Hi, this is my talk page!-- Ebenwilliams ( talk) 13:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Bouh

Livael ( talk) 13:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Ebenwilliams. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{ PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 13:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello Ebenwilliams, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Climate apocalypse have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for editing the climate apocalypse article. Check the article history - deleting content which other people have edited is always unfortunate. I encourage you to continue editing with Wikipedia. I hope that you can take the mass deletion as a learning experience and also as a story that you tell to others, that Wikipedia editors have the highest respect for copyright anywhere. Before bringing media into Wikipedia please combine the facts of your sources and rewrite them in your own words.

It was polite of you to post to your reviewer at special:permalink/931450151#Climate_apocalypse_page_copyright_issues. You have done several good things - added content, edited articles, and thanked someone who deleted your text. These kinds of learning experiences make someone an excellent wiki editor. I hope you have found your experience here to be satisfying and enlightening. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks Blue Rasberry. No hard feelings. -- Ebenwilliams ( talk) 04:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply

You have great insight and intuition into the working of Wikipedia for a new editor. I appreciate anyone with good critical thinking skills to use their brain cycles on Wikipedia content, and you seem to be able to look at articles and identify what is not there. That is a valuable sort of editorial edition. Mind copyright, thanks, and I hope you are enjoying yourself. Thanks for posting to my talk page and excuse my late reply. I posted to the talk page of the climate apocalypse article in response to your comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I notice you're interested in editing on climate change-related pages. If you'd like to get some support to get you oriented to Wikipedia, you might consider joining the Climate change WikiProject. Climate change topics are discussed there, and you might find it useful to get a sense of how to most easily edit. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! (I'm fairly new myself, but I'm starting to figure out the ropes). Jlevi ( talk) 02:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the invite! Would be happy to join :) -- Ebenwilliams ( talk) 10:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

This user participates in WikiProject Climate change.

Hi! I thought I might discuss some features of the conversation over at climate apocalypse that might be less than obvious. When discussing notability, there is something specific that is being discussed. There are some particular guidelines that are used to make arguments about what is notable and what is not, so it is a little more than the dictionary definition of 'notable.' You can look at Wikipedia: General Notability Guidelines to see the most basic outline. In short, to provide an argument for a particular article, you just need to find two sources that satisfy the following proposition: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

I mention this so that you're better able to navigate the conversation, since you otherwise might wind up making arguments that don't land. Jlevi ( talk) 14:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Jlevi: Thanks for the help, I appreciate that. To satisfy that proposition though, is the subject of societal collapse as a result of climate change not covered by a wide range of sources? From David Attenborough to the Potsdam Institute though to the idea's impacts on culture and political movements? Am I missing something? -- Ebenwilliams ( talk) 14:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm somewhat unsure myself. I think you might be able to make a strong argument for inclusion, but it's a little fuzzy (as is often the case when guidelines meet reality). Since this is back to this particular article, I'll address your question on the article talk page. Jlevi ( talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, at climate apocalypse I made a mess of things thinking a youtube vid was from Epoch Times, when really I was seeing an ad. My proposed solution is to simply resotre the artice to its condition prior to my tinkering, but this would undo some of your recent work, so I wanted to ask if this would be OK with you? It may mean you'd need to restore your recent work. And while I could attempt to restore it for you, I may screw up further, not being an expert in the how and the why of your changes. What do you think? Can we proceed in that super simple manner? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Sorry for the late reply. No worries and thanks for asking. I've looked at your changes and think they're good. I understand that the article has a lot of issues to clean up, and the content may indeed need to be moved to a separate page. I guess thank you for being constructive rather than destructive while I get to grips with Wikipedia policy on original sources, etc. :) -- Ebenwilliams ( talk) 13:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi,

any chance you want to help out on increasing coverage and info on this ? Carbon sink upscaling additional info on carbon sink upscaling (missing info) -- Genetics4good ( talk) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply