|
||||
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.
ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation |
---|
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:
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
Hi. I noticed this edit from you. I want to make sure you understand that the definition of CDR is not the definition of "net negative greenhouse gas emissions", "net zero CO2 emissions" or "net zero greenhouse gas emissions". I fixed the error in Carbon dioxide removal but if you've carried this misunderstanding to other articles, they will also need to be fixed. Take care, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 11:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I would say: "The term negative emissions technology is commonly used in the the same way as the term for carbon dioxide). Perhaps these mistakes indicate a pattern to watch out for. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)removalemissions."
I do not feel like you're talking the concerns seriously. This is not a matter of sufficient vs perfect, but a matter of failing to cite sources, misrepresenting sources, and original research. This is below the expected standard, as evident from WP:Disruptive editing#2. I believe it's a pattern from the examples below. I should not be able to find this many examples from an experienced editor, especially not in a WP:Contentious topic. Please do start taking the time to accurately source what you're citing, as you're likely to make mistakes if you do not take sufficient time for background reading.
Article | Diff | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|
Satellite temperature measurements | [1] | Unsourced change. Introduced the error that satellite temperature measurements are part of the instrumental temperature record, which instead only includes the thermometer record | |
Arctic sea ice decline | [2] | Unsourced change. Diff errorounously claimed sea ice decline is driven by ocean change, rather than by both ocean and atmospheric change. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [3] | Misrepresents source. "The oxygen content of the ocean is vital for the survival of most larger animals and plants and also serves a long term role in controlling atmospheric oxygen upon which terrestrial life depends". Source does not talk about larger animals/plants, and I've not found terrestrial life either. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [4] | Add the uncited claim that acidification is a form of carbon sequestration. (This is true for a subset of definitions of sequestration, but you should not add unsourced jargon) | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [5] | First two paragraphs supported at all by this source. No page number given for a report of over 1000 pages. Not fully supported by WG2 ocean chapter either, so wasn't a simple mix-up. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [6] | Modern observations, climate simulations and paleoclimate reconstructions suggest that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) has weakened since the preindustrial era. Not on page 19 as claimed, but 10. The choice of a mildly outdated source (IPCC 2019 vs IPCC 2021) made a difference in this case. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [7] | Misrepresentation of source + introducing an error. Example of sea ice not in source given; sea ice responds within decades, and was even considered a tipping point before. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | Can't find diff | Adding the excerpt to Antarctic sea ice (change) introduced an obsolete claim on growing sea ice there (sourced 2009 and undated). Since this is a claim often misused by climate deniers, a check would have been good (I think you should always sanity check, but more important when we're talking controversial topics). Example of spreading content without doing a quick accuracy check. | |
Carbon dioxide removal | [8] | Per above | |
Carbon sequestration | [9] | Introduces the claim that carbon sequestration occurs naturally without a source (took me quite a while to find out that the majority of sources agree). Misrepresenats glossary ( WP:SYNTH) by relating carbon sink and carbon sequestration, where the source does not, and mis-defines both (carbon sink only refers to carbon uptake not GHG in general). Gives a non-existent page number. | |
Ocean acidification | Talk:Ocean_acidification#Question_about_sentence_on_unchanging_alkalinity?. Subtle misrepresentation of source from imprecise paraphrasing (maybe the first attempt was just ambiguous, second attempt was ambiguous, but neither interpretation corresponded to source) | ||
ocean heat content | [10] | Partial revert of my removal of unsourced information. The way it was places breaks the WP:INTEGRITY policy. |
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I hope you had a restful vacation. Unfortunately I feel I must resume this conversation which must be stressful for you. I don’t enjoy having this discussion either, but there are problems that need to be addressed. Below are more examples of the kinds of edits that I’m concerned about.
Article | Diff | Comment |
Carbon dioxide removal | [11] and [12] | Removed
BECCS from the lead and removed the entire section on BECCS, saying it’s not a CDR method. BECCS is a CDR method.
This is especially baffling because the next day, you added in sourced content that correctly included BECCS as a CDR method, [13] but you didn’t fix your previous error. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [14] | Removed the entire section on ocean fertilization with edit summary “we don't need this for two reasons: firstly it falls below "carbon sequestration" which is already mentioned above. Secondly it is not a promising pathway.”.
