Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

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 2022.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for: 2022 Earth Day Edit-a-thon 2pm - 4pm EST (April 22nd) online via Zoom and in person This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EMsmile, before I open a sockpuppet investigation is there are legitimate reason it would look like this account and Chidgk1 are run by the same individual or otherwise engaged in coordinated or tag-team editing? You're both older accounts so I am extending this as a courtesy, I generally just open the investigation and see what people have to say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, what makes you think that I and User:Chidgk1 are the same person? We are not. What do you want me to do to prove this to you? I find it a very strange proposition actually. What could have caused this suspicion, I wonder? We often edit the same articles because we are both active on WikiProject Climate Change, just like others in this project, e.g. User:RCraig09, User:InformationToKnowledge, User:Clayoquot etc. EMsmile (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts spend a lot of time editing the same pages at the same time. I grant that the spread of pages could be explained by an interest in the same core topic area but here's what the editor interaction analyzer looks like [1], are you familiar with how to read one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also active in the Climate Change area, and I don't see many similarities in the style or intent between these two editors. EMsmile is probably the single most active editor in this area in terms of number of edits, and probably many of us would have somewhat high interaction correlations with EMsmile's edits because our discussions often involve mostly the same people. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @EMsmile:@Chidgk1: thank you both for the additional context, nothing wrong with any of that and looking at it with the additional context it does look like more a walled garden of scholars writing the same books situation than anything nefarious. Please accept my apologies and feel free to point anyone in the future who brings up the same question my way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for reconsidering. They certainly seem like different people to me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Time series of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wcam, it's been a while since I uploaded that file but at the time I had convinced myself that it's compatible. Finding another graph for the CO2 content is probably easy, but it's those pH value curves that are less easy to come by; and especially not in this combination (pH and CO2 in the same graph). I'll add this to the file description page now. I'll also ping User:RCraig09 and User:Efbrazil who are far better with graphs on Wikipedia than I am. EMsmile (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chart is 15 years outdated, and on first inspection I don't see a clear or credible assertion of implied licensing or fair use, and I'm surprised this chart has survived over a year.

However, charting atmospheric CO2 growth and ocean acidification may be a worthwhile goal. I don't think it would be prohibited WP:SYNTHESIS to get data from two sources and simply plot them together. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. At first glance, Fig. 13.4 at https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/13/ is a US Government publication (generally free use) that's only five years outdated (NCA4). There may be more recent graphics. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPs: At second glance: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives is even more recent. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image can be used as the replacement and tagged with {{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}. Wcam (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution, thanks RCraig09 for finding this newer graph! But I don't quite understand this tag {{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}: wouldn't the same tag also have "worked" for the previous image which was also from NOAA and is basically identical but not with the most recent data (so not a licence infringement either)? EMsmile (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the previous a bit and found this article to be the original source which has a CC BY 4.0 License. I'll update the info page accordingly but I'd still prefer to use the updated one. Wcam (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New images uploaded as File:Co2 time series aloha 08-09-2023.jpg. Wcam (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks Wcam! I've replaced this graph at ocean acidification. It's an important graph so I've also added it to effects of climate change. Anywhere else where it should sensibly be added? Maybe at pH? EMsmile (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello EMsmile: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Dustfreeworld and likewise back to you! EMsmile (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water supply and sanitation in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just to say I suspect wiki articles are behind the curve on this, if you were seeking leading edge areas to add value. Thanks for all you do. Asto77 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EMsmile!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your ping on Flowering plant, please not that it is not acceptable to solicit inputs from specific editors to support some point of view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can ping another editor to alert them to a talk page with a discussion that they may wish to contribute to. Please point me to the Wikipedia guideline that forbids that. I you are thinking of WP:CANVASSING, that is different. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:CAN: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." This is all I did. EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

^ Just something I am apparently supposed to do now that we are going this route with the Climate change article. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Preventive chemotherapy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Preventive chemotherapy until a consensus is reached. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this event has been done since September 28, 2020, I don't see the use for Hemingway or other apps being linked there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean, LilianaUwU? As the event is over 3 years ago, I think we should just leave the description as is. Nowadays, I don't use the Hemingway App anymore. I use Chat-GPT to suggest simpler wording to me when I need it. EMsmile (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. SchroCat, any thoughts? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't understand why you User talk:LilianaUwU reverted my edit here and called it spam? The Hemingway App is not spam but a legitimate tool. Maybe it's outdated now (I haven't used it for a while) but what's the harm in having it mentioned there? EMsmile (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it’s second rate rubbish that is completely inappropriate for any form of writing. It’s spam rubbish. It’s also based only on a narrow set of criteria that’s only relevant to one country and ignores the standards of the majority of the English speaking world. Such narrow parochialism is not a constructive step in building good content. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Are we talking about the same app? I mean this one: https://hemingwayapp.com/ . It's not spam. It helps people to identify difficult to understand sentences; that's all. Similar to the tool that Wikipedia has now included in the tools section, called "readability". I don't think it's up to you to decide and tell me what I can and cannot use for working on readability. This event was in September 2020 and some of us used that website at the time. So what? Why do you want to alter the project description now, three years later. I think that is completely uncalled for and a waste of time. If I want to use that website and if I want to recommend it to participants at an edit-a-thon, I can. But it's over 3 years ago, so why does it bother you? EMsmile (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read what I have just written. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what the app is trying to do. It points me to sentences that are potentially difficult to understand. That's all. Same as the readability tool that Wikipedia now offers. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to use it. But if I want to use it I can. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. EMsmile (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no misunderstanding on my account. I think you are missing the point about advertising such a flawed app, but never mind. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're very welcome to join us at WikiProject Climate Change where we try to make scientific content understandable to lay persons. Interesting texts are good but my main aim is to ensure people can actually understand text that is about difficult scientific content. See for example here on the talk page where we are discussing how to improve the start of the lead for El Niño–Southern Oscillation... Or see here on the talk page of effects of climate change. No matter which app you use or don't use, it's not easy to get this scientific content translated into sentences that our readers can easily understand (and which are still completely correct in a scientific sense). EMsmile (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about writing an example for how scientific modelling works (and is reasoned) at either Scientific modelling or Scientific method, and was wondering whether you had perhaps run across a source that explained their method/model/reasoning in an accessible way. (Not sure, but I'm imaging that to be likely;) JackTheSecond (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:JackTheSecond, I have no opinion on this question. Good luck with your work. EMsmile (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Continued from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen_economy#Excerpt_safety?)

