|
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I see you're making some good updates to
tipping points in the climate system. If there was more text you copied from other articles, please make a dummy edit to provide attribution in the edit summary.
Femke (
talk) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Very impressive work on sea level rise and tipping points in the climate system! Femke ( talk) 07:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
Again, very impressed by your contributions, thanks for all the effort you put in them.
I noticed you cite a lot of primary sources. Primary sources have their place on Wikipedia, but if possible, reviews / assessment report are preferred. See WP:SCIRS ("Cite reviews, don't write them"). This also allows you to write in WP:WIKIVOICE; with statements such as
Writing things directly is the preferred style on Wikipedia. Occasionally a primary source is really ground-breaking and gets immediate support from the scientific community. In that case, primary sources can be really valuable. Femke ( talk) 07:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi InformationToKnowledge, thank you for your contributions. I know you've already received the general Welcome note but I'd like to add another one as I can see you're editing on climate change topics which is great. I suggest that you put a sentence or two on your user profile page so that your user name no longer show up in red?
WikiProjects bring groups of editors together on particular topics. You might like to join this WikiProject:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Also, if you have time in the future, can you help me with effects of climate change and effects of climate change on oceans? Both are important articles which pull together info from many other articles. EMsmile ( talk) 12:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
For the last few minutes you have been adding a section on climate change to Magrebi towns and cities. Please stop. consider this a warning that should you continue, further action may be required. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
For transparency, both me and EMsmile came here after a request for guidance at Talk:Sea level rise.
@Roxy: while I understand why you posted a, let's say grumpy, message to start with, I think you've become a bit to bitey. ITK is a new editor, so a bare link to SYNTH isn't an ideal explanation. The text was supported, and expert WP:Self-published sources sources are acceptable outside of WP:Biographies of Living People.
@ITK. I think your edit could be improved by (a) directly citing the SI if you use it, or using the "at=" parameter in {{ cite journal}} (b) avoid editorialising such as "by a whole 7.4C" (in Fez, Morocco) (c) adding the country to the city you compare it with (many people do not know where Rabat would be). In general, when doing a lot of similar edits, it's wise to test it out on a few articles first and wait for feedback. If you don't hear anything after a few days, do a couple more. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
A 2019 paper published in PLOS One estimated that under Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, a "moderate" scenario of climate changewhere global warming reaches ~2.5–3 °C (4.5–5.4 °F) by 2100,
the climate of Fez in the year 2050 would most closely resemble the current climate of Mosul. The annual temperature would increase by 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), and the temperature of the warmest month by 7.4 °C (13.3 °F), while the temperature of the coldest month would increase by 2.3 °C (4.1 °F). [1] [2]
According to Climate Action Tracker, the current warming trajectory appears consistent with 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), which closely matches RCP 4.5. [3] —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
By 2050, the climate of Fez will be most similar to that of current-day Mosul. The maximum temperature of the warmest month is likely to increase by 7.4°C, resulting in a mean annual temperature change of 2.7°C.. Only the coldest temperature comes from the SI, and falls squarely within WP:CALC. Which conclusion is synthesized? —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 15:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Could one of you please link me to the section on Talk:sealevel rise where you sought advice? I cant see that either. I would be very grateful in the usual wiki way! Thanks. - Roxy the dog 18:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
SSP | Scenario |
Estimated warming (2041–2060) |
Estimated warming (2081–2100) |
Very likely range in °C (2081–2100) |
---|---|---|---|---|
SSP1-1.9 | very low GHG emissions: CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2050 |
1.6 °C | 1.4 °C | 1.0 – 1.8 |
SSP1-2.6 | low GHG emissions: CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2075 |
1.7 °C | 1.8 °C | 1.3 – 2.4 |
SSP2-4.5 | intermediate GHG emissions: CO2 emissions around current levels until 2050, then falling but not reaching net zero by 2100 |
2.0 °C | 2.7 °C | 2.1 – 3.5 |
SSP3-7.0 | high GHG emissions: CO2 emissions double by 2100 |
2.1 °C | 3.6 °C | 2.8 – 4.6 |
SSP5-8.5 | very high GHG emissions: CO2 emissions triple by 2075 |
2.4 °C | 4.4 °C | 3.3 – 5.7 |
The IPCC Sixth report did not estimate the likelihoods of the scenarios [4]: 12 but a 2020 commentary described SSP5–8.5 as highly unlikely, SSP3–7.0 as unlikely, and SSP2–4.5 as likely. [5]
However, a report citing the above commentary shows that RCP8.5 is the best match to the cumulative emissions from 2005 to 2020. [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extinction risk from climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path | ||
I hereby award this barnstar to editor InformationToKnowledge for excellent contributions to our climate change articles, esp. in regard to ecosystems. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
While I'd not completely disagree with critical feedback regarding WP:OR & the risk of making articles too long for most to read, I've noticed some outstanding improvements to several of our big scope articles. These take a lot of energy to perform in a holistic way that's a reasonable reflection of the voluminous mainstream science on these topics. We're lucky to have someone like yourself taking the time to do this. Thank you!