At the time, there was a “Carbon sequestration” section with an excerpt from the lead of Carbon sequestration, however the lead at the time [15] did not mention ocean fertilization. IPCC AR6 WGIII says “Despite limited current deployment, estimated mitigation potentials for DACCS, enhanced weathering (EW) and ocean-based CDR methods (including ocean alkalinity enhancement and ocean fertilisation) are moderate to large (medium confidence).” Whether ocean fertilisation is a promising pathway or not is a matter of extensive, active scientific debate. We are required to cover all sides of a debate neutrally. Your edit summary suggests you removed the entire section based on your personal opinion. |
Carbon dioxide removal |
"these are all part of carbon sequestration so I've moved them down a level.” May 30 2022
”enhanced weathering belongs within the carbon sequestration section” Feb 7 2023 re-arranged as there are really two main methods: carbon sequestration and DACS” 09:55 Feb 7 2023
|
Series of edits that reorganized CDR methods into two categories based on whether you considered the method to be “carbon sequestration” or not. All CDR methods involve carbon sequestration. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [16] | Reorganized methods in a way that implies, incorrectly, that afforestation, reforestation, and forestry management are not part of “Carbon sequestration on land and in the ocean”.
Edit summary claims this makes the structure “more similar to IPCC structure”. This is not what the IPCC says. The IPCC agrees with other sources in classifying afforestation/reforestation as land-based CDR methods. |
Your statement above emphasizes the superficial and low-risk improvements that you make to articles. I included the examples above to illustrate that you’re also making substantive changes to highly visible parts of articles and sometimes getting elementary facts completely wrong. Inclusion of BECCs as a CDR method is so basic that one-page overviews of the topic cover it. [17]
Your actions here don’t match the community’s expectation that if you lack the knowledge to make certain types of edits, you will avoid making them. This expectation protects articles from damage and it also protects volunteers from having to clean up after others. Your restructuring of the “Methods” section in the CDR article left it in such a disarray that it took me hours to figure out what you had done and then undo it. If I saw these kinds of edits from a new editor, you can bet I would be posting on their user talk page. It would be unfair to new editors if I were to accept the pattern of editing that I’ve described just because it is done by you and not them.
I imagine both your error rate and the overall quality of your edits would improve significantly if you were to spend more time learning the subject matter before making substantive edits. If you have a different idea for how to avoid making serious errors in the future that’s fine, but I am convinced that something needs to change. I would also like to see a response to Femke’s request that your project implement a QA process, so that this isn't done by the volunteer community. Best regards, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 01:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
(1) Content issues with certain articles:
(2) My own performance as an editor:
(3) Possible project-internal QA options for my edits:
Hello EMsmile. I was planning not to post here to avoid distracting from Femke's & Clayoquot's valid concerns. But as there was an unnecessary intervention on an article talk page where I said something +ve about how you contribute to article improvement, I'll allow myself to chime in. There's is no question that your "success rate is far higher than [your] failure rate", at least if we're considering the totality of your contributions, where you help with a lot more than just climate change. I'd go as far as to say I might find it unbearable to edit here without you. I've always felt near alone on the wider Dev TA. Even with an easy to improve item like our global hunger article, an issue that severely effects close to a billion people, Im almost the only person who has made substantial edits to it all the way back to 2008. Or you get incidents like leading global Dev figure Alaana Shaikh being successfully deleted. With even WiR project members making bizarre delete votes that compare her to porn actresses... So emotionally distressing when that sort of thing happens. So it's such a balm to know we have someone with your skill and sensitivity working in the wider dev TA, not just on SDG 13.
At least on climate we have a good and fairly large team. And even in the climate TA you've been a huge net +ve, at least from my perspective. It was thanks to your quality contributions to climate articles that I awarded you a barnstar two years back.
It's only if we narrow the focus to carbon market related articles that there's a question of mistakes out numbering your success rate. In fairness though, that sub TA is ultra challenging. Since Kyoto, there's been over 60 different major attempts to set global standards for carbon trading, several of them using conflicting definitions and terminology. There's been a near 1$billion /year operation to spread misinformation, resulting in many confusing sources. Granted, CDR itself is fairly well defined. Still, while agreeing with how Clayoquot has resolved this, it's quite legit to have different views as to whether something like sequestration is a broad class of CDR method, versus a follow on activity that (almost always) occurs regardless of which particular method was used. This relates to the two conflicting ways the term GHG 'sink' is used in the literature. I see there was some confusion about this over on the climate project page, I may post over there to clarify. Anyway, despite the valid concerns expressed above, I want you to know your contributions here are highly valued! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Yep, by TA I meant topic area. Happy to offer a brief review. Only tentatively though. Not being as clever or quick as Femke & Clayquot, it can take me 300 hours + to read the 100+ papers and books I like to consult before I'm confident I can judge due weight & NPOV issues on a big scope global topic, and I don't have time for that at present.
