User talk:EMsmile

Membership renewal

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

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

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

Attribution needed

Hallo, your creation of Talk:Marine_plastic_pollution/Archive_1 triggered an alert for me because my name was included ... I'm sure it's part of your praiseworthy tidying up of the whole area of Plastic Soup / Marine Pollution, but it would be useful if you gave this new page some context by saying that it was copied from (I presume) Talk:Plastic Soup as it stood on date xyz, and so on. Otherwise the comments don't make sense. The {{copied}} template might be useful. Thanks. PamD 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes, sorry, I think I have corrected that now by adding a tag at the top of the talk page, sorry about that PamD. I just tried to create the first archive page of the talk page of marine plastic pollution. Hope I did it correctly. EMsmile (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I've realised it wasn't a problem, as this was an archive page, and the page history of the main talk page shows what it was moved from etc so all makes sense and I was getting in a muddle. Sorry about that! PamD 13:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Global Warming and Climate Change Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to climate-related articles and discussions. If you already have this barnstar, I will be happy to provide a different one. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Pyrrho the Skeptic, much appreciated! I wish we had another 100 volunteers for this topic as so much remains to be done... EMsmile (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent work on reorganizing and condensing the article on Sustainability Sunray (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Sunray, very kind of you! I feel that we're only half way through with the article. Still needs more work, and so does the one on sustainable development which overlaps a bit. EMsmile (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays

		Little Christmas card
		Wishing you a Happy holiday season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The photo of this White-breasted Nuthatch is not upside down. Femke (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sea surface temperature

Sea surface temperature has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Capacity building

Hi