User talk:Wiki emma johnson

Hello, you added some info to the article about Mercury that I found interesting. However, I noticed it did not have a citation. It is not that I personally do not believe the information you provided, I think it makes sense, but without a citation it is likely to be challenged and removed. Do you have a citation to a reliable source for this addition? If you do, please add the citation to the article so any attempted removal of the information would be unjustified. Thanks. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Theseeker4}} Theseeker4, thank you for your comment. I think your concern was justifiable and thus, I have altered the sentence to make it more clear and included a reference.Wiki emma johnson (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:Hello,

:I saw the edit, it looks good to me :-). Just so you know though, the talkback template should be placed on my talk page with your user name in it to let me know there is a message on your talk page. I would place {{Talkback|Theseeker4}} here if a message for you were on my talk page, but you would place {{Talkback|Wiki emma johnson}} on my page to notify me about a message you left for me here. If you need help with anything else just let me know. Thanks and good luck editing. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I am fairly new to wiki. I really appreciate the guidance! Did I do it correctly this time?Wiki emma johnson (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:Yep, worked fine this time. Not a problem being new to Wikipedia, I am pretty new myself. Feel free to let me know if you need any help with any other Wiki functions. Good luck. The Seeker 4 Talk 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi TheSeeker4,

You offered to help me if I have questions, and now I'm going to take you up on that offer!! I was wondering how you were able to find out that the edit from "Mercury" (above) was made by me? I found what I think is an unclear sentence on a page and would rather contact the person who wrote it to inform them of the lack of clarity, but there are tons of edits in the history tab of that page. It would take me several days to go through and figure out who had written that sentence! Is there an easier way to identify the individual making the edit? Thanks so much for your help!Wiki emma johnson (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:Hello,

:Unfortunately, I don't know of any other way to find the author of that sentence than to go through each diff in the history. Since an individual sentence can be changed hundreds of times, it is impossible for the software to "flag" who specifically wrote that sentence. You could tag the sentence in question with a {{vague}} or {{clarifyme}} template. These would look like {{vague}} and {{clarifyme}}. That way, anyone who looks at the article and knows what the intended meaning of the sentence is can fix it. You could also remove the sentence to the talk page under a new section and ask for clarification on what it is supposed to mean. Other than that, I suppose you could go back a few months and look at that version in the history, see if the sentence is there, and narrow down when the sentence was added/changed that way. To answer your question about how I knew the edit as added by you, I have several element articles on my watch list, including Mercury, so I often review additions that are not immediately removed as vandalism. Any other questions let me know. Also, I can take a look at it if you tell/show me where the sentence in question is. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to guide me through this. I was so sure there must be an easier way, but I can use your suggestions to make my comments. Again, since you offered, it might not be a bad idea to get a second opinion on this particular page, especially since it contains current events. The page that I have already edited a bit (and still have a few beefs with) is: Suleman octuplets. To be honest, I generally have a lot of issues with the way in which this page is written. I think that many of the sentences, although referenced, are a bit vague and sometimes misinterpreted. One of the parts that I am very unclear on is in the "pregnancy" section, the last paragraph, and specifically, the last sentence. I'm not quite sure what the author is trying to get across. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if you concur?! Thanks much.Wiki emma johnson (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:The paragraph in question is not the best written paragraph in the world, but I think I know what the intention of the paragraph is. It seems to be saying that some experts believe transferring that many embryos to the mother is irresponsible and against certainl guidelines. What part of the paragraph do you find confusing, or has the paragraph been changed since you first read it? Thanks. Oh, just a reminder, please sign your posts on talk pages with 4 ~ tildes or the signature button at the top of the edit window. This is your own talk page, but it would be confusing if someone else came here and edited without signing their posts. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just went back to look at that section, and it appears that someone deleted that line about ethics in entirety, which I think was a good move! So, nothing to worry about anymore! Thanks for checking it. I had the same interpretation as you did, but I thought the sentence was poorly written and could've been misleading. Glad to see that someone else obviously agreed with me! p.s. Thanks for the heads up on signatures! - Wiki emma johnson (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections on the obesity page. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

:My pleasure. I actually found many of references in this article of personal interest and am reading through them. I feel that some of the cited sentences in the "management" section of the article, however, are either slightly inaccurate or over interpreted. I will make adjustments on the page as I read the original manuscripts more carefully. Feel free to comment on any revisions, and thank you, in advance. Wiki emma johnson (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I fully agree with you. When I have time I will re-work that. Jatlas (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your careful wording choices at Alzheimer's disease are welcome improvements to an already FA. Please keep up the good work! LeadSongDog come howl 12:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you for the encouraging words. I would be happy to assist further. Are you an admin, by the way?Wiki emma johnson (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

::You are most welcome. I can't see myself wanting to take on the load of grief that admins put up with. I'd rather just edit away happily.LeadSongDog come howl 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well-said :) Nonetheless, it seems you are quite good in what you do. Can I bother you with questions in the future? Wiki emma johnson (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:Always pleased to help when I can.LeadSongDog come howl 05:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I fear [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stem_cell&action=historysubmit&diff=273601813&oldid=271232032 these edits] sat undetected for a long time. I'm deleting for now. Please rewrite to eliminate the copyvio - it's useful to cover the area, but not with a verbatim cut and paste. While you're at it, you might seek out a more current source. Six years is a long time in this field. Thanks.

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)