But tentatively, IMO you've done a great job on those two articles, you've made them nicer to read and easier for the reader to learn from. Several dozen of your edits look like definite improvements. E.g where you trimmed excessive US focus content after having moved it to a US specific sub article. Or when you added important info about Peatlands & improved the structure by placing the Peat section under wetlands. I also like how you checked checked that the main active editor involved had no objection to your plan before you got stuck in.
A few edits might be questionable. Some might make a case that it would have been better just to trim and move the Kyoto mention down the page, rather than delete it totally. But on balance probably for the best.
Im not sure I'd have added the IPCC definition of sink - it defines the word purely as a process not as a storage receptor. It would be very useful for an article about non CO2 GHG. But possibly confusing in the case of carbon sinks. Many sources these days equate 'carbon sink' with carbon storage, almost the opposite of the IPPC definition. Still, it's a matter of opinion. As a general rule its always a good thing to add relevant info sourced to AR6.
While your contribs to those two articles look great, I'd not want to take anything away from the earlier feedback here. In general, the "efficiency first, low hanging fruit" approach of your project seems ideal for the wider dev TA as there's so much room for improvement there. Whereas in the climate TA, there's a project with many talented amateurs and several who have decades of relevant professional experience. So article quality tends to be much higher, and it's far easier for hasty changes to cause issues. As Clayoquot clearly identified in the case of CDR, even relatively safe edits like trimming & restructuring can sometimes be harmful if done by someone who doesnt have a good understanding of the subject. So lots of reasons for being extra careful in the SDG 13 TA. Hope this has been helpful. I'd prefer not to say much more now as I dont want to be a distraction. Once the CCI is out of the way, you'd be very welcome to ping me back if you wanted me to further review some of your work, or perhaps collaborate in some other way. PS, sorry not to be pitching in with the CCI, I'm not v good at that sort of detailed work. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I started environment.wiki https://environment.wiki/index.php/Main_Page to help all types of people answer: "Who is doing What, Where" regarding climate change and protecting the environment. You have edited similar here - so thought it might be easy for you to help. It very is different than Wikipedia and I do not want to take away from it. Different in that I do want people to talk about their own projects and quickly add accounts of environmental doing, jobs, projects, etc...
I would love your help. Any help :). Will you take even a moment and even feedback or tips ? I need to make forms and templates so that entries are easier for project owners who are not wiki people. This should be radically crowdsourced and accessible.
Environment.wiki should be very useful for finding climate jobs or starting climate projects. Google and wiki searches do not work. I've made a decent start even though I do not code ( thanks Chatgpt3). I have the general mission clear, but now its time to do the real work and make nice data so that this can be massively helpful furthering climate action.
If you read this, thank you! Contact me thorugh environment.wiki if you can help even a few minutes. Cheers TheFeels (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) TheFeels ( talk) 08:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi
User:FeydHuxtable, thanks a lot for your comments from 20 April 2023 (e.g. I wasn't aware about that carbon sink terminology problematic, only that I found it all rather confusing when I got working on the
carbon sink article...). I just wanted to react to a statement you made above: Whereas in the climate TA, there's a project with many talented amateurs and several who have decades of relevant professional experience. So article quality tends to be much higher, and it's far easier for hasty changes to cause issues.
I respectfully disagree on this with regards to numbers. :-) I think only a handful of CC articles are very high quality, the
climate change article being one of them. But many many sub-articles are in a very poor state which is doubly sad as many of them have rather high pageviews (several hundred per day). As part of the project that I am working on we have listed important climate change articles with their quality ratings and page views
here in our project page. We've also developed a methodology for a more nuanced quality scoring
here which we are applying to compare before and after scores (before tackling an article and after having spent say 20 hours on improving it).
