User talk:InsufficientData

Test Message
Leaving a message for myself. Hello you. InsufficientData (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Carnoy's solution
Nice little article. :-) I see you've been editing a lot of articles related to dentistry. You a dentist? Nephron T|C 12:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) I'm actually an engineer, but I've been doing quite a bit of research into oral pathology and treatments after my own recent diagnosis with ameloblastoma.  I figure that if I'm going to make the effort to research these things, I might as well share what I've learned with others. --InsufficientData (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

enucleation page
I saw your new article when patrolling pages. I've marked it as patrolled.

Consider stopping work on this article. It could be a disambiguation page. Chergles (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not give instructions on how to do surgery, just as Wikipedia should not give bomb making instructions or how to kill someone with an axe. Therefore, enucleation (surgical technique) is an inappropriate title because it could lead to article creep and eventually tell people, including insane people, how to remove their eye.

This should be a disambiguation page. It could direct people to the different articles, some of which are red linked. I will show you what I mean. When I do so, it is not an edit war. It's just that seeing it is easier than a long, long description (and so far there are not other editors - if there were 50 editors then it would be unwieldy to demonstrate like I will be doing). Thank you for your patience. Chergles (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How about renaming it? You may have no intention of teaching people how to remove eyes but the title of "surgical technique" is highly suggestive of this. Since you don't seem to want the article as a disambiguation, I will restore your text with some modification. Chergles (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've renamed it "Encleation (concept)". This is actually describes more of what you wrote rather than surgical technique. With this, the page does not have to be a disambiguation page. There can be sections for leiyomyoma, pathology, etc. Good luck on writing it. If you need help, I am willing to help. Chergles (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

comment on your comment
I'm not sure where Chergles is getting people cutting out their own eyes stuff. That's bizarre. --InsufficientData (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Bizarre is correct. See http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v18/n4/full/6700667a.html and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28582204/. First link is entitled "Bilateral self-enucleation of eyes" describing an event in the UK. Second link is entitled "Death row inmate pulls out eye, says he ate it; He had earlier pulled out other eye after conviction in family's killings" and happened in Texas. Chergles (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, it feels to me that you're not really getting what I'm saying, since you don't reply to specific parts of my messages. Are you actually reading my replies in their entirety? This is frustrating to me. I feel like either I'm not expressing myself very well, or you're just not understanding what I'm saying.

--InsufficientData (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chergles"

Sorry, not trying to argue or be difficult. Will clarify anything you wish. Specific part that I didn't answer. In short, I'm very uncomfortable with enucleation (surgical technique). I'll think of an alternate name that is mutually acceptable. Chergles (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

anger?
I am sorry that you appear angry judging by your comments.

It is inappropriate to have a how to. The title of "enucleation (surgical technique)" suggests and encourages writing about how to do it. Let's explore if there is a better term that we can agree upon.

Enucleation (concept) is being used.

Enucleation (surgery) is also acceptable to me. There is no "technique" so the slippery slope to a how to article is reduced.

I am uncertain of the value of the page. If you want to stress that there are different usages of the word "enucleation", then a disambiguation page would be appropriate. I am not trying to argue or fight but have a hard time figuring out the value of such a page. As proof of my good intent, unlike others I have seen, I do not slap a deletion tag and fight for its deletion. Let's figure this out together! Then we can make the article great! Chergles (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Transparent materials
I will take care of the reference list as soon as I can. I am very sorry for the delay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logger9 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

logger9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Good job!
That was, essentially, what I suggested in the Talk page for that 9/11 article. No point in arguing over ... I think it rather amounts to different dialects of English. Wowest (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Monasteries in Spain
I am doing copyediting on Monasteries in Spain, along with other improvements. I added many categories to the article, which you tagged for insufficient categories. Please take a look at the categories, and comment or change as needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of John St John, 12th Baron St John of Bletso for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John St John, 12th Baron St John of Bletso is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John St John, 12th Baron St John of Bletso until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hyperwave11 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)