FeydHuxtable (
talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I was just copy-editing the page on sea level rise. I noticed that you did some WP:close paraphrasing in this edit. Close paraphrasing from a source under copyright protection isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could rephrase that, and evaluate if this was a one-off, or whether more text needs to be reworded to not be close to the source. Thanks! —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Source text | Your text | Note |
---|---|---|
Approximately 95 million Americans lived in coastal communities in 2017 (US Census Bureau, 2019) and in 2013, Canada had roughly 6.5 million coastal residents (Lemmen et al., 2016), while Mexico had 19 million people living in coastal municipalities in 2015 (Azuz-Adeath et al., 2018). | As of 2017, around 95 million Americans lived on the coast: for Canada and Mexico, this figure amounts to 6.5 million and 19 million people. | Perfectly paraphrased |
By 2030, flooding from changes in storms, SLR (based on RCP8.5) and increases in built infrastructure in the US Gulf Coast may result in net economic losses of up to 176 billion USD, of which 50 billion USD could be avoided through implementation of nature-based measures including wetland and oyster reef restoration and other green infrastructure (see Box 14.4; Section 14.5.2; EPA, 2015b; Reguero et al., 2018 | By 2030, flooding along the US Gulf Coast may result in economic losses of up to 176 billion USD: around 50 billion USD could be potentially avoided through nature-based solutions such as wetland restoration and oyster reef restoration. | Mostly okay, there is some minor further paraphrasing possible. "may result in". You could have said "may bring about" or "may cause". avoided -> prevented. |
A projected SLR of 0.9 m by 2100 could place 4.2 million people at risk of inundation in US coastal counties, whereas a 1.8-m SLR exposes 13.1 million people (Hauer et al., 2016). In California, under an extreme 2-m SLR by 2100, 150 billion USD (2010) of property or more than 6% of the state’s GDP and 600,000 people could be affected by flooding (Barnard et al., 2019). A 1-m SLR would inundate 42% of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula in North Carolina and incur property losses of up to 14 billion USD (considering the 2016 USD value) (Bhattachan et al., 2018). In nine southeast US states, a 1-m SLR would result in the loss of more than 13,000 recorded historical and archaeological sites with over 1000 eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places (Anderson et al., 2017). |
By 2100, sea level rise of 0.9 metres and 1.8 metres would threaten 4.2 and 13.1 million people in the US, respectively. In California alone, 2 metres of SLR could affect 600,000 people and threaten over 150 billion USD in property with inundation, potentially representing more than 6% of the state’s GDP. In North Carolina, a meter of SLR inundates 42% of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, incurring losses of up to 14 billion USD (at 2016 value of the currency). In nine southeast US states, the same level of sea level rise would amount to the loss over 1000 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places and up to 13,000 historical and archaeological sites overall. |
There are a few places where there were more possibilities for paraphrasing. (1) more than 6% -> over 6%. (2) eligible -> qualify for (3) incur -> cause. Here, I am a bit worried sentence order as well, which is the same as in the source. You can remove some aspects (such as only portraying property loss in % of GDP), which will also make the text less number-heavy and more professional. |
It would be amazing if this article could be nominated for featured down the line! The featured article process does really delve into the nitty-gritty. It's fantastic for its demands on using the best sources, but it will also teach you the details of the WP:manual of style. You'll likely want to find a mentor for help at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, and get the article copy-edited by the WP:Guild of copy-editors, and peer reviewed at WP:PR. The first things any mentor will notice is:
Again, please stop making huge edits as you have recently done at Sea level rise. Huge edits make it a practical impossibility for other editors to gauge and respond to; some might be tempted to simply revert, to avoid the headache. For existing articles, incremental edits are more understandable, especially if accompanied by specific edit comments.Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, and your approach might even be called disruptive and a violation of WP:OWN. — RCraig09 ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sea level rise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi InformationToKnowledge, thanks for your commendable work on the Permafrost article. In following the provenance of some of the graphics that you added, I note that they came from articles in Nature. It's unclear that those graphics were originally published under the CC license. Perhaps you could put a note under the License section of each, explaining why this is so. CF: File:Ran 2022 QTP Permafrost damages 2050.png, File:Langer 2023 thawed pollution.png, and File:Langer 2023 alaska distributions.png. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thwaites Glacier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 23:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Thwaites Glacier you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Thwaites Glacier and Talk:Thwaites Glacier/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- just letting you know I posted a couple more issues at the GA review page. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
123Writer talk 18:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)For your comprehensive article Effects of climate change on livestock! 123Writer talk 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
Under Heat stress is a citation page number missing a citation. Could you please add whichever citation it was? It's likely [2] but wanted to make sure, thanks!
In general, the preferred ambient temperature range for domestic animals is between 10 °C (50 °F) and 30 °C (86 °F).: 870
123Writer
talk 21:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
Hi -- I see you've responded at the GA. Would you have any objections if I moved your responses under the relevant bullet points? This is the sort of thing I mean. I find it a lot easier to keep track of what's been done if the question and response are next to each other. If you'd rather I didn't, that's fine; just let me know. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Thwaites Glacier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thwaites Glacier for comments about the article, and Talk:Thwaites Glacier/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 13:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Permafrost you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
On 10 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thwaites Glacier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thwaites Glacier (pictured) in Antarctica is expected to add 65 cm (26 in) to global sea levels over the coming centuries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thwaites Glacier. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Thwaites Glacier), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, InformationToKnowledge!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Nagol0929 (
talk) 15:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
|
Note that you can move drafts to mainspace directly. You don't have to go through AfC unless you have a conflict of interest, which obviously isn't the case here. See instructions at wp:move. Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The article Permafrost you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Permafrost for comments about the article, and Talk:Permafrost/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Permafrost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
You did identify the source of the material in your edit, the Effects of climate change on agriculture. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment of yours in the edit summary of effects of climate change on agriculture: "Please don't use contextless numbers as reference names! That might save a few seconds when editing, but makes for a total pain to figure out how reliable or how up-to-date that reference is for anyone else editing after the fact." I didn't actively "add" that number but I replaced a second reference to FAO with the first ref to FAO which was already in the article (so that the FAO ref only shows up once in the ref list, not twice). I used the Cite >> Reuse function. I don't see how this make it difficult for future editors? The only problem I see is when copying such a textblock from one article to another. But even then it's easy to fix later. Do you edit in source edit mode? I edit in visual edit mode, mostly, so that issue of ref names doesn't really come to the forefront of my mind as I don't get to see it in visual edit mode. EMsmile ( talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The Environmental Barnstar | ||
I have seen so much excellent work from you. It's great to have you here! Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
On 21 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Permafrost, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are at least 13,000 sites containing toxic materials that are frozen in permafrost, many of which are expected to start thawing and releasing their pollutants in the near future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Permafrost. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Permafrost), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
On 26 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient permafrost can preserve viable microorganisms, some of which contain antibiotic-resistance genes that may be transferred to modern bacteria? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Global dimming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Clayoquot -- Clayoquot ( talk) 22:01, 23 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello InformationToKnowledge: 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) 11:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern Ocean overturning circulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilution.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greenland ice sheet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 18:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Greenland ice sheet you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Greenland ice sheet for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ InformationToKnowledge. A recent contribution to Causes of climate change has lead to sfn/harv no-target error due to missing work in the Sources section of the article. The current are missing: "World Resources Institute, 8 December 2019", "IPCC SRCCL Ch2 2019", "IPCC SRCCL Summary for Policymaker 2019", "Climate.gov 23 June 2022", "Olivier & Peters 2019", "Our World in Date, 18 September 2020", "Kvande 2014", "EPA 2020", "EPA 2019", "Davidson 2019", "Global Methane Initative 2020", "IPCC AR6 WG1 Technical Summary 2021", "Melillo, Frey, De Angelis, Werner 2017" (Listed as "Melilo et al. 2017"), "IPCC AR5 WG1 2013", "Wolff, Shepherd, Shuckburgh, Watson 2015" (Shown as "Wolff et al. 2015"), "NASA, 28 May 2013", "Turetsky, Abott, Jones, Anthony 2019" (Shown as "Turetsky et al. 2019"), "Dean, Middleburg, Rockmann, Aerts 2018" (Shown as "Dean et al. 2018"), "He, Wang, Zhou, Wild, 2018" (Shown as "He et al. 2018"), "Storelvmo, Philips, Lohmann, Leirvik 2016" (Shown as "Storelvmo et al. 2016), "Wild, Gilgen, Roesch, Ohmura 2005" (Shown as "Wild et al. 2005"), "Albrecht 1989", "National Academies 2008", "Ramanathan & Carmichael 2008", "RIVM 2016", "WMO 2021", "The Sustainability Consortium, 13 September 2018", "UN FAO 2016", "IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch9 2007", "Randel, Shine, Austin, Barnett 2009" (Shown as "Randel et al. 2009"). Please add them to ensure verifiability of the sources. Thank you, Thecowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You recently edited Ice and claim to have added 30 refs. It is not practical to review such a large change. Please make more focused and incremental changes. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMIP.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi ItK,
may you please be so kind to other language versions of Wikipedia to upload your images directly to Commons?
Thank you in advance!-- Tadarrius Bean ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phases of ice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HCL.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I see you're making some good updates to
tipping points in the climate system. If there was more text you copied from other articles, please make a dummy edit to provide attribution in the edit summary.
Femke (
talk) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Very impressive work on sea level rise and tipping points in the climate system! Femke ( talk) 07:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
Again, very impressed by your contributions, thanks for all the effort you put in them.
I noticed you cite a lot of primary sources. Primary sources have their place on Wikipedia, but if possible, reviews / assessment report are preferred. See WP:SCIRS ("Cite reviews, don't write them"). This also allows you to write in WP:WIKIVOICE; with statements such as
Writing things directly is the preferred style on Wikipedia. Occasionally a primary source is really ground-breaking and gets immediate support from the scientific community. In that case, primary sources can be really valuable. Femke ( talk) 07:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi InformationToKnowledge, thank you for your contributions. I know you've already received the general Welcome note but I'd like to add another one as I can see you're editing on climate change topics which is great. I suggest that you put a sentence or two on your user profile page so that your user name no longer show up in red?
WikiProjects bring groups of editors together on particular topics. You might like to join this WikiProject:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Also, if you have time in the future, can you help me with effects of climate change and effects of climate change on oceans? Both are important articles which pull together info from many other articles. EMsmile ( talk) 12:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
For the last few minutes you have been adding a section on climate change to Magrebi towns and cities. Please stop. consider this a warning that should you continue, further action may be required. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
For transparency, both me and EMsmile came here after a request for guidance at Talk:Sea level rise.
@Roxy: while I understand why you posted a, let's say grumpy, message to start with, I think you've become a bit to bitey. ITK is a new editor, so a bare link to SYNTH isn't an ideal explanation. The text was supported, and expert WP:Self-published sources sources are acceptable outside of WP:Biographies of Living People.
@ITK. I think your edit could be improved by (a) directly citing the SI if you use it, or using the "at=" parameter in {{ cite journal}} (b) avoid editorialising such as "by a whole 7.4C" (in Fez, Morocco) (c) adding the country to the city you compare it with (many people do not know where Rabat would be). In general, when doing a lot of similar edits, it's wise to test it out on a few articles first and wait for feedback. If you don't hear anything after a few days, do a couple more. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
A 2019 paper published in PLOS One estimated that under Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, a "moderate" scenario of climate changewhere global warming reaches ~2.5–3 °C (4.5–5.4 °F) by 2100,
the climate of Fez in the year 2050 would most closely resemble the current climate of Mosul. The annual temperature would increase by 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), and the temperature of the warmest month by 7.4 °C (13.3 °F), while the temperature of the coldest month would increase by 2.3 °C (4.1 °F). [1] [2]
According to Climate Action Tracker, the current warming trajectory appears consistent with 2.7 °C (4.9 °F), which closely matches RCP 4.5. [3] —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
By 2050, the climate of Fez will be most similar to that of current-day Mosul. The maximum temperature of the warmest month is likely to increase by 7.4°C, resulting in a mean annual temperature change of 2.7°C.. Only the coldest temperature comes from the SI, and falls squarely within WP:CALC. Which conclusion is synthesized? —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 15:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Could one of you please link me to the section on Talk:sealevel rise where you sought advice? I cant see that either. I would be very grateful in the usual wiki way! Thanks. - Roxy the dog 18:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
SSP | Scenario |
Estimated warming (2041–2060) |
Estimated warming (2081–2100) |
Very likely range in °C (2081–2100) |
---|---|---|---|---|
SSP1-1.9 | very low GHG emissions: CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2050 |
1.6 °C | 1.4 °C | 1.0 – 1.8 |
SSP1-2.6 | low GHG emissions: CO2 emissions cut to net zero around 2075 |
1.7 °C | 1.8 °C | 1.3 – 2.4 |
SSP2-4.5 | intermediate GHG emissions: CO2 emissions around current levels until 2050, then falling but not reaching net zero by 2100 |
2.0 °C | 2.7 °C | 2.1 – 3.5 |
SSP3-7.0 | high GHG emissions: CO2 emissions double by 2100 |
2.1 °C | 3.6 °C | 2.8 – 4.6 |
SSP5-8.5 | very high GHG emissions: CO2 emissions triple by 2075 |
2.4 °C | 4.4 °C | 3.3 – 5.7 |
The IPCC Sixth report did not estimate the likelihoods of the scenarios [4]: 12 but a 2020 commentary described SSP5–8.5 as highly unlikely, SSP3–7.0 as unlikely, and SSP2–4.5 as likely. [5]
However, a report citing the above commentary shows that RCP8.5 is the best match to the cumulative emissions from 2005 to 2020. [6]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extinction risk from climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path | ||
I hereby award this barnstar to editor InformationToKnowledge for excellent contributions to our climate change articles, esp. in regard to ecosystems. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
While I'd not completely disagree with critical feedback regarding WP:OR & the risk of making articles too long for most to read, I've noticed some outstanding improvements to several of our big scope articles. These take a lot of energy to perform in a holistic way that's a reasonable reflection of the voluminous mainstream science on these topics. We're lucky to have someone like yourself taking the time to do this. Thank you!
