you object, or just revert. The explanation for what I did is now at the bottom of the thread, and the diff for what I did is here. Thanks for your attention. Season's greetings! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, NewsAndEventsGuy. I've been a bit out of it and am trying to catch up. What is the main discussion on the talk page all about now? It's still about the definitions of climate change and global warming, right? Happy new year to you as well! EMsmile (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Under discussion is the first paragraph of the lead. At issue is the difference between the technical definition of the terms (where they are distinct) and the popular definition (where, as the reliable sources say, they are frequently used interchangeably).  In other words, the same conversation we'be been having off and on for years and that you started up again about 6 months ago.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NewsAndEventsGuy! Hopefully one day, a proper solution for this messy situation will be found. Perhaps humanity will settle on a completely new term. Time will tell! EMsmile (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New Research on Squatting Benefits
I noticed your removal of Sikirov study on the grounds that it was too old and too small: What do you think of these studies from 2018?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30645917 Diverticular disease and posture during defecation : a prospective comparative study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30346317 Implementation of a Defecation Posture Modification Device: Impact on Bowel Movement Patterns in Healthy Subjects. Jonathan108 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, Jonathan108. I haven't had time to look into the two publications that you mentioned but I suggest you put them on the talk page of the article (defecation postures) and then we'll go from there. It could be that they fit better in the article on squat toilet as the one on defecation postures is just an overview article, maybe not for all the details. EMsmile (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sir
Thank you Sir.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks but I am not a Sir. EMsmile (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of water supply and sanitation by country


The article List of water supply and sanitation by country has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This page is better off as a category or a navbox, which I have created at Water supply and sanitation by country. The other sections are also already used as Water resources management in. There is no foreseeable use for this page other than being a collection of links."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reh man  14:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Water removal from Water Resource regions
Hi there, I saw you removed from Alaska water resource region and  Arkansas–White–Red water resource region based on a scope change. However even if is now mainly about water sanitation, I believe these water resource region datasets are used for watershed management (including sanitation and human water use) in the US. Here's a couple links on the topic of this data and. -Furicorn (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Furicorn. Please copy it to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Water#Tidying_up_the_tags because this is where we are currently discussing the tags. My view of the new WikiProject Water tag (soon to be renamed to WikiProject Sanitation and water) is a quite narrow one, as otherwise any river, watershed etc. would be part of this project, whereas there are other wikiprojects dealing with that. EMsmile (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added my comment there. By the way, thanks for creating/helping create Urine-diverting dry toilet, I've definitely used that article for reference before. -Furicorn (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Membership renewal


You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania
Hallo EMsmile,

ich habe gerade auf der Wikimaniaseite Travel_Coordination gelesen, das du am Bus von Hamburg nach Stockholm interessiert bist.

Ich werde morgen mal den Gnom persönlich befragen, ob das was wird. Die Doodelantworten sind erstens wenige und zweitens sehr gespreizt.

Ich bin nun am überlegen, ob ich alternativ meinen Viano mit bis zu 6 Personen volllade (Ich und Tochter wir sind schon 2) und dann die ca. 11 Stunden (plus Pausen) fahre.

Wir würden dann am Mittwoch morgens in Hamburg losfahren und am Montag dann zurück. Platz im Gästezimmer hätten wir auch vorher/nachher.

Wikimail auf de funktioniert. Bahnmoeller (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hallo, Bahnmoeller danke für die Nachricht! Ich bin noch am Überlegen, wie ich es mache. Wollte eigentlich erst am Donnerstag abreisen und vielleicht lieber mit dem Zug als mit dem Bus. Ich muss mich da jetzt mal echt dahinterklemmen. Hast Du zufällig schonmal geschaut, ob Hamburg nach Stockholm per Zug praktikabel ist? Wäre teurer als Auto, aber wahrscheinlich doch komfortabler(?). - Wirst Du schon am Donnerstag an der Konferenz teilnehmen, ist da was interessantes? EMsmile (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Renaming proposal climate change
Hello!