The safety section should be about all aspects of hydrogen safety and nothing else. I don't know how else to answer your question without spending a bunch of time that will not benefit the encyclopedia.

While I don't intend for my comments to cause distress, "ha-ha" is not the response I was hoping for either. We have a behavioural guideline that requires editors to avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.

I truly think your heart is in the right place. I don't think you realize your working style sometimes leads you to introduce pro-polluter bias into articles, as you did by removing the Hydrogen safety section without discussion. You do a lot of good work here but when you have no expertise in a topic, please for the love of Antarctica do not make edits in it just to try to move things along now. I am begging you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my "ha ha" comment was meant to inject some humor into this, just like a smiley face would have. Maybe I should have picked this emoticon instead: ;-)

Regarding competence that essay that you linked to is quite good, and I think my level of competence is generally quite sufficient for most of the articles in the climate change realm. When I really don't understand the topic of an article, I stay away from editing it. I think hydrogen economy is not so complex that I would have to stay away from it. Having said that, I have no plans to edit it further in the near future (although I can see some gaps which I have pointed out on the talk page).

With regards to that edit that I made which you objected to (and which led to this discussion), I only removed the excerpt on hydrogen safety, not original text. I didn't think the excerpt fitted at that point (you later on agreed with that assessment regarding the excerpt but put text on hydrogen safety back in). It was Chidgk1 who had suggested the use of an excerpt at that location in the first place (not me). - Overall, I don't want to waste our time with this, so am also happy to let it go and just move on.

I am curious about your point that "your working style sometimes leads you to introduce pro-polluter bias into articles". This is surprising to me as I am certainly not a pro-polluter person. Do you have any other examples of this? I try to always write in an objective, neutral style and to adhere to WP:DUE. EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to let things go when I feel assured that measures are being taken to keep the problem from recurring. I don't feel assured yet. In the case of the edit that you made that I objected to, prior to your edit the body of the article had contained 211 words on safety. After your edit the body of the article contained 0 words on safety. You did this after a talk page discussion in which two other editors expressed views that *something* should be in this section. Yet you don't seem to acknowledge that your edit significantly changed the article or that it might have been wise to first propose doing it on the Talk page first. Your refusal to admit an error here is concerning to me.

Regarding pro-polluter bias, as I said above I don't believe you are a pro-polluter person. I believe you introduce pro-polluter bias accidentally because you make highly substantial edits with insufficient knowledge. If you had understood hydrogen, you would have known that a section on safety is certainly WP:DUE. Furthermore you would have known that the vast majority of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels through highly polluting processes and that the fossil fuel industry is lobbying for more combustion of hydrogen in places where safety is a concern. When you minimize the safety concerns of hydrogen, which is what you did, you are making the article more favorable to the fossil fuel lobby.

Here's another example of inadvertent pro-polluter bias that you introduced into Wikipedia: Claiming that the lifeycle emissions of hydrogen gas are zero.[2] We discussed it but I'm not sure if you grasped why this introduced pro-polluter bias. So let me repeat here: The vast majority of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to discuss this any further with you, as it's wasting your time and mine. I am indeed very sorry that I removed the hydrogen safety excerpt without proposing this on the talk page first. Grave mistake.

If you have any other examples where I accidentally introduced pro-polluter bias to a Wikipedia article (not to hydrogen economy), I would be interesting to hear about that. I would actually be surprised if I did so but if you happen to remember any other examples, please do let me know. Have a nice day. EMsmile (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CFA were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't see evidence of WP:NORG notability. Parts of this are overly promotional, like "by fostering a global community dedicated to rural water supply, RWSN plays an important role in advancing the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6), which aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030." in the lead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rural Water Supply Network and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

C F A 💬 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EMsmile! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! C F A 💬 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Individual action on climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ridesharing service.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it has been a very long time, but I did promise a thorough review of Biofuel which I have signally failed to do, The last few months (and couple of years) have been very fraught with family issues outside of Wikipedia. Despite all of that I decided to throw my hat into the ring with the new trial RfA by election process. From my perspective, I have made my bid and now it is up to everyone else to vote!. But that should soon give me time to look again at Biofuel. Very many apologis for the inordinate delay - I don't like making promises and then not delivering. Regards.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! Good look with RfA and if you find time for the biofuel article (and maybe even biomass (energy) and bioenergy articles, that would be great! EMsmile (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]