Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 8.

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.

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

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

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

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

For anyone watching my user page or my talk page, do you think the way I have formulated my voluntary restrictions on my user page is good? Should the three bullet points be amended? There has been a discussion about that on the AN/I noticeboard (see Special:PermanentLink/1274969384#Non-neutral_paid_editor) since January. I am happy to make changes (or to take non-voluntary restrictions if people prefer) but I am confused.

For example, @User:Clayoquot you wrote there on 2 February: "To answer your question, what's missing is 1) a commitment that covers 6.9 million articles, not just 3 articles, 2) an indefinite time period, and 3) having the commitment be to avoid all editing about all current and future clients and their affiliates." How should I formulate that, and what is meant with "their affiliates" exactly? We are talking about Wikipedia articles of organisations, right? Should I add a fourth voluntary restriction to my list which says: "I will not edit the Wikipedia articles which are about any of my clients, e.g. if I have a contract (or WiR position) with University of Utrecht or Stockholm Environment Institute then I will not edit the Wikipedia article about this university or Stockholm Environment Institute. - Is that what you were getting at or something different? EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Earth System Governance Foundation supports the implementation of the research programme and diverse activities of the Earth System Governance Project and the Global Alliance of Earth System Governance Research Centres."[1] These two, plus their major people, are the affiliates I have in mind. The best place to get answers to your other questions is WP:COIN or WP:Teahouse. I am exhausted from this issue. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have made some changes to my profile page accordingly. Hope it's better now. Will also post at WP:COIN next week about a question I have about "excessive" self-citing (have also written about it here). EMsmile (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage updates are an improvement but still well short of 6.9 million articles. I don't want to see, for example, you adding the names of ESG people or ESG-related initiatives like the NUA to any articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replied to you about this on the AN/I talk page. I'll copy here a similar version of the same reply, in case you agree that we should continue the discussion here, not there (if the decision is rather to continue the discussion there, then we could just place a link across). There was no particular reason for me not replying to you on my talk page on that aspect earlier, other than general emotional exhaustion with this particular topic (also, it was around the time when the thread had become closed, so I thought it was fine like that). Sorry for dropping the ball there. I thought it was more important to look forward, and for example to figure out if I should have two Wikipedia logins in future or not (see below).

It also wasn't clear to me what the exact wording of this additional voluntary restriction would be that you want to see. Should it be "I shall not add the names of ESG people or ESG-related initiatives like the NUA to any articles."? Could we formulate this with a time restriction, e.g. "for the duration of a paid editing gig from ESG Foundation plus two years after that"? I don't have any particular plans to add names of ESG people to any article but I think once the paid editing gig is long enough in the past, and if I did it as a volunteer role, then why not? You would argue that it rather would have to be "life long", even as a volunteer with sufficient time distance from a paid editing gig?

Overall, my suggestion would be to work together on my talk page (rather than on the AN/I page for urgent incidents) to figure out an additional restriction that you agree with and that is practical and precise. Here is another option: how about we have a video call? This might be easier and faster than trying to work through talk page messages. EMsmile (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the AN/I. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rsjaffe asked us to work things out here, so I'm back. Does @Femke's suggestion make sense to you? I would be happy with the letter and spirit of that solution. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, which is important since editors interpret the term "editing" in different ways, in this context I think it should include all namespaces. So no suggesting edits, drafting articles, etc., about these organizations or people, except for the usual exceptions such as BLP violations. Pinging @Femke for input here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am keen to work out something that is practical and precise, and that the community is happy with. It should be in-line with the existing Wikipedia guidance pages on COI and paid editing.

So Femke's proposal is that I put this on my profile page: Prompted by the AN/I in January/February 2025, I commit to not editing about any organisation or people with whom I have a WP:paid editing relationship, or another WP:conflict of interest."

I am unsure about the wording "or another WP:conflict of interest". I don't see how that is different from the statements I already have here under disclosure on my user page (?).

Wording that applies to all COIs can be interpreted differently by different people in the future. Wikipedia "COI" is far too broadly defined. It's so much broader than paid editing. I see Wikipedians discussing the nuances of "COI editing" all the time. And the issue of disclosed versus non-diclosed.