FeydHuxtable (
talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I was just copy-editing the page on sea level rise. I noticed that you did some WP:close paraphrasing in this edit. Close paraphrasing from a source under copyright protection isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could rephrase that, and evaluate if this was a one-off, or whether more text needs to be reworded to not be close to the source. Thanks! —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Source text | Your text | Note |
---|---|---|
Approximately 95 million Americans lived in coastal communities in 2017 (US Census Bureau, 2019) and in 2013, Canada had roughly 6.5 million coastal residents (Lemmen et al., 2016), while Mexico had 19 million people living in coastal municipalities in 2015 (Azuz-Adeath et al., 2018). | As of 2017, around 95 million Americans lived on the coast: for Canada and Mexico, this figure amounts to 6.5 million and 19 million people. | Perfectly paraphrased |
By 2030, flooding from changes in storms, SLR (based on RCP8.5) and increases in built infrastructure in the US Gulf Coast may result in net economic losses of up to 176 billion USD, of which 50 billion USD could be avoided through implementation of nature-based measures including wetland and oyster reef restoration and other green infrastructure (see Box 14.4; Section 14.5.2; EPA, 2015b; Reguero et al., 2018 | By 2030, flooding along the US Gulf Coast may result in economic losses of up to 176 billion USD: around 50 billion USD could be potentially avoided through nature-based solutions such as wetland restoration and oyster reef restoration. | Mostly okay, there is some minor further paraphrasing possible. "may result in". You could have said "may bring about" or "may cause". avoided -> prevented. |
A projected SLR of 0.9 m by 2100 could place 4.2 million people at risk of inundation in US coastal counties, whereas a 1.8-m SLR exposes 13.1 million people (Hauer et al., 2016). In California, under an extreme 2-m SLR by 2100, 150 billion USD (2010) of property or more than 6% of the state’s GDP and 600,000 people could be affected by flooding (Barnard et al., 2019). A 1-m SLR would inundate 42% of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula in North Carolina and incur property losses of up to 14 billion USD (considering the 2016 USD value) (Bhattachan et al., 2018). In nine southeast US states, a 1-m SLR would result in the loss of more than 13,000 recorded historical and archaeological sites with over 1000 eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places (Anderson et al., 2017). |
By 2100, sea level rise of 0.9 metres and 1.8 metres would threaten 4.2 and 13.1 million people in the US, respectively. In California alone, 2 metres of SLR could affect 600,000 people and threaten over 150 billion USD in property with inundation, potentially representing more than 6% of the state’s GDP. In North Carolina, a meter of SLR inundates 42% of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, incurring losses of up to 14 billion USD (at 2016 value of the currency). In nine southeast US states, the same level of sea level rise would amount to the loss over 1000 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places and up to 13,000 historical and archaeological sites overall. |
There are a few places where there were more possibilities for paraphrasing. (1) more than 6% -> over 6%. (2) eligible -> qualify for (3) incur -> cause. Here, I am a bit worried sentence order as well, which is the same as in the source. You can remove some aspects (such as only portraying property loss in % of GDP), which will also make the text less number-heavy and more professional. |
It would be amazing if this article could be nominated for featured down the line! The featured article process does really delve into the nitty-gritty. It's fantastic for its demands on using the best sources, but it will also teach you the details of the WP:manual of style. You'll likely want to find a mentor for help at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, and get the article copy-edited by the WP:Guild of copy-editors, and peer reviewed at WP:PR. The first things any mentor will notice is:
Again, please stop making huge edits as you have recently done at Sea level rise. Huge edits make it a practical impossibility for other editors to gauge and respond to; some might be tempted to simply revert, to avoid the headache. For existing articles, incremental edits are more understandable, especially if accompanied by specific edit comments.Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, and your approach might even be called disruptive and a violation of WP:OWN. — RCraig09 ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sea level rise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi InformationToKnowledge, thanks for your commendable work on the Permafrost article. In following the provenance of some of the graphics that you added, I note that they came from articles in Nature. It's unclear that those graphics were originally published under the CC license. Perhaps you could put a note under the License section of each, explaining why this is so. CF: File:Ran 2022 QTP Permafrost damages 2050.png, File:Langer 2023 thawed pollution.png, and File:Langer 2023 alaska distributions.png. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thwaites Glacier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 23:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Thwaites Glacier you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Thwaites Glacier and Talk:Thwaites Glacier/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- just letting you know I posted a couple more issues at the GA review page. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
123Writer talk 18:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)For your comprehensive article Effects of climate change on livestock! 123Writer talk 18:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
Under Heat stress is a citation page number missing a citation. Could you please add whichever citation it was? It's likely [2] but wanted to make sure, thanks!