I've been preparing a renaming proposal for climate change. I've tried to seek out some people that might be opposed to the idea to get a balanced overview of argumentation. Unfortunately, they did not seem to have any time. I saw you participated before in discussions about this. Would you mind having a look at User:Femkemilene/sandbox and provide comments? I think I'm almost ready to launch, but noticed that most often proposals don't make it because they are not properly thought out. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Femke Nijsse, OK, I will take a look at it now. I fully and 100% support a renaming proposal for climate change! There are a few editors who are resisting it and all previous proposals have failed so far... I take it you have read all the previous discussions in the archive of the talk page of "climate change". EMsmile (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read many of them. has even reconstructed the first archive for global warming to get a better picture of why this decision was made. I think back in the day it made more sense than now, and hope to convince many editors that times have changed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Totally agree with you. The proposal in your sandbox looks very thorough to me. Perhaps/hopefully the time is ripe now. EMsmile (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!
Hi EMsmile, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, for sure. Thanks for pointing this out to me, Gnom! EMsmile (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please update your NotVote answers to the Climate change survey
Hi, at Talk:Climate_change you answered before a list of (so far) 4 specific questions had been formulated. Please consider updating the bold part of your NOTVOTE to address each number question, so the closer will have an easier time making sense of the replies. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary table for Renaming Climate change article
Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks very useful, NewsAndEventsGuy! I hope this will be helpful for the closer (whoever that person will be). EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Climate Change really caused by Mankind or Mother Nature?
While climate change and global warming are certainly real and measurable, the current articles and arguments written about it are spurious in that they only cover the time period of the last century or so (since the industrial revolution). If one looks further back in history following paleontological, geological and other historical evidence then you would take note that climate change (global warming & cooling in particular) occurs in approximate 1000 year cycles and has done so since the last Great Ice Age. In fact the most recent one (prior to now) occured in the period between roughly 900 AD and 1400 AD. Temperatures rose in a similar fashion and to approximately the same height as now (check NOAA website for graphs & actual timeframe) from 900 to 1050 AD. Then temperatures began to decline into what is referred to as a Mini-ice Age over the next two or three centuries, leveled out and have begun to rise in a similar fashion. Therefore, the premise that current global warming is caused by humans has no real truth behind it in light of these Natural Cycles of warming and cooling over the past 10,000 years. You can check the history books to see how humans adapted, how wine became popular as more regions in Northern Europe began to grow grapes as the world warmed, how Greenland got it's name and was farmed for a couple of centuries by Viking settlers prior to the return of colder temperatures and how (as the cooling continued) grapes were grown less and more grains such as barley & wheat were planted resulting in beer becoming cheaper than wine. Please do take note from history how no land masses were suddenly flooded due to ice flow melts in the Arctic & Antarctic regions so such disasters in this current climate are unlikely. Granted, greenhouse gases may have some effect but without real proof, in light of the historical evidence, they are at best a cautionary tale.

I would recommend that you at least edit this page on Climate Change to provide some, if not all, evidence that shows the historically documented periods of Global warming & Climate change so that it is not all based on relatively recent data that pales in comparison to the whole: 100 years versus 10,000+ is no competition. Redwolf379 (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you put this on my talk page, Redwolf379?EMsmile (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ref sort-out needed
In this edit you added a new 2019 reference under an old name JMP2017, which resulted in conflicting definitions for the same name. I fixed it, sort of, but haven't checked to see if any of the JMP2017 refs should actually refer to your new ref, now named JMP2019. Can you review please? Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dicklyon, well spotted. I have gone over it again and I think now it is correct. The JMP2019 report updates the figures from JMP2017, so for any current figures we need to cite the JMP2019 report; if we want to compare with older figures, we need to cite the JMP2017 report. EMsmile (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rule of Three
As to why we don't list every single synonym for feces, it'd be too many. These are almost certainly the top three, covering the spectrum of social usage, from quite polite ("excrement") to less polite ("poop") to not polite ("shit"). I assume every reader typically calls it one of those. "Droppings", "dookie" or (worst) "mung" are, while common enough, for niche audiences, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to replace "poop" with "poo", that seems the more common term to me (and has an extra 5 million alleged Google results). But it's such a small preference that I don't want to if you don't want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your parentheticals, left the "poo". Not standard, and if it's based on the last message, you've misunderstood it. The levels of politeness don't translate to scientists, children and the vulgus. Those three groups use all three words in different circumstances. The Wikilinks make it clear enough which ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Aquatron
Hello EMsmile, I noticed your recent notification from the hand washing article's talk page. Since you're editing in relation to sanitation, I thought I'd just share a funny factoid: Aquatron was once a Defender inspired video game, but also a toilet system. I tried to find sources to write an article about the game but unfortunately may not have found enough to demonstrate notability, it would risk deletion. Keep up the good work and happy editing, — Paleo Neonate  – 21:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
3 editors have disagreed with your edits so far on Manual scavenging. See talk page and get consensus there first. Given your history on this page and the recent edits, you need to read WP:OWN as well. You don't own the article. NavjotSR (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @NavjotSR, there are all sorts of people editing that page, sometimes we agree with each other, sometimes we don't. But yes, let's take it to the talk page of the manual scavenging article. Good to see an interest in the article. EMsmile (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes on Feces page
Hey, see your feedback here.

Wanted to comment that if you Ctrl+F '."' or '".' that the usage is definitely different throughout the page. You can also look at ',"' and '",'.