To give you an interesting example involving another editor of the SRM article see here on the talk page of User:Hemiauchenia.

The Wikipedia guidance says: " Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but may post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published.". I could state and re-iterate on my profile page that I adhere to that (and that I made a mistake on that in the past and hence will be more careful in future). I have not seen guidance pages that describe how many years after a paid editing gig is over one would still be regarded as having a COI.

I still think it would be useful to have a video call, as we might be able to get to the bottom of the issues and your concerns faster and more directly. We could summarise the key points from the call here on the talk page to provide transparency for the community.

Another thought: I recently came across a topic ban of User:Rachel Helps (BYU), see here. The wording is succinct and clear, without branching off into the general COI and PAID editing topic complex. Would something similar work for me maybe? EMsmile (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ball is in your court to state what you voluntarily agree to; the community can then decide whether it is sufficient. There is no further "bottom of the issues" that I have not stated already on-wiki. Please stop giving us more time-consuming tasks such as digging through Hemiauchenia's talk page to see what "interesting example" you might be referring to. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked me "Does @Femke's suggestion make sense to you?". I have explained above why I have concerns with that suggestion as I don't think it is precise enough and because it partly reiterates the general guidance and partly is more restrictive than the general guidance. User:Rsjaffe had suggested that we "workshop a mutually acceptable voluntary restriction" which is what I am trying to do and instead you are complaining on the AN/I thread, saying "The preternaturally kind Femke handed EMsmile the wording for an acceptable voluntary restriction on a freaking silver platter and what we got for it was this wall of text asking us to go read about another SRM editor. Great.". This is upsetting. Don't you see that whatever restriction is posed (whether voluntary or not) will affect my Wikipedia editing for years and decades to come? Especially if it's "open ended". So therefore, it's important to me to get it right. EMsmile (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the AN/I thread the discussion is around a topic ban but the proposal by Femke is not a "topic ban" as I understand it (WP:TBAN). Which topic would I be banned for? I thought the main topic in question was the non-use agreement for SRM. This was then widened to anything to do with Earth System Governance Project, including all universities, partners, affiliates, research centers etc. involved with that large scholarly network, and then widened to any organisation or people that I could ever have a COI with, even in a volunteer editing role in future. - Let me sleep over it and think about it. I'd also welcome the opinion of others if anyone wants to help. EMsmile (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had presumed that workshopping the wording of a voluntary restriction would be a fairly simple task but I have since realized it would take quite a bit of time and energy on my part. I don't have that time or energy, so I do not plan to comment further here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way I phrased the restriction is to avoid any future ANI thread, without impacting your editing too much. Where the WP:PE guidance says this type of editing is strongly discouraged, for you this would amount to a topic ban. In terms of the COI editing, I'm happy to compromise and say there should be a "clear COI" there, meaning that you don't have to look out for a large web of weak COIs that one develops if one is working in the area for a long time. When you have a history of not following guidance, the standard response from the community is to impose stricter restriction, that prevent this kind of editing, but as little other editing as possible. What type of editing do you think would be restricted by the wording I proposed? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. "Clear COI" is better. In parallel to this discussion, User:Yngvadottir proposed/reiterated a different option for a restriction (narrower) which I have just replied to there at the AN/I thread (not ideal that we now have two discussions in parallel).

