|
Hey, I was wondering if we could update the image you created for the Cosmic Calendar to use a 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Cheers. Stvltvs ( talk) 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Efbrazil ( talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Fixed. Please let me know if further changes would help.
Thank you for submitting your image at featured picture candidates, I can tell you spent a good amount of time on it. If you'd like to review other nominations at "FPC", please do so. Leave a note on my talk page if you ever need any help with anything. Regards, Jujutacular talk 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Efbrazil ( talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Thanks for the info! I'll give the featured picture another shot shortly.
Just FYI, I fixed your new nomination of the Cosmic Calendar. Since you used the same title for the nom, it was placed over the old nomination (we keep those for archival purposes). I have placed the new nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cosmic Calendar 2. Regards, Jujutacular talk 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
File:The Scientific Universe.png is some lovely work. (It made me think of xkcd - Purity, in case you hadn't already seen that.) The File:Cosmic Calendar.png is also fantastic.
I just wanted to note my appreciation for these graphics. I look forward to anything else you might create. :) – Quiddity ( talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ape may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Efbrazil - Your addition to Letter frequency is partially incorrect. I don't know how often each of the three methods you describe is used, but the third method, using existing corpora, is the source of the "table below", and likely most of the frequency tables reported in the article. In particular, Pavel Michka's site reports that dictionary frequencies are *different*, with 't' being less frequent than 'e', which is not what the bar graph below that shows. I'm going to make some edits (and clean up some other stuff in the article), but it would be good if you could take a look, and add references for the other two methods, and possibly expand on the differences in results. Argyriou (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Argyriou! I used information in this article in a project and was finding that the letter frequencies in the chart were very different from what I was seeing in Google's list of the top 100,000 words, which led to me doing a little research and writing that edit. I updated the edit to be a bit more explicit as to when each frequency type is used.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 23:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 18:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Projected Change in Global Temperatures.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for committing time to this. Change is indeed hard. Have you searched the archives of both articles for "title" and again for "Scope" ? I have gathered some of the history at
this user sub page. Comments at the associated talk page (or here or at my use page) welcome.
FYI, I have an alternative way forward that I think will be an easier "sell". I have learned the hard way (my own and observation of others efforts) that making a premature proposal is fatal. I'm going to start working in my user space to try to start assembling ideas and testing ideas, and you're welcome to watch my contribs anywhere, and
my contribs in the user namespace for this month specifically. I might flail a bit while I get started, but the link I provided will help you figure out where I'm at if I change the name of the subpage or use more than one.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Dave souza: you're welcome to chime in at my userspace efforts too of course. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy:I'm very happy to take a step back and support you in your efforts on this if you think you have a path forward. I'm neither a senior wikipedian or a measured consensus builder like you are. I just figured me blundering around trying to get this change pulled off was better than nothing. I did start drafting the rfi, but there's nothing I wrote that you haven't already seen me say in comments. I skimmed your "partial evolution" article but I don't know if it enlightened me much. I mean, I kinda get why things evolved to be the way they are now, it's just that the way things are now makes zero sense to the outside world. Maybe you could ping me to look at stuff when you want my feedback or inputs?-- Efbrazil ( talk) 03:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ready for ya'll to take a quick peek ( Start here) . Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy:First, thanks! I'm very glad you're taking this on. I appreciate how you have it structured- easy for me to digest.
When you gather feedback, I hope you have a way to say "is this better than what's there today?" To that I would say absolutely yes to your proposal. On the flip side, I already see myself being happy and willing to pick it apart to death. So I'll leave it to you to figure out how to make sure this sort of feedback is constructive:
If you have time, please consider calling other articles with large overlap to my attention. The partial list is here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Speaking of other merges, see also Runaway greenhouse effect. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Elsewhere, you reasonably asked "do you know why Talk:Climate change#Splitting proposal isn't drawing comments?" When I saw it I groaned. I can't read others' minds and can't separate out the background context of our various coversations, where you've expressed very urgent impatience over the way we defined the scope under Global warming and Climate change. There was just another round of bitter debate about this, which went no where, and everyone who said more than 20 words have been through it before. This is just a guess, but maybe people see it as an incomplete proposal whose real goal is some sort of big picture change, and everyone is weary? Beats me. But that's how I saw it and why I groaned. Anyway, instead of saying anything, I've started editing the article. I'm also juggling three other things at the same time so editing is spotty. Wikipedia is not an emergency! Enjoy your weekend, look in again in a few day. Anyway, that's my thought. Your mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: @ Femikemilene: OK, so the climate change article split happened as Femikemilene suggested. The remaining climate change article is really "stub" status. Next up is fixing the climate change article to match the definition of climate change given in both climate change and global warming articles already, which is that climate change is "global warming plus its effects".
So next up is pulling the trigger on a proposed merge of the "global warming" and "climate change" articles. I'm happy to make that proposal or NewsAndEventsGuy can and I'll support his effort. I do think it needs to happen very soon, while the article is clearly in need of content.
An alternate approach is to make a bunch of edits instead. The end goal of that would be to have "Global Warming" be the place where we talk about terminology and really dwell on recent global temperature change, then move over the other content.
I can take either approach this week, so let me know your thoughts today hopefully. Efbrazil ( talk) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I totally get it if you want to do clean up on the edit, but reversion was really uncalled for- this split had general support by many users and no opposition except you, yet it moved things very far along towards what you say you want. Fiddling around in rarely read sub articles for months at a time is not a solution to the top level being hopelessly broken, and blocking edits directed at fixing the issue means you are making yourself part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Efbrazil ( talk) 19:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The Global warming Barnstar | |
Especially in articles related to global warming and climate change: for your knowledge and skill in the graphic arts and software-generated images, for your constructive collaboration, and for good old-fashioned hard work. — RCraig09 ( talk) 04:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
When I tag people, I usually misspell their names at first because spelling is difficult. When users have a user name, an existing name shows up blue, and spelling mistakes are easily remedied. Would you consider making a user page for yourself? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. I really went all out on the text too. Efbrazil ( talk) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you could avoid using green and red together in a graph, if you can avoid it. The most common type of colour blindness leads people to not see the difference between those two colours. Specifically, somebody indicated on the climate page they couldn't see the difference in the 'global temperature and forces' graph. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 07:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I sent you an email request about gallery images
You may want to strike through the argument CC is more neutral, as that is a weak point (judged by people that reply and previous disagreements). It distracts from the most important point: CC is the common name, and allows people to read the wrong motives in your proposal, confusing you for a bit of a skeptic. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 15:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You didn't read my edit comment? You didn't follow the link? No wonder you are confused. However, before you do anything else, I suggest reading WP:BRD, that's bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-start edit war. I suggest you reverse your second cut/n/paste move and then start again.
1. Cut and paste moves. Succinctly, you have created a new article which appears to have been written entirely by you in one fell swoop. It was not, so this is at best plagiarism. It was written by many editors over many years, then tweaked slightly by you. Put it back and start again. Pages can be renamed (called a moved, but no mind) in a way that takes their history with them and is documented in the history as a move instead of the whole article appearing as if by magic. Normally, this can be done by any (auto-confirmed) editor so long as the target page does not have any substantial history. You've stomped all over that idea, so now the move must be performed by an admin (see WP:RM, but not until you've finished reading).
2. Move discussions. You claim that the move has been "approved". In what way? The normal method for "approving" a page move is a move discussion (again see WP:RM). This does not appear to have taken place, but maybe I just missed it. Informal move discussions can also be done, but again I find no sign of this. Lastly, you could just boldly move the page (properly, don't just paste it over the new name! )and see if anyone objects. If someone objects, discuss. Your first reaction to having one of your edits reverted should *never* be to just make the edit again. Even once, this is called an edit war and is the first step (the only step in egregious cases) towards getting banned from Wikipedia. If you start a formal move discussion, it will most likely be closed by an admin after a week or so and the page will be moved properly, assuming that is the consensus. You can shortcut this step, if consensus has already been found or is obvious, by making an "uncontroversial, technical" requested move, which an admin will perform usually within 24 hours.
Lithopsian ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I notice is causing me a bit of stress if we don't follow bold, revert, discuss. The article is too difficult and too busy to follow discussions properly via edit summaries. Could we agree to not re-revert unless somebody is making a clear and controversial mistake? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Friendly reminder that one source often provides citation for multiple sentences. In the edits you did yesterday about the free rider problem, you removed the two citations about the freeride problem from the introductory sentence. The free rider problem is described in one of the air pollution sources, and the trade source. I'll fix it later, trying to preserve the spirit of your edits. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
If you have the time, would you be able and willing to update a new figure of global temperatures ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_Average_Temperature.svg)? This year, we can use the default 30 year baseline! Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Efbrazil: @ Femkemilene: FYI: I just ran across the following MeteoSwiss article that shows WMO's favoring 30-year baseline periods for long-term studies:
("Norms" would have been a better term than "normals". :-) — RCraig09 ( talk) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Efbrazil!
My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.
I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “Climate change” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.
Thanks so much! -- Dalorleon ( talk) 16:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to include my quotes and username and so forth- no secrets here. Efbrazil ( talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In your
Revision as of 23:37, 1 May 2020 of
Climate variability and change, you introduced a non-working {{
Sfn}}
:
{{Sfn|IPCC AR5 WG1 Glossary|2013|p=1451}}
, which put the article in
category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I have commented out this reference. I encourage you to redo this reference correctly. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)On sustainable energy, we've got two maps from Our World In Data with small-text headings and legend. Would you be able to improve those? If not, point me towards software I can do it myself with? FemkeMilene ( talk) 09:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Interrupt request! Efbrazil, can you literally export Powerpoint-direct-to-SVG? (With some difficulty I can export PPTX-->PDF and import PDF-->InkscapeSVG . . . . Is my 2008 Powerpoint just too old to go direct to SVG?) — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your edit warring, can you revert yourself? There is already a talk page discussion, which we have been discussing and which you haven't participated in: Talk:Climate_change#Fifth_paragraph_in_lead Bogazicili ( talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Efbrazil. Congratulations for this beautiful image Cosmic Calendar. I am a professor in Brazil (Pará) and would love to use this image in our program of environmental education for children. To do so the image needs to be written in portuguese and I volunteer if it please you. If you are interested please let me know. Daniloelo ( talk) 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
(originally posted at Talk:Sustainable energy) Hi. I am saddened to see that you removed the 7 million deaths from the lead for the fourth time in around four days, when there is currently a consensus on this Talk page to keep this information in the lead. Re-doing the same edit over and over against objections is not how we resolve disputes here. What do you see as the way forward? Are you looking for a clearer expression of consensus from a wider group of editors? Or are you planning to keep re-doing this edit regardless of consensus? Or what? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Failed verification after failed verification... Are you trying to edit too fast? Are you getting information from other sources and mixing it up? Help me understand what's going on. FemkeMilene ( talk) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Your comment point the finger directly at sustainable energy as the solution without providing any context. Do you see zero validity in my concerns with that?
is giving me pause. I, for one, am not sure if I understand what context you want. I just added a Discussion section to
Talk:Sustainable energy inviting editors to explain what additional context is needed. I would really appreciate it if you could comment there, as I do want to understand. Take care,
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs) 22:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene:, what is wrong with OWID? As far as I know, it's a WP:MEDRS source. See, for example, WP:MED Talk page archives here and [ /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_105#cite_ref-7 here] Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Efbrazil. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Note that this image [4] might have a copyright issue if it's a screenshot per [5]. Bogazicili ( talk) 11:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to make sure that our climate change article is ready for the main page. One of the open issues is that we have some WP:SANDWICHING going on since you updated the radiative forcing image. I was wondering if you have ideas to make it less vertical; maybe some drivers can be omitted, or the vertical distance between gases in one category can be decreased? Thanks! FemkeMilene ( talk) 08:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Happy 2022! Can you tell me which software you use to create, like, totally awesome SVG graphics like File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg from PNG originals? I can't get Inkscape's "Trace bitmap" function to work on PNGs of any complexity. I'm not asking for detailed instructions—just checking feasibility using cheapo software. Reason: I'm thinking of using this Fig. 3 and on principle would like to go SVG, but the PNG is only ~250 KB (compressible at tinypng.com to 79KB!). — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
unit 113.199.230.110 ( talk) 05:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Efbrazil, pursuant to the Resolving user conduct disputes section of the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution page, I’m taking this initial step of asking you to stop engaging in harrasing editing on the Climate change talk page.
On March 25 you removed of my posts attempting to find a compromise position with you regarding edits to the first paragraph of the Clean energy subsection of the Climate change article. This seems to be a violation of a number of elements of Wikipedia:Etiquette policy, including: “Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar.” Your actions went far beyond merely editing.
In working through this edit with you, I tried to find compromise, and recognized the merits of some of your positions where I saw them. I apologized when I made an edits after you had posted on the talk page. I also posted to the talk page when I did a reversion of your edits, explaining my actions. In your posts you basically reiterated your earlier statements, without responding to the concerns I expressed. In addition, you did not propose any type of compromise language to resolve our differences, but instead you reverted my edit and then reverted my talk page posts. You made no attempt to engage with me in conversation when you made reversions, but just posted cryptic remarks in the edit summary.
Please refrain from these kinds of actions. They make it much more unpleasant for me to work on this article, and require extensive time to deal with. Time that I would much prefer to spend on constructive edits to the article.
I sincerely apologize Efbrazil for accusing you of something you did not do- When I went to respond on the talk page to your reversion of my edit, I looked for “Reverting other March 15 Edits to the Mitigation Section”, which had been the title of our discussion. I saw you had made some edits on the talk page, on March 25 and did not see that discussion listing anymore, so I assumed you had deleted the that topic/section - but I missed the edit where Chidgk1 changed the title of that discussion topic to “Energy”. I sometimes have trouble figuring out the diffs, for some reason. It was a very bad, mistaken assumption on my part, and again, I apologize. Dtetta ( talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The above article has a clear WP:1RR restriction which you appear to be well over, I suggest you revert your latest edits and discuss on the talk page otherwise you may be blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Efbrazil reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
You have been blocked from
Donald Trump for two weeks for edit warring and violating the article's 24-hour restriction, see comments
here. This sanction leaves you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, including
Talk:Donald Trump, but there will be no tolerance for similar disruption at other articles. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk 20:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC).
article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. You blocked Efbrazil, a user with clean block log and later acknowledged they made only two reverts. The block was normal admin action, not arbitration enforcement. Doesn't this mean that you are creating a submarine 1RR restriction outside of page restrictions (as authorised by standard DS)? If the answer is yes, what would be the point of not informing all editors at the article that there's a secret 1RR bubbling under? Politrukki ( talk) 12:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
article has a clear WP:1RR restriction, which is not true, because 1RR was "temporary" lifted in 2020. 1RR would be consistent with your claim
not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. Perhaps you meant to say that nobody should repeat their own edit without a discussion and waiting at least 24 hours. What you're citing from the article's edit notice is a discretionary sanction. Efbrazil was not sanctioned for violating discretionary sanctions as I already said. I think a part of confusion here is due to you ambiguously referring to
24-hour restrictionor
article's 24-hour restriction. Politrukki ( talk) 20:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hoursrule to all editors or is this about miscommunication. Politrukki ( talk) 23:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
better to complain on your own page). I'm very thankful that this discussion seems to progress somewhere, even if the original block is about to expire very soon. Politrukki ( talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
If you want to appeal on your talk page, please use the template Bishonen provided in her first message. That way, an independent admin will see it. I think the confusion may stem from the fact that partial reverts are still counted as reverts. Femke ( talk) 18:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.seems to imply that a partial reinstatement is allowed, which is not the case within 24h of the initial bold edit. Femke ( talk) 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry this took me a while, Efbrazil and
Politrukki; templates are not my natural habitat, but I believe I've got it now.
I can't agree with the distinction Politrukki makes in saying Discretionary sanctions can only be enforced when the user is
WP:AWARE of them. This is explained in the talk page template, but for some reason not in edit notice. Makes no difference, because an edit notice cannot subvert Arbcom procedures.
The talkpage template says "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial alert", my italics, whereas the edit notice says "The following discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article", also my italics. So there's a contradiction between them. When Politrukki says "an edit notice cannot subvert Arbcom procedures", I suppose they take only the talkpage template, {{American politics AE}}, to be an official Arbcom template, while the edit notice template, {{American politics AE/Edit notice}}, is something else, something that "cannot subvert Arbcom procedures" — perhaps a wording invented by an individual admin? — but that's not so. The templates are both official Arbcom templates, and none of the wording in them has been introduced by individual admins at Donald Trump: their baseline, ArbCom approved, text says respectively that users must have an alert before they can be sanctioned (the talkpage template), and that "all people who edit this article" can be sanctioned (the edit notice template). Check them out on their respective template pages if you like ( Template:American politics AE and Template:American politics AE/Edit notice), to see that this is so, and note that they both belong to the Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates. I didn't notice the contradiction at the time, and went by the wording in the edit notice. Theoretically, one should perhaps take the issue to WP:ARCA, to ask the committee to harmonize their templates, but I don't think I will, for my part. The whole discretionary sanctions system is in the process of being overhauled and (praise the Lord) simplified, and presumably the AE templates will be, too.
Efbrazil, I still don't think you have a good handle on what edit warring is, and I hope you'll take a good look at the Edit warring policy to see how it's defined. But I'm now much less sure you did something that I should have blocked you for, especially in view of the template thing, and I'll put a note into the block log to say so. Bishonen | tålk 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC).
"discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article" [emphasis added]is not actionable is because if you sanction someone for breaching page restrictions, you must abide by WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page: 1. the sanctioned editor must have been aware, and 2. an editnotice specifying the sanction was in place. Think logically: why would the first criterion even exist if editnotice can supersede it?No, I don't mean that a talk page template has any official standing. I mentioned the discrepancy because I don't think it would be reasonable to sanction a user in case of conflict (assuming the talk page template was properly placed and so on). For example, when the talk page template includes 1RR exemptions, they aren't necessarily enumerated in the editnotice. BTW, I helped in writing the documentation for {{ American politics AE}}, which included a glaring error nobody noticed.In sum, you made a block out of process. In 2015, when Coffee indef blocked someone who was not aware of ARBEE DS, they were
"advised to better familiarize themselves with the discretionary sanctions provisions before using this process again"through motion. Note that the appeal was submitted by a third party, which wasn't technically allowed even back then. Your actions were far less egregious, particularly when your explanation for not formally using AE process was to avoid causing harm to Efbrazil, and you corrected your mistake. I believe your explanation, but I do note that your advice to appeal to AN or AE indicates that the block was de facto AE action. (Note to Efbrazil: any uninvolved admin may lift normal blocks whereas lifting an AEBLOCK requires consensus at AN/AE or ARCA if the enforcing administrator doesn't accept the appeal. Typically, it's very hard to successfully appeal short-term sanctions unless they were based on clear-cut procedural errors. Also note that an expired sanction cannot be appealed, but an administrator making improper actions may potentially be a subject to review.)If you sanction someone specifically for breaching a page sanction, I don't think you can avoid logging the sanction to DSLOG, but now that you have acknowledged an error, logging would be moot. So we're done here. Thanks.PS re clean block log, I had forgotten it, but in 2017 when CFCF was blocked for reinserting an image (BLP vio/copyvio?), you said
"this is the first smudge on his previously clean block log. I wish Coffee had considered this fact more deeply before hitting the block button", and unblocked CFCF out process. A questionable unblock, but I guess that was okay in the end because the enforcing administrator accepted unblocking. Politrukki ( talk) 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about your desire to avoid lede bloat. However, after explaining that the lifetime Emmy belongs in the award section, you deleted it from the award section, too, which places me in a quandary. Are you OK with putting that back in? Blainster ( talk) 23:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Several days ago, we went back and forth a bit in edits about "convection or conduction" at the end of the intro to the Greenhouse effect article. I want to edit that again, but thought it might make sense to sort that out with you rather than just editing the article, lest we go back and forth reverting changes again.
The current text reads "Greenhouses primarily retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection), although their panels also limit heat radiation and conduction. The greenhouse effect only limits heat loss due to radiation; it has no impact on convection or conduction of heat."
I don't like the second sentence because what it would mean for the GHE to have an "impact" on convection or conduction is so ill-defined that I think this wording is "not even wrong." Also, the word "only" seems vaguely prejudicial, inappropriately suggesting some sort of limitation. In the first sentence, mention of radiation and conduction seems superfluous, since the effects of these aren't of great practical importance in the context of a greenhouse.
Here's a suggested revision: "Greenhouses primarily retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection). The atmospheric greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting the flow of radiation to space (reducing radiative heat loss)."
Thoughts? Rhwentworth ( talk) 22:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Just wanted to show appreciation for your (collaborative) work keeping greenhouse effect understandable and in good shape! —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:49, 29 April 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Climate change, 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) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned it already on one of the talk pages somewhere where we have collaborated (I think at effects of climate change): I am currently working through all the leads of the 135 articles that we have on our list for our project. I use the very useful readability tool of Wikipedia to point out the difficult sentences to me. I sometimes also use Chat-GPT for inspiration how things could be said in a simpler way. If you have time & energy to collaborate on this effort with the leads, you are very welcome. That would be great. As a second task, I also make leads longer. I like for them to be around 450 to 500 words long. Many of our leads are currently too short (only 1-2 paragraphs long). - I see this as a low-hanging fruit with quite a lot of potential for impact. EMsmile ( talk) 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I am curious to know why you don't like the readability script? Maybe it's different to how you think it is (unless you've tried it out already?). I could send you a screenshot to show you what it does. In most cases, I am finding it surprisingly accurate, i.e. if a lead shows up with mostly red sentences then those sentences are (in 90% of the cases) actually difficult to understand for layperson. - I actually think it should be added to the tools as a default because it would make more people aware of the issue that lots and lots of Wikipedia articles are written with overly complicated sentences, especially those on science topics... EMsmile ( talk) 21:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Hey, I was wondering if we could update the image you created for the Cosmic Calendar to use a 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Cheers. Stvltvs ( talk) 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Efbrazil ( talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Fixed. Please let me know if further changes would help.
Thank you for submitting your image at featured picture candidates, I can tell you spent a good amount of time on it. If you'd like to review other nominations at "FPC", please do so. Leave a note on my talk page if you ever need any help with anything. Regards, Jujutacular talk 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Efbrazil ( talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Thanks for the info! I'll give the featured picture another shot shortly.
Just FYI, I fixed your new nomination of the Cosmic Calendar. Since you used the same title for the nom, it was placed over the old nomination (we keep those for archival purposes). I have placed the new nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cosmic Calendar 2. Regards, Jujutacular talk 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
File:The Scientific Universe.png is some lovely work. (It made me think of xkcd - Purity, in case you hadn't already seen that.) The File:Cosmic Calendar.png is also fantastic.
I just wanted to note my appreciation for these graphics. I look forward to anything else you might create. :) – Quiddity ( talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ape may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Efbrazil - Your addition to Letter frequency is partially incorrect. I don't know how often each of the three methods you describe is used, but the third method, using existing corpora, is the source of the "table below", and likely most of the frequency tables reported in the article. In particular, Pavel Michka's site reports that dictionary frequencies are *different*, with 't' being less frequent than 'e', which is not what the bar graph below that shows. I'm going to make some edits (and clean up some other stuff in the article), but it would be good if you could take a look, and add references for the other two methods, and possibly expand on the differences in results. Argyriou (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Argyriou! I used information in this article in a project and was finding that the letter frequencies in the chart were very different from what I was seeing in Google's list of the top 100,000 words, which led to me doing a little research and writing that edit. I updated the edit to be a bit more explicit as to when each frequency type is used.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 23:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 18:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Projected Change in Global Temperatures.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for committing time to this. Change is indeed hard. Have you searched the archives of both articles for "title" and again for "Scope" ? I have gathered some of the history at
this user sub page. Comments at the associated talk page (or here or at my use page) welcome.
FYI, I have an alternative way forward that I think will be an easier "sell". I have learned the hard way (my own and observation of others efforts) that making a premature proposal is fatal. I'm going to start working in my user space to try to start assembling ideas and testing ideas, and you're welcome to watch my contribs anywhere, and
my contribs in the user namespace for this month specifically. I might flail a bit while I get started, but the link I provided will help you figure out where I'm at if I change the name of the subpage or use more than one.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Dave souza: you're welcome to chime in at my userspace efforts too of course. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy:I'm very happy to take a step back and support you in your efforts on this if you think you have a path forward. I'm neither a senior wikipedian or a measured consensus builder like you are. I just figured me blundering around trying to get this change pulled off was better than nothing. I did start drafting the rfi, but there's nothing I wrote that you haven't already seen me say in comments. I skimmed your "partial evolution" article but I don't know if it enlightened me much. I mean, I kinda get why things evolved to be the way they are now, it's just that the way things are now makes zero sense to the outside world. Maybe you could ping me to look at stuff when you want my feedback or inputs?-- Efbrazil ( talk) 03:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ready for ya'll to take a quick peek ( Start here) . Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy:First, thanks! I'm very glad you're taking this on. I appreciate how you have it structured- easy for me to digest.
When you gather feedback, I hope you have a way to say "is this better than what's there today?" To that I would say absolutely yes to your proposal. On the flip side, I already see myself being happy and willing to pick it apart to death. So I'll leave it to you to figure out how to make sure this sort of feedback is constructive:
If you have time, please consider calling other articles with large overlap to my attention. The partial list is here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Speaking of other merges, see also Runaway greenhouse effect. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Elsewhere, you reasonably asked "do you know why Talk:Climate change#Splitting proposal isn't drawing comments?" When I saw it I groaned. I can't read others' minds and can't separate out the background context of our various coversations, where you've expressed very urgent impatience over the way we defined the scope under Global warming and Climate change. There was just another round of bitter debate about this, which went no where, and everyone who said more than 20 words have been through it before. This is just a guess, but maybe people see it as an incomplete proposal whose real goal is some sort of big picture change, and everyone is weary? Beats me. But that's how I saw it and why I groaned. Anyway, instead of saying anything, I've started editing the article. I'm also juggling three other things at the same time so editing is spotty. Wikipedia is not an emergency! Enjoy your weekend, look in again in a few day. Anyway, that's my thought. Your mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@ NewsAndEventsGuy: @ Femikemilene: OK, so the climate change article split happened as Femikemilene suggested. The remaining climate change article is really "stub" status. Next up is fixing the climate change article to match the definition of climate change given in both climate change and global warming articles already, which is that climate change is "global warming plus its effects".
So next up is pulling the trigger on a proposed merge of the "global warming" and "climate change" articles. I'm happy to make that proposal or NewsAndEventsGuy can and I'll support his effort. I do think it needs to happen very soon, while the article is clearly in need of content.
An alternate approach is to make a bunch of edits instead. The end goal of that would be to have "Global Warming" be the place where we talk about terminology and really dwell on recent global temperature change, then move over the other content.
I can take either approach this week, so let me know your thoughts today hopefully. Efbrazil ( talk) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I totally get it if you want to do clean up on the edit, but reversion was really uncalled for- this split had general support by many users and no opposition except you, yet it moved things very far along towards what you say you want. Fiddling around in rarely read sub articles for months at a time is not a solution to the top level being hopelessly broken, and blocking edits directed at fixing the issue means you are making yourself part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Efbrazil ( talk) 19:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The Global warming Barnstar | |
Especially in articles related to global warming and climate change: for your knowledge and skill in the graphic arts and software-generated images, for your constructive collaboration, and for good old-fashioned hard work. — RCraig09 ( talk) 04:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
When I tag people, I usually misspell their names at first because spelling is difficult. When users have a user name, an existing name shows up blue, and spelling mistakes are easily remedied. Would you consider making a user page for yourself? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. I really went all out on the text too. Efbrazil ( talk) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you could avoid using green and red together in a graph, if you can avoid it. The most common type of colour blindness leads people to not see the difference between those two colours. Specifically, somebody indicated on the climate page they couldn't see the difference in the 'global temperature and forces' graph. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 07:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I sent you an email request about gallery images
You may want to strike through the argument CC is more neutral, as that is a weak point (judged by people that reply and previous disagreements). It distracts from the most important point: CC is the common name, and allows people to read the wrong motives in your proposal, confusing you for a bit of a skeptic. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 15:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You didn't read my edit comment? You didn't follow the link? No wonder you are confused. However, before you do anything else, I suggest reading WP:BRD, that's bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-start edit war. I suggest you reverse your second cut/n/paste move and then start again.
1. Cut and paste moves. Succinctly, you have created a new article which appears to have been written entirely by you in one fell swoop. It was not, so this is at best plagiarism. It was written by many editors over many years, then tweaked slightly by you. Put it back and start again. Pages can be renamed (called a moved, but no mind) in a way that takes their history with them and is documented in the history as a move instead of the whole article appearing as if by magic. Normally, this can be done by any (auto-confirmed) editor so long as the target page does not have any substantial history. You've stomped all over that idea, so now the move must be performed by an admin (see WP:RM, but not until you've finished reading).
2. Move discussions. You claim that the move has been "approved". In what way? The normal method for "approving" a page move is a move discussion (again see WP:RM). This does not appear to have taken place, but maybe I just missed it. Informal move discussions can also be done, but again I find no sign of this. Lastly, you could just boldly move the page (properly, don't just paste it over the new name! )and see if anyone objects. If someone objects, discuss. Your first reaction to having one of your edits reverted should *never* be to just make the edit again. Even once, this is called an edit war and is the first step (the only step in egregious cases) towards getting banned from Wikipedia. If you start a formal move discussion, it will most likely be closed by an admin after a week or so and the page will be moved properly, assuming that is the consensus. You can shortcut this step, if consensus has already been found or is obvious, by making an "uncontroversial, technical" requested move, which an admin will perform usually within 24 hours.
Lithopsian ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I notice is causing me a bit of stress if we don't follow bold, revert, discuss. The article is too difficult and too busy to follow discussions properly via edit summaries. Could we agree to not re-revert unless somebody is making a clear and controversial mistake? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Friendly reminder that one source often provides citation for multiple sentences. In the edits you did yesterday about the free rider problem, you removed the two citations about the freeride problem from the introductory sentence. The free rider problem is described in one of the air pollution sources, and the trade source. I'll fix it later, trying to preserve the spirit of your edits. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
If you have the time, would you be able and willing to update a new figure of global temperatures ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_Average_Temperature.svg)? This year, we can use the default 30 year baseline! Femke Nijsse ( talk) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Efbrazil: @ Femkemilene: FYI: I just ran across the following MeteoSwiss article that shows WMO's favoring 30-year baseline periods for long-term studies:
("Norms" would have been a better term than "normals". :-) — RCraig09 ( talk) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Efbrazil!
My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.
I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “Climate change” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.
Thanks so much! -- Dalorleon ( talk) 16:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to include my quotes and username and so forth- no secrets here. Efbrazil ( talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In your
Revision as of 23:37, 1 May 2020 of
Climate variability and change, you introduced a non-working {{
Sfn}}
:
{{Sfn|IPCC AR5 WG1 Glossary|2013|p=1451}}
, which put the article in
category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I have commented out this reference. I encourage you to redo this reference correctly. Cheers! —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)On sustainable energy, we've got two maps from Our World In Data with small-text headings and legend. Would you be able to improve those? If not, point me towards software I can do it myself with? FemkeMilene ( talk) 09:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Interrupt request! Efbrazil, can you literally export Powerpoint-direct-to-SVG? (With some difficulty I can export PPTX-->PDF and import PDF-->InkscapeSVG . . . . Is my 2008 Powerpoint just too old to go direct to SVG?) — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your edit warring, can you revert yourself? There is already a talk page discussion, which we have been discussing and which you haven't participated in: Talk:Climate_change#Fifth_paragraph_in_lead Bogazicili ( talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Efbrazil. Congratulations for this beautiful image Cosmic Calendar. I am a professor in Brazil (Pará) and would love to use this image in our program of environmental education for children. To do so the image needs to be written in portuguese and I volunteer if it please you. If you are interested please let me know. Daniloelo ( talk) 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
(originally posted at Talk:Sustainable energy) Hi. I am saddened to see that you removed the 7 million deaths from the lead for the fourth time in around four days, when there is currently a consensus on this Talk page to keep this information in the lead. Re-doing the same edit over and over against objections is not how we resolve disputes here. What do you see as the way forward? Are you looking for a clearer expression of consensus from a wider group of editors? Or are you planning to keep re-doing this edit regardless of consensus? Or what? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Failed verification after failed verification... Are you trying to edit too fast? Are you getting information from other sources and mixing it up? Help me understand what's going on. FemkeMilene ( talk) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Your comment point the finger directly at sustainable energy as the solution without providing any context. Do you see zero validity in my concerns with that?
is giving me pause. I, for one, am not sure if I understand what context you want. I just added a Discussion section to
Talk:Sustainable energy inviting editors to explain what additional context is needed. I would really appreciate it if you could comment there, as I do want to understand. Take care,
Clayoquot (
talk |
contribs) 22:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene:, what is wrong with OWID? As far as I know, it's a WP:MEDRS source. See, for example, WP:MED Talk page archives here and [ /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_105#cite_ref-7 here] Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 22:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Efbrazil. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Note that this image [4] might have a copyright issue if it's a screenshot per [5]. Bogazicili ( talk) 11:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to make sure that our climate change article is ready for the main page. One of the open issues is that we have some WP:SANDWICHING going on since you updated the radiative forcing image. I was wondering if you have ideas to make it less vertical; maybe some drivers can be omitted, or the vertical distance between gases in one category can be decreased? Thanks! FemkeMilene ( talk) 08:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Happy 2022! Can you tell me which software you use to create, like, totally awesome SVG graphics like File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg from PNG originals? I can't get Inkscape's "Trace bitmap" function to work on PNGs of any complexity. I'm not asking for detailed instructions—just checking feasibility using cheapo software. Reason: I'm thinking of using this Fig. 3 and on principle would like to go SVG, but the PNG is only ~250 KB (compressible at tinypng.com to 79KB!). — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
unit 113.199.230.110 ( talk) 05:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Efbrazil, pursuant to the Resolving user conduct disputes section of the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution page, I’m taking this initial step of asking you to stop engaging in harrasing editing on the Climate change talk page.
On March 25 you removed of my posts attempting to find a compromise position with you regarding edits to the first paragraph of the Clean energy subsection of the Climate change article. This seems to be a violation of a number of elements of Wikipedia:Etiquette policy, including: “Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar.” Your actions went far beyond merely editing.
In working through this edit with you, I tried to find compromise, and recognized the merits of some of your positions where I saw them. I apologized when I made an edits after you had posted on the talk page. I also posted to the talk page when I did a reversion of your edits, explaining my actions. In your posts you basically reiterated your earlier statements, without responding to the concerns I expressed. In addition, you did not propose any type of compromise language to resolve our differences, but instead you reverted my edit and then reverted my talk page posts. You made no attempt to engage with me in conversation when you made reversions, but just posted cryptic remarks in the edit summary.
Please refrain from these kinds of actions. They make it much more unpleasant for me to work on this article, and require extensive time to deal with. Time that I would much prefer to spend on constructive edits to the article.
I sincerely apologize Efbrazil for accusing you of something you did not do- When I went to respond on the talk page to your reversion of my edit, I looked for “Reverting other March 15 Edits to the Mitigation Section”, which had been the title of our discussion. I saw you had made some edits on the talk page, on March 25 and did not see that discussion listing anymore, so I assumed you had deleted the that topic/section - but I missed the edit where Chidgk1 changed the title of that discussion topic to “Energy”. I sometimes have trouble figuring out the diffs, for some reason. It was a very bad, mistaken assumption on my part, and again, I apologize. Dtetta ( talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The above article has a clear WP:1RR restriction which you appear to be well over, I suggest you revert your latest edits and discuss on the talk page otherwise you may be blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Efbrazil reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: ). Thank you. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
You have been blocked from
Donald Trump for two weeks for edit warring and violating the article's 24-hour restriction, see comments
here. This sanction leaves you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, including
Talk:Donald Trump, but there will be no tolerance for similar disruption at other articles. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk 20:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC).
article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. You blocked Efbrazil, a user with clean block log and later acknowledged they made only two reverts. The block was normal admin action, not arbitration enforcement. Doesn't this mean that you are creating a submarine 1RR restriction outside of page restrictions (as authorised by standard DS)? If the answer is yes, what would be the point of not informing all editors at the article that there's a secret 1RR bubbling under? Politrukki ( talk) 12:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
article has a clear WP:1RR restriction, which is not true, because 1RR was "temporary" lifted in 2020. 1RR would be consistent with your claim
not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. Perhaps you meant to say that nobody should repeat their own edit without a discussion and waiting at least 24 hours. What you're citing from the article's edit notice is a discretionary sanction. Efbrazil was not sanctioned for violating discretionary sanctions as I already said. I think a part of confusion here is due to you ambiguously referring to
24-hour restrictionor
article's 24-hour restriction. Politrukki ( talk) 20:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hoursrule to all editors or is this about miscommunication. Politrukki ( talk) 23:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
better to complain on your own page). I'm very thankful that this discussion seems to progress somewhere, even if the original block is about to expire very soon. Politrukki ( talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
If you want to appeal on your talk page, please use the template Bishonen provided in her first message. That way, an independent admin will see it. I think the confusion may stem from the fact that partial reverts are still counted as reverts. Femke ( talk) 18:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.seems to imply that a partial reinstatement is allowed, which is not the case within 24h of the initial bold edit. Femke ( talk) 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry this took me a while, Efbrazil and
Politrukki; templates are not my natural habitat, but I believe I've got it now.
I can't agree with the distinction Politrukki makes in saying Discretionary sanctions can only be enforced when the user is
WP:AWARE of them. This is explained in the talk page template, but for some reason not in edit notice. Makes no difference, because an edit notice cannot subvert Arbcom procedures.
The talkpage template says "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial alert", my italics, whereas the edit notice says "The following discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article", also my italics. So there's a contradiction between them. When Politrukki says "an edit notice cannot subvert Arbcom procedures", I suppose they take only the talkpage template, {{American politics AE}}, to be an official Arbcom template, while the edit notice template, {{American politics AE/Edit notice}}, is something else, something that "cannot subvert Arbcom procedures" — perhaps a wording invented by an individual admin? — but that's not so. The templates are both official Arbcom templates, and none of the wording in them has been introduced by individual admins at Donald Trump: their baseline, ArbCom approved, text says respectively that users must have an alert before they can be sanctioned (the talkpage template), and that "all people who edit this article" can be sanctioned (the edit notice template). Check them out on their respective template pages if you like ( Template:American politics AE and Template:American politics AE/Edit notice), to see that this is so, and note that they both belong to the Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates. I didn't notice the contradiction at the time, and went by the wording in the edit notice. Theoretically, one should perhaps take the issue to WP:ARCA, to ask the committee to harmonize their templates, but I don't think I will, for my part. The whole discretionary sanctions system is in the process of being overhauled and (praise the Lord) simplified, and presumably the AE templates will be, too.
Efbrazil, I still don't think you have a good handle on what edit warring is, and I hope you'll take a good look at the Edit warring policy to see how it's defined. But I'm now much less sure you did something that I should have blocked you for, especially in view of the template thing, and I'll put a note into the block log to say so. Bishonen | tålk 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC).
"discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article" [emphasis added]is not actionable is because if you sanction someone for breaching page restrictions, you must abide by WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page: 1. the sanctioned editor must have been aware, and 2. an editnotice specifying the sanction was in place. Think logically: why would the first criterion even exist if editnotice can supersede it?No, I don't mean that a talk page template has any official standing. I mentioned the discrepancy because I don't think it would be reasonable to sanction a user in case of conflict (assuming the talk page template was properly placed and so on). For example, when the talk page template includes 1RR exemptions, they aren't necessarily enumerated in the editnotice. BTW, I helped in writing the documentation for {{ American politics AE}}, which included a glaring error nobody noticed.In sum, you made a block out of process. In 2015, when Coffee indef blocked someone who was not aware of ARBEE DS, they were
"advised to better familiarize themselves with the discretionary sanctions provisions before using this process again"through motion. Note that the appeal was submitted by a third party, which wasn't technically allowed even back then. Your actions were far less egregious, particularly when your explanation for not formally using AE process was to avoid causing harm to Efbrazil, and you corrected your mistake. I believe your explanation, but I do note that your advice to appeal to AN or AE indicates that the block was de facto AE action. (Note to Efbrazil: any uninvolved admin may lift normal blocks whereas lifting an AEBLOCK requires consensus at AN/AE or ARCA if the enforcing administrator doesn't accept the appeal. Typically, it's very hard to successfully appeal short-term sanctions unless they were based on clear-cut procedural errors. Also note that an expired sanction cannot be appealed, but an administrator making improper actions may potentially be a subject to review.)If you sanction someone specifically for breaching a page sanction, I don't think you can avoid logging the sanction to DSLOG, but now that you have acknowledged an error, logging would be moot. So we're done here. Thanks.PS re clean block log, I had forgotten it, but in 2017 when CFCF was blocked for reinserting an image (BLP vio/copyvio?), you said
"this is the first smudge on his previously clean block log. I wish Coffee had considered this fact more deeply before hitting the block button", and unblocked CFCF out process. A questionable unblock, but I guess that was okay in the end because the enforcing administrator accepted unblocking. Politrukki ( talk) 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about your desire to avoid lede bloat. However, after explaining that the lifetime Emmy belongs in the award section, you deleted it from the award section, too, which places me in a quandary. Are you OK with putting that back in? Blainster ( talk) 23:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Several days ago, we went back and forth a bit in edits about "convection or conduction" at the end of the intro to the Greenhouse effect article. I want to edit that again, but thought it might make sense to sort that out with you rather than just editing the article, lest we go back and forth reverting changes again.
The current text reads "Greenhouses primarily retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection), although their panels also limit heat radiation and conduction. The greenhouse effect only limits heat loss due to radiation; it has no impact on convection or conduction of heat."
I don't like the second sentence because what it would mean for the GHE to have an "impact" on convection or conduction is so ill-defined that I think this wording is "not even wrong." Also, the word "only" seems vaguely prejudicial, inappropriately suggesting some sort of limitation. In the first sentence, mention of radiation and conduction seems superfluous, since the effects of these aren't of great practical importance in the context of a greenhouse.
Here's a suggested revision: "Greenhouses primarily retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection). The atmospheric greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting the flow of radiation to space (reducing radiative heat loss)."
Thoughts? Rhwentworth ( talk) 22:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Just wanted to show appreciation for your (collaborative) work keeping greenhouse effect understandable and in good shape! —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:49, 29 April 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Climate change, 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) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I mentioned it already on one of the talk pages somewhere where we have collaborated (I think at effects of climate change): I am currently working through all the leads of the 135 articles that we have on our list for our project. I use the very useful readability tool of Wikipedia to point out the difficult sentences to me. I sometimes also use Chat-GPT for inspiration how things could be said in a simpler way. If you have time & energy to collaborate on this effort with the leads, you are very welcome. That would be great. As a second task, I also make leads longer. I like for them to be around 450 to 500 words long. Many of our leads are currently too short (only 1-2 paragraphs long). - I see this as a low-hanging fruit with quite a lot of potential for impact. EMsmile ( talk) 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I am curious to know why you don't like the readability script? Maybe it's different to how you think it is (unless you've tried it out already?). I could send you a screenshot to show you what it does. In most cases, I am finding it surprisingly accurate, i.e. if a lead shows up with mostly red sentences then those sentences are (in 90% of the cases) actually difficult to understand for layperson. - I actually think it should be added to the tools as a default because it would make more people aware of the issue that lots and lots of Wikipedia articles are written with overly complicated sentences, especially those on science topics... EMsmile ( talk) 21:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)