Best, --Engineerchange (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found two of those cases and corrected those. If you find more, please correct. There is a guide somewhere on Wikipedia that says we should use the international system not the American one. That means closing quotation marks first then the fullstop. @Engineerchange EMsmile (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the feedback. Cheers! --Engineerchange (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Doti Nicolasia/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:Doti Nicolasia/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://sdg.humanrights.dk/en/goals-and-targets, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg1, and https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-3-good-health-and-well-being.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JW 1961  Talk  10:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and the edit-a-thon on SDGs in September 2020
Hi,

I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve SDG-related articles on Wikipedia. We are organising this online SDG edit-a-thon during Global Goals Week, 18-26 September 2020. Please take part in it! If you have any questions about this work, please feel free to ask your question on the event's talk page here. The event page itself is here.

Here are some pages about Wikipedia editing that you might find helpful:
 * Quick introduction to Wikipedia
 * Finding your way around Wikipedia for novices, including tutorial videos
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia

Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) when you post on talk pages. This will automatically produce your username and the date. Look for the "tilde" character on your keyboard; for example on English keyboards it is to the left of the "enter" key (accessible with the "alt gr" key).- EMsmile (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sustainable Development Goals into Sustainable Development Goal 5. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Diannaa Hi, I usually put this in the edit summary "moved content from page name" (I usually move it, not copy). Is that sufficient or is it paramount that it says ? EMsmile (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay to use a shortened version, but the full version is best. The main points are: it needs to be done on the destination page (not the source page); and include a wikilink to the source page. Change the word "copied" to "moved" if that's what you did.— Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello EMsmile, I just started editing WP SDG 3 page. Could you please review it? User:Kayastha.p (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Event Coordinator right
After reviewing your request for the " eventcoordinator " permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things: If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
 * The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the " confirmed " permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
 * The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
 * Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

hello
what's going on. EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Mahdbello (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)kanopreneur
Education is a necessity Mahdbello (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves SDGs
Thanks Emsmile! I'll give a proper summary. Ptinphusmia (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ptinphusmia. I am wondering if you are also in the virtual workroom (Workplace) that we use for the edit-a-thon? It makes it really easy to communicate and learn together. If you want to join see here under "Registration", Step 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Online_edit-a-thon_SDGs_September_2020#Registration EMsmile (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actively participate all week of the contest SDG.
 * Removing an editor from a contest without notice is neither transparent nor serious to the contest and all user.
 * Strongly requested that my user be incorporated again. Marinna (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Changing others' talk page comments
I'm not sure if you realize this, but it's not accepted practice to change other peoples' talk page comments. I've noticed you've done this several times at User talk:Cnyirahabihirwe123. I believe you are trying to help this new user, but please don't change others' comments. Just a heads-up. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder Jessicapierce. I'll follow the rules better. It was just an exception because the talk page (User talk:Cnyirahabihirwe123) was such a mess and it was really hard to see what was going on because the section headings were all non-specific (e.g. "October 2020") and I felt it was important to tidy this up, given that the user will be under close supervision for the coming weeks/months... EMsmile (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
Hi EMsmile. Following our discussion at Category talk:Sustainable Development Goal 13, I've listed the categories for the individual SDGs at Categories for discussion. Thanks, gobonobo  + c 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted pretreatment photo
Hi -- Regarding the photo you deleted at Wastewater treatment, what do you consider a suitable photo for depicting an industrial pretreatment facility? The term "pretreatment" (in North America, at least) just means that the facility sends its partially-treated wastewater to a municipal sewage plant. Industrial WW facilities come in all shapes & sizes, but indirect (pretreatment) dischargers will often look the same as direct dischargers. The only difference is where the discharge pipe leads to. Cheers, Moreau1 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Moreau1, the photo that I deleted was this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Industrial_Water_Treatment_Plants.jpg . It was taken from this website: https://apexecotech.com/water-treatment-plant/ If I read the website right, it's about surface water treatment for drinking water production, NOT for industrial wastewater treatment. Please check. Also it feels a bit like we are advertising a company's technology, don't you think? - I don't think it's a problem if we have currently no photo for the section on industrial wastewater treatment because the tanks, buildings, equipment basically look identical, whether it's municipal wastewater treatment or industrial wastewater treatment... EMsmile (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct; it appears to be a photo of a drinking water treatment system. It is also true that an external photograph of a treatment plant may not be a useful way to illustrate the pretreatment concept. There are some available illustrations & schematic diagrams that show the difference between direct & indirect discharge. I might add one of those images later. (BTW industrial treatment plants often do look different from sewage treatment plants. Industrial WW treatment may include one or more unit processes that are never used in municipal systems, e.g. membrane filtration, dissolved air flotation, steam stripping.) Moreau1 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)