What worries me about your proposal is that it is very broad and could have unintended consequences that I cannot currently foresee. Here is an example: When I was on the Formas project I had e-mail exchanges with Kevin Trenberth who gave me in-depth scientific information on how to improve some Wikipedia articles including sending me relevant references and sources. For example with the article on El Niño–Southern Oscillation. At some point, I looked at his Wikipedia article and made improvements to it (to the best of my ability, i.e. neutral, well sourced etc.). Is that already forbidden then? Would someone say I have a clear COI there because we had e-mail exchanges about climate change topics? NB there was no paid editing arrangement between Kevin and me. He was just one of the content experts who volunteered time when we contacted them. He also did not ask for any improvements to his Wikipedia article; it was my own initiative and interest and I did it as a volunteer. EMsmile (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that's a weaker COI. Not forbidden therefore, but certainly somewhere where you should for instance make sure you use secondary independent sourcing to avoid accidental promotional editing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you're probably aware, I started a discussion at WP:AN to review the closure of the AN/I thread. As the purpose of a closure review is to examine a closure and not to re-do the discussion that was closed, I didn't want to add stress by posting this message on your talk page. But someone asked me to do it so here I am. It is unfortunate that resolution is taking so long, which is stressful for you. I wish it had been resolved much earlier. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the discussion has expanded from being a simple closure review and it involves you more directly now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:S Marshall: I am glad this discussion is finally over; after 242 comments and nearly two months of discussion and scrutiny. Could you please tell me: What would be the main criteria for a successful appeal? - Also, would it be best if I deleted the section on "voluntary restrictions" at the top of my profile page as they've been pretty much overruled by this broader topic ban now? EMsmile (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal would be to the community rather than to me, and the community can occasionally be unpredictable or even capricious about what it wants. Generally, productive editing within your restrictions counts for a lot; and the community is usually sympathetic to people who articulate what went wrong, what they've learned and how their editing will change in future, without blaming anyone else.

Yes, the voluntary restrictions are needless now.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EMsmile (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad that this is over. A few things: 1) If and when you wish to appeal, the place to do so is WP:AN. 2) It is not obligatory to mention the topic ban on your user page. As far as I know, most people who have a topic ban don't mention it, 3) I hope that when you come back from your well-deserved break, we can leave this episode behind and have a fresh start in working together. I know you are here for good reasons. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's finally over. It was the worst time I've had with Wikipedia ever since I started editing in 2014. Especially how and why it got started in the first place by someone who stated upfront that he'll "seek to get my profile shut down". His reasons for that were IMHO more related to off-wiki things (i.e. advocacy for or against solar radiation modification) than on-wiki policy aspects. Also, what I found deeply upsetting is something like this where my long-term efforts for trying to bring in new editors to Wikipedia were completely misunderstood ("for years EM smile was blatantly canvassing people to make specific Wikipedai edits"). To me it also very much felt like I was being outed when the person brought up a 10-year old Wikipedia user profile page of mine (I'll check if I can have that page deleted). Anyway, enough said. It was painful and upsetting but nevertheless I'll say: "Onwards and upwards" and I'll give it another go to be a good, flawless Wikipedia editor! EMsmile (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back :) I understand it must have been really hard for you. I feel for you.

If you wish you can try putting a {{db-userreq}} tag on your userpage to request that it be deleted entirely. Then you will have a blank page and can put back whatever you want it to say. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion#U1._User_request. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've followed your advice and got my user page deleted, then re-added the information that I wanted to show (to make it nearly the same as before). I've chosen to keep the TBAN notification of S Marshall there for now because I thought people might otherwise say I am trying to hide something. But perhaps I will delete it later if it somehow gets me into unnecessary and repeated trouble. Already, it feels like I've made another mistake by asking for revdel deletions of old versions of my user page here earlier today before seeing your advice on how to get my user page deleted more easily. EMsmile (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buried in a thread above, I suggested have a clear statement of any current PE arrangements that you have. You have a lot of info regarding PE on your page but it's not clear what current PE arrangements you have. If it's "none" you might consider that to be apparent, but it's unclear. For example, you could have a "Current and recent grant and paid editing arrengements and applicable articles" section on your page. I don't want to push into privacy areas, but it could state the general nature of any current arrangements, any articles which specifically a part of the arrangement, and any articles where you are editing the article or it's talk page under the arrangement. Maybe a couple sentences at the start explaining. And if it's "none" specifically say "none". Maybe you commit to keeping that up to date. And in the future if anybody is interested in old expired arrangements (after the start of that) they could look in the archives of your page. Just an idea/suggestion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had never thought of doing up my profile page with that level of detail but it's a good idea, going forward. I've just made some improvements to my user profile page now, is it better and clearer like this? Please let me know. Also, please send example user profile pages if you know of others who edit like me (more like a WiR, or "sponsored" person) and who have profile pages that could serve as good examples? I looked at the user page of User:Bluerasberry. He has a section on "Pages I created" but without showing under which project which page was created. I guess he decided it's not necessary to drill down to that level of detail. I also have a similar section but I never paid much attention to it and also didn't update it diligently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EMsmile#Articles_and_pages_that_I_have_involved_myself_in. I never felt the need for it in the past. But now with the extra scrutiny that I am under, I can see the benefits. EMsmile (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Under my idea, you'd have a listing of articles where you're editing (article space or talk) under a PE or grant arrangement in that same section. I'd call the current one an exception to that because the new section includes a not on where the info is at, and it's very clear and just a couple lines down. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever get another paid editing stint (nothing in the pipeline for now), I'll definitely think through your idea and how I can present more clearly which article I would be editing under which mode (paid/volunteer). I think it would be too cumbersome to try and unravel my past 10 years of editing though (with detailed tables or alike), so I am not planning to do that. The Formas project was a great arrangement; I wish I could get more of that type. - In the meantime, have you seen anyone else's profile page where this is done well, and which you'd like to point me to as a good example? So far, I only know the one of Bluerasberry which does a bit of what you're suggesting. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm looking into the instances where ChatGPT was used in the editing process of environmental science topics on Wikipedia. I came across the conversations:

• Rather redirect to carbon sink
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change/Archive 6#Sources that explain "enhancing carbon sinks"
• Talk:Carbon cycle#Should carbon pool rather not redirect to here?

Based on the timestamps, it appears that ChatGPT served as a tool in helping you all come to the decision that carbon pool would redirect to Carbon sink rather than Carbon cycle. I was just wondering if you could shed anymore light on how long the process was in undergoing the carbon pool redirect change, and what role ChatGPT played in it for you or others working on the decision.

Wikipistemologist (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can't remember much about this particular event, nor its timeline. I do like to use chat-gpt for inspiration on a lot of things, mainly improving language clarity and sometimes also to get ideas about a good structure for an article (e.g. which section headings to use). And to decide how topics relate to each other, e.g. whether "carbon pool" is a parent topic to "carbon sink" or vice versa. This can be useful for overlapping topics. For me, chat-gpt is a bit like having an additional team member whom I can collaborate with. I enjoy using it and we, as a family, are now even paying for the Plus version. I've noticed that some other Wikipedians react quite negatively when I mention that I've used chat-gpt for Wikipedia editing. Perhaps they think I am blindly copying over content (or they worry about copyright aspects?). But it's not like that. I use it for inspiration, to overcome writer's block, to get new ideas, help with language issues etc. EMsmile (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the high electricity demand of all AI systems is worrisome though. This would speak against using chat-gpt... EMsmile (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @EMsmile - long time no speak,

I am trying to improve Water supply and sanitation in Turkey and I wonder if you know a country article I can look at as a good example. I see Brazil, China and USA are rated B. Of course it would be great if you also have time to edit the article yourself or make suggestions on the talk page.

Regards Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Chidgk1, good to hear from you. It's been a long time since I worked on those water supply and sanitation articles by country. Those were some of the first ones that I worked on when I first started my Wikipedia editing journey. They actually originated from a Worldbank project which was nice. - I can't remember which ones were the best, maybe the ones from Kenya or Zambia. They might all be a bit outdated though. I think they all generally have low pageviews. Perhaps look for those with the highest pageviews or the most recent edit activity; they might be the best ones. EMsmile (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @EMsmile

As there is still a big difference between government and unofficial statistics here in Turkey I am trying to figure out why so I could explain in Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey#Waste. Govt says about 2.5% of country total GHG whereas Climate TRACE says about 9%.

Is this something you have expertise and time to help with? If so I will give you more details. If not can you suggest anyone? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Chidgk1, I don't have any particular expertise with this. My assumption would be that it's really hard to measure the amount of methane that is escaping from landfills; so it's probably best to show both estimates and to explain how each was estimated (if known). Perhaps also ask at WikiProject Climate Change. All the best! EMsmile (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - although I doubt I will be able to figure it out I will write a footnote citing methodology documents and anything else I find so that anyone continuing does not have to start from scratch Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]