Regarding the number of people active in WikiProject Climate Change on paper it's 90 people but in actual fact it's perhaps 10 people who edit actively and regularly (many of those being indeed awesome with far greater depth of knowledge than I have on these topics). Because there are so few of us this can easily lead to a feeling of being overwhelmed and burned out (not being able to respond to help requests in a timely manner etc.).
I think we need more Wikipedia editors on climate change topics, not less, and not just volunteers. If people can edit as part of their day jobs (like PhD students, academics or people who work at NOAA or whatever) that could free up many extra hours of time. I am currently thinking of trying to acquire another project like the one that I am currently working under. Just need to find a suitable funding agency and working model for such a project (always looking for collaborators and collaborating institutions).
You might also be interested in this related discussion I am having with User:InformationToKnowledge who also lamented the poor state of affairs for many climate and environment topics here. EMsmile ( talk) 10:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue carbon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue carbon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue carbon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- I saw your note at Talk:Carbon accounting/GA1 and had a question. Are you referring to labelled section transclusion? I had a quick look in the climate change article and couldn't see where it was used if so. I agree that would be a reason to keep citations in the lead; another argument I've heard is that if you're not going to transclude a section, having the citations is helpful when you want to use a lead as the basis of text in another article. However, I think most of the time when an editor cites the lead it's not for those reasons; it's just because they don't realize it's optional, so I usually mention it in GA reviews, particularly if it's a user without much GA experience. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! You deleted, pardon, removed two new sections I wrote ("Magma ocean" and "Earth's outer core") because you are "not convinced this content is needed here. We don't need to mention any kind of term that has the word "ocean" in it, when the core topic of this article is clearly spelled out in the first sentence: salty water on Earth.". Then, what the section "Extraterrestrial oceans", which are obviously not on Earth, is doing in this article? Will you delete that section as well? Your argument contradicts to this very article. "Extraterrestrial ocean" means "ocean that is not on Earth". And "two types of oceans" is not equal to "any kind of term that has the word "ocean" in it". You are not convinced, well, sorry, but I am convinced. There is a whole article about the magma ocean, and it needs to be mentioned here for readers, as a link to the "Magma ocean" article, so readers can get more info about the magma oceans by clicking the link in the "Magma ocean" section. And yes, a magma ocean is an ocean, read the "Magma ocean" article, readers must be informed that other types of oceans exist, not only those of "salty water on Earth", no matter of your personal opinion. Bernardirfan ( talk) 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
You are fire | |
Thanks for the much-needed cleanup at Wildfire. It seems like you have experience with improving and narrowing the focus of broad-topic articles—thanks for all your hard work! Wracking talk! 02:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
hi EMsmile
I am a student at Rice University and I have an assignment for my poverty, justice, and human capabilities course to edit a Wikipedia page related to class. I was hoping to edit the Climate migrant page but it looks like you are in the works of editing that page. Are you still working on that page? It looks like it has been a while since your last edit. I wouldn't want any of my work on that page to be erased.
I am interested in the topic and wanted to research more and make the wiki page more accessible for other readers. Please see my talk page posting about it. User:Squinn10
Do you think we can take a collaborative approach to editing this page?
Squinn10 ( talk) 01:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I saw you moved some information from deforestation to Meitei culture recently. I was expecting about a discussion (regarding that if you wish) with the wikipedia community before doing such a massive change. I was pretty saddened by such a hasty personal decision. Well, btw, if you want to move, Meitei culture itself is a vast place, and I don't think it's an appropriate target. Better move it to a more specified target like Meitei mythology or Meitei folklore. And if the topic might have been about the Greek or Roman or Egyptian or other popular cultures, I don't think anyone would have such an idea to remove it from there. 🥲😔 Haoreima ( talk) 21:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Several months ago I volunteered to under take a review of Bioenergy. I think that I managed a single edit before the real world, in all its wonderful ways, took charge and my editing rate went down to below one edit a day. I am still on a long slow path of recovery but it looks increasingly unlikely that I shall be able to contribute anything other a few house-elf edits until mid March 2024 at the earliest. Apologies to you and to all the other editors who may have been holding back awaiting a major review. I really hope that I will be able to make a significant contribution in due course but at present I need to continue fighting off the virion hordes. Many apologies Velella Velella Talk 23:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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.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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello EMsmile!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
||||
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.
ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation |
---|
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:
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
Hi. I noticed this edit from you. I want to make sure you understand that the definition of CDR is not the definition of "net negative greenhouse gas emissions", "net zero CO2 emissions" or "net zero greenhouse gas emissions". I fixed the error in Carbon dioxide removal but if you've carried this misunderstanding to other articles, they will also need to be fixed. Take care, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 11:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I would say: "The term negative emissions technology is commonly used in the the same way as the term for carbon dioxide). Perhaps these mistakes indicate a pattern to watch out for. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)removalemissions."
I do not feel like you're talking the concerns seriously. This is not a matter of sufficient vs perfect, but a matter of failing to cite sources, misrepresenting sources, and original research. This is below the expected standard, as evident from WP:Disruptive editing#2. I believe it's a pattern from the examples below. I should not be able to find this many examples from an experienced editor, especially not in a WP:Contentious topic. Please do start taking the time to accurately source what you're citing, as you're likely to make mistakes if you do not take sufficient time for background reading.
Article | Diff | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|
Satellite temperature measurements | [1] | Unsourced change. Introduced the error that satellite temperature measurements are part of the instrumental temperature record, which instead only includes the thermometer record | |
Arctic sea ice decline | [2] | Unsourced change. Diff errorounously claimed sea ice decline is driven by ocean change, rather than by both ocean and atmospheric change. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [3] | Misrepresents source. "The oxygen content of the ocean is vital for the survival of most larger animals and plants and also serves a long term role in controlling atmospheric oxygen upon which terrestrial life depends". Source does not talk about larger animals/plants, and I've not found terrestrial life either. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [4] | Add the uncited claim that acidification is a form of carbon sequestration. (This is true for a subset of definitions of sequestration, but you should not add unsourced jargon) | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [5] | First two paragraphs supported at all by this source. No page number given for a report of over 1000 pages. Not fully supported by WG2 ocean chapter either, so wasn't a simple mix-up. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [6] | Modern observations, climate simulations and paleoclimate reconstructions suggest that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) has weakened since the preindustrial era. Not on page 19 as claimed, but 10. The choice of a mildly outdated source (IPCC 2019 vs IPCC 2021) made a difference in this case. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | [7] | Misrepresentation of source + introducing an error. Example of sea ice not in source given; sea ice responds within decades, and was even considered a tipping point before. | |
Effects of climate change on oceans | Can't find diff | Adding the excerpt to Antarctic sea ice (change) introduced an obsolete claim on growing sea ice there (sourced 2009 and undated). Since this is a claim often misused by climate deniers, a check would have been good (I think you should always sanity check, but more important when we're talking controversial topics). Example of spreading content without doing a quick accuracy check. | |
Carbon dioxide removal | [8] | Per above | |
Carbon sequestration | [9] | Introduces the claim that carbon sequestration occurs naturally without a source (took me quite a while to find out that the majority of sources agree). Misrepresenats glossary ( WP:SYNTH) by relating carbon sink and carbon sequestration, where the source does not, and mis-defines both (carbon sink only refers to carbon uptake not GHG in general). Gives a non-existent page number. | |
Ocean acidification | Talk:Ocean_acidification#Question_about_sentence_on_unchanging_alkalinity?. Subtle misrepresentation of source from imprecise paraphrasing (maybe the first attempt was just ambiguous, second attempt was ambiguous, but neither interpretation corresponded to source) | ||
ocean heat content | [10] | Partial revert of my removal of unsourced information. The way it was places breaks the WP:INTEGRITY policy. |
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I hope you had a restful vacation. Unfortunately I feel I must resume this conversation which must be stressful for you. I don’t enjoy having this discussion either, but there are problems that need to be addressed. Below are more examples of the kinds of edits that I’m concerned about.
Article | Diff | Comment |
Carbon dioxide removal | [11] and [12] | Removed
BECCS from the lead and removed the entire section on BECCS, saying it’s not a CDR method. BECCS is a CDR method.
This is especially baffling because the next day, you added in sourced content that correctly included BECCS as a CDR method, [13] but you didn’t fix your previous error. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [14] | Removed the entire section on ocean fertilization with edit summary “we don't need this for two reasons: firstly it falls below "carbon sequestration" which is already mentioned above. Secondly it is not a promising pathway.”.
At the time, there was a “Carbon sequestration” section with an excerpt from the lead of Carbon sequestration, however the lead at the time [15] did not mention ocean fertilization. IPCC AR6 WGIII says “Despite limited current deployment, estimated mitigation potentials for DACCS, enhanced weathering (EW) and ocean-based CDR methods (including ocean alkalinity enhancement and ocean fertilisation) are moderate to large (medium confidence).” Whether ocean fertilisation is a promising pathway or not is a matter of extensive, active scientific debate. We are required to cover all sides of a debate neutrally. Your edit summary suggests you removed the entire section based on your personal opinion. |
Carbon dioxide removal |
"these are all part of carbon sequestration so I've moved them down a level.” May 30 2022
”enhanced weathering belongs within the carbon sequestration section” Feb 7 2023 re-arranged as there are really two main methods: carbon sequestration and DACS” 09:55 Feb 7 2023
|
Series of edits that reorganized CDR methods into two categories based on whether you considered the method to be “carbon sequestration” or not. All CDR methods involve carbon sequestration. |
Carbon dioxide removal | [16] | Reorganized methods in a way that implies, incorrectly, that afforestation, reforestation, and forestry management are not part of “Carbon sequestration on land and in the ocean”.
Edit summary claims this makes the structure “more similar to IPCC structure”. This is not what the IPCC says. The IPCC agrees with other sources in classifying afforestation/reforestation as land-based CDR methods. |
Your statement above emphasizes the superficial and low-risk improvements that you make to articles. I included the examples above to illustrate that you’re also making substantive changes to highly visible parts of articles and sometimes getting elementary facts completely wrong. Inclusion of BECCs as a CDR method is so basic that one-page overviews of the topic cover it. [17]
Your actions here don’t match the community’s expectation that if you lack the knowledge to make certain types of edits, you will avoid making them. This expectation protects articles from damage and it also protects volunteers from having to clean up after others. Your restructuring of the “Methods” section in the CDR article left it in such a disarray that it took me hours to figure out what you had done and then undo it. If I saw these kinds of edits from a new editor, you can bet I would be posting on their user talk page. It would be unfair to new editors if I were to accept the pattern of editing that I’ve described just because it is done by you and not them.
I imagine both your error rate and the overall quality of your edits would improve significantly if you were to spend more time learning the subject matter before making substantive edits. If you have a different idea for how to avoid making serious errors in the future that’s fine, but I am convinced that something needs to change. I would also like to see a response to Femke’s request that your project implement a QA process, so that this isn't done by the volunteer community. Best regards, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 01:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
(1) Content issues with certain articles:
(2) My own performance as an editor:
(3) Possible project-internal QA options for my edits:
Hello EMsmile. I was planning not to post here to avoid distracting from Femke's & Clayoquot's valid concerns. But as there was an unnecessary intervention on an article talk page where I said something +ve about how you contribute to article improvement, I'll allow myself to chime in. There's is no question that your "success rate is far higher than [your] failure rate", at least if we're considering the totality of your contributions, where you help with a lot more than just climate change. I'd go as far as to say I might find it unbearable to edit here without you. I've always felt near alone on the wider Dev TA. Even with an easy to improve item like our global hunger article, an issue that severely effects close to a billion people, Im almost the only person who has made substantial edits to it all the way back to 2008. Or you get incidents like leading global Dev figure Alaana Shaikh being successfully deleted. With even WiR project members making bizarre delete votes that compare her to porn actresses... So emotionally distressing when that sort of thing happens. So it's such a balm to know we have someone with your skill and sensitivity working in the wider dev TA, not just on SDG 13.
At least on climate we have a good and fairly large team. And even in the climate TA you've been a huge net +ve, at least from my perspective. It was thanks to your quality contributions to climate articles that I awarded you a barnstar two years back.
It's only if we narrow the focus to carbon market related articles that there's a question of mistakes out numbering your success rate. In fairness though, that sub TA is ultra challenging. Since Kyoto, there's been over 60 different major attempts to set global standards for carbon trading, several of them using conflicting definitions and terminology. There's been a near 1$billion /year operation to spread misinformation, resulting in many confusing sources. Granted, CDR itself is fairly well defined. Still, while agreeing with how Clayoquot has resolved this, it's quite legit to have different views as to whether something like sequestration is a broad class of CDR method, versus a follow on activity that (almost always) occurs regardless of which particular method was used. This relates to the two conflicting ways the term GHG 'sink' is used in the literature. I see there was some confusion about this over on the climate project page, I may post over there to clarify. Anyway, despite the valid concerns expressed above, I want you to know your contributions here are highly valued! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Yep, by TA I meant topic area. Happy to offer a brief review. Only tentatively though. Not being as clever or quick as Femke & Clayquot, it can take me 300 hours + to read the 100+ papers and books I like to consult before I'm confident I can judge due weight & NPOV issues on a big scope global topic, and I don't have time for that at present.
But tentatively, IMO you've done a great job on those two articles, you've made them nicer to read and easier for the reader to learn from. Several dozen of your edits look like definite improvements. E.g where you trimmed excessive US focus content after having moved it to a US specific sub article. Or when you added important info about Peatlands & improved the structure by placing the Peat section under wetlands. I also like how you checked checked that the main active editor involved had no objection to your plan before you got stuck in.
A few edits might be questionable. Some might make a case that it would have been better just to trim and move the Kyoto mention down the page, rather than delete it totally. But on balance probably for the best.
Im not sure I'd have added the IPCC definition of sink - it defines the word purely as a process not as a storage receptor. It would be very useful for an article about non CO2 GHG. But possibly confusing in the case of carbon sinks. Many sources these days equate 'carbon sink' with carbon storage, almost the opposite of the IPPC definition. Still, it's a matter of opinion. As a general rule its always a good thing to add relevant info sourced to AR6.
While your contribs to those two articles look great, I'd not want to take anything away from the earlier feedback here. In general, the "efficiency first, low hanging fruit" approach of your project seems ideal for the wider dev TA as there's so much room for improvement there. Whereas in the climate TA, there's a project with many talented amateurs and several who have decades of relevant professional experience. So article quality tends to be much higher, and it's far easier for hasty changes to cause issues. As Clayoquot clearly identified in the case of CDR, even relatively safe edits like trimming & restructuring can sometimes be harmful if done by someone who doesnt have a good understanding of the subject. So lots of reasons for being extra careful in the SDG 13 TA. Hope this has been helpful. I'd prefer not to say much more now as I dont want to be a distraction. Once the CCI is out of the way, you'd be very welcome to ping me back if you wanted me to further review some of your work, or perhaps collaborate in some other way. PS, sorry not to be pitching in with the CCI, I'm not v good at that sort of detailed work. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I started environment.wiki https://environment.wiki/index.php/Main_Page to help all types of people answer: "Who is doing What, Where" regarding climate change and protecting the environment. You have edited similar here - so thought it might be easy for you to help. It very is different than Wikipedia and I do not want to take away from it. Different in that I do want people to talk about their own projects and quickly add accounts of environmental doing, jobs, projects, etc...
I would love your help. Any help :). Will you take even a moment and even feedback or tips ? I need to make forms and templates so that entries are easier for project owners who are not wiki people. This should be radically crowdsourced and accessible.
Environment.wiki should be very useful for finding climate jobs or starting climate projects. Google and wiki searches do not work. I've made a decent start even though I do not code ( thanks Chatgpt3). I have the general mission clear, but now its time to do the real work and make nice data so that this can be massively helpful furthering climate action.
If you read this, thank you! Contact me thorugh environment.wiki if you can help even a few minutes. Cheers TheFeels (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) TheFeels ( talk) 08:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi
User:FeydHuxtable, thanks a lot for your comments from 20 April 2023 (e.g. I wasn't aware about that carbon sink terminology problematic, only that I found it all rather confusing when I got working on the
carbon sink article...). I just wanted to react to a statement you made above: Whereas in the climate TA, there's a project with many talented amateurs and several who have decades of relevant professional experience. So article quality tends to be much higher, and it's far easier for hasty changes to cause issues.
I respectfully disagree on this with regards to numbers. :-) I think only a handful of CC articles are very high quality, the
climate change article being one of them. But many many sub-articles are in a very poor state which is doubly sad as many of them have rather high pageviews (several hundred per day). As part of the project that I am working on we have listed important climate change articles with their quality ratings and page views
here in our project page. We've also developed a methodology for a more nuanced quality scoring
here which we are applying to compare before and after scores (before tackling an article and after having spent say 20 hours on improving it).
Regarding the number of people active in WikiProject Climate Change on paper it's 90 people but in actual fact it's perhaps 10 people who edit actively and regularly (many of those being indeed awesome with far greater depth of knowledge than I have on these topics). Because there are so few of us this can easily lead to a feeling of being overwhelmed and burned out (not being able to respond to help requests in a timely manner etc.).
I think we need more Wikipedia editors on climate change topics, not less, and not just volunteers. If people can edit as part of their day jobs (like PhD students, academics or people who work at NOAA or whatever) that could free up many extra hours of time. I am currently thinking of trying to acquire another project like the one that I am currently working under. Just need to find a suitable funding agency and working model for such a project (always looking for collaborators and collaborating institutions).
You might also be interested in this related discussion I am having with User:InformationToKnowledge who also lamented the poor state of affairs for many climate and environment topics here. EMsmile ( talk) 10:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue carbon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue carbon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue carbon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- I saw your note at Talk:Carbon accounting/GA1 and had a question. Are you referring to labelled section transclusion? I had a quick look in the climate change article and couldn't see where it was used if so. I agree that would be a reason to keep citations in the lead; another argument I've heard is that if you're not going to transclude a section, having the citations is helpful when you want to use a lead as the basis of text in another article. However, I think most of the time when an editor cites the lead it's not for those reasons; it's just because they don't realize it's optional, so I usually mention it in GA reviews, particularly if it's a user without much GA experience. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! You deleted, pardon, removed two new sections I wrote ("Magma ocean" and "Earth's outer core") because you are "not convinced this content is needed here. We don't need to mention any kind of term that has the word "ocean" in it, when the core topic of this article is clearly spelled out in the first sentence: salty water on Earth.". Then, what the section "Extraterrestrial oceans", which are obviously not on Earth, is doing in this article? Will you delete that section as well? Your argument contradicts to this very article. "Extraterrestrial ocean" means "ocean that is not on Earth". And "two types of oceans" is not equal to "any kind of term that has the word "ocean" in it". You are not convinced, well, sorry, but I am convinced. There is a whole article about the magma ocean, and it needs to be mentioned here for readers, as a link to the "Magma ocean" article, so readers can get more info about the magma oceans by clicking the link in the "Magma ocean" section. And yes, a magma ocean is an ocean, read the "Magma ocean" article, readers must be informed that other types of oceans exist, not only those of "salty water on Earth", no matter of your personal opinion. Bernardirfan ( talk) 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
You are fire | |
Thanks for the much-needed cleanup at Wildfire. It seems like you have experience with improving and narrowing the focus of broad-topic articles—thanks for all your hard work! Wracking talk! 02:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
hi EMsmile
I am a student at Rice University and I have an assignment for my poverty, justice, and human capabilities course to edit a Wikipedia page related to class. I was hoping to edit the Climate migrant page but it looks like you are in the works of editing that page. Are you still working on that page? It looks like it has been a while since your last edit. I wouldn't want any of my work on that page to be erased.
I am interested in the topic and wanted to research more and make the wiki page more accessible for other readers. Please see my talk page posting about it. User:Squinn10
Do you think we can take a collaborative approach to editing this page?
Squinn10 ( talk) 01:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I saw you moved some information from deforestation to Meitei culture recently. I was expecting about a discussion (regarding that if you wish) with the wikipedia community before doing such a massive change. I was pretty saddened by such a hasty personal decision. Well, btw, if you want to move, Meitei culture itself is a vast place, and I don't think it's an appropriate target. Better move it to a more specified target like Meitei mythology or Meitei folklore. And if the topic might have been about the Greek or Roman or Egyptian or other popular cultures, I don't think anyone would have such an idea to remove it from there. 🥲😔 Haoreima ( talk) 21:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Several months ago I volunteered to under take a review of Bioenergy. I think that I managed a single edit before the real world, in all its wonderful ways, took charge and my editing rate went down to below one edit a day. I am still on a long slow path of recovery but it looks increasingly unlikely that I shall be able to contribute anything other a few house-elf edits until mid March 2024 at the earliest. Apologies to you and to all the other editors who may have been holding back awaiting a major review. I really hope that I will be able to make a significant contribution in due course but at present I need to continue fighting off the virion hordes. Many apologies Velella Velella Talk 23:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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.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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello EMsmile!
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)