In general, the preferred ambient temperature range for domestic animals is between 10 °C (50 °F) and 30 °C (86 °F).: 870
123Writer
talk 21:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
Hi -- I see you've responded at the GA. Would you have any objections if I moved your responses under the relevant bullet points? This is the sort of thing I mean. I find it a lot easier to keep track of what's been done if the question and response are next to each other. If you'd rather I didn't, that's fine; just let me know. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Thwaites Glacier you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thwaites Glacier for comments about the article, and Talk:Thwaites Glacier/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie ( talk) 13:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Permafrost you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
On 10 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thwaites Glacier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thwaites Glacier (pictured) in Antarctica is expected to add 65 cm (26 in) to global sea levels over the coming centuries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thwaites Glacier. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Thwaites Glacier), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, InformationToKnowledge!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Nagol0929 (
talk) 15:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
|
Note that you can move drafts to mainspace directly. You don't have to go through AfC unless you have a conflict of interest, which obviously isn't the case here. See instructions at wp:move. Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The article Permafrost you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Permafrost for comments about the article, and Talk:Permafrost/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Permafrost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
You did identify the source of the material in your edit, the Effects of climate change on agriculture. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment of yours in the edit summary of effects of climate change on agriculture: "Please don't use contextless numbers as reference names! That might save a few seconds when editing, but makes for a total pain to figure out how reliable or how up-to-date that reference is for anyone else editing after the fact." I didn't actively "add" that number but I replaced a second reference to FAO with the first ref to FAO which was already in the article (so that the FAO ref only shows up once in the ref list, not twice). I used the Cite >> Reuse function. I don't see how this make it difficult for future editors? The only problem I see is when copying such a textblock from one article to another. But even then it's easy to fix later. Do you edit in source edit mode? I edit in visual edit mode, mostly, so that issue of ref names doesn't really come to the forefront of my mind as I don't get to see it in visual edit mode. EMsmile ( talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The Environmental Barnstar | ||
I have seen so much excellent work from you. It's great to have you here! Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 17:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
On 21 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Permafrost, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are at least 13,000 sites containing toxic materials that are frozen in permafrost, many of which are expected to start thawing and releasing their pollutants in the near future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Permafrost. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Permafrost), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
On 26 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient permafrost can preserve viable microorganisms, some of which contain antibiotic-resistance genes that may be transferred to modern bacteria? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Pathogenic microorganisms in frozen environments), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Global dimming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Clayoquot -- Clayoquot ( talk) 22:01, 23 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello InformationToKnowledge: 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) 11:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern Ocean overturning circulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilution.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Greenland ice sheet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 18:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Greenland ice sheet you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Greenland ice sheet for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @ InformationToKnowledge. A recent contribution to Causes of climate change has lead to sfn/harv no-target error due to missing work in the Sources section of the article. The current are missing: "World Resources Institute, 8 December 2019", "IPCC SRCCL Ch2 2019", "IPCC SRCCL Summary for Policymaker 2019", "Climate.gov 23 June 2022", "Olivier & Peters 2019", "Our World in Date, 18 September 2020", "Kvande 2014", "EPA 2020", "EPA 2019", "Davidson 2019", "Global Methane Initative 2020", "IPCC AR6 WG1 Technical Summary 2021", "Melillo, Frey, De Angelis, Werner 2017" (Listed as "Melilo et al. 2017"), "IPCC AR5 WG1 2013", "Wolff, Shepherd, Shuckburgh, Watson 2015" (Shown as "Wolff et al. 2015"), "NASA, 28 May 2013", "Turetsky, Abott, Jones, Anthony 2019" (Shown as "Turetsky et al. 2019"), "Dean, Middleburg, Rockmann, Aerts 2018" (Shown as "Dean et al. 2018"), "He, Wang, Zhou, Wild, 2018" (Shown as "He et al. 2018"), "Storelvmo, Philips, Lohmann, Leirvik 2016" (Shown as "Storelvmo et al. 2016), "Wild, Gilgen, Roesch, Ohmura 2005" (Shown as "Wild et al. 2005"), "Albrecht 1989", "National Academies 2008", "Ramanathan & Carmichael 2008", "RIVM 2016", "WMO 2021", "The Sustainability Consortium, 13 September 2018", "UN FAO 2016", "IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch9 2007", "Randel, Shine, Austin, Barnett 2009" (Shown as "Randel et al. 2009"). Please add them to ensure verifiability of the sources. Thank you, Thecowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You recently edited Ice and claim to have added 30 refs. It is not practical to review such a large change. Please make more focused and incremental changes. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMIP.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi ItK,
may you please be so kind to other language versions of Wikipedia to upload your images directly to Commons?
Thank you in advance!-- Tadarrius Bean ( talk) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phases of ice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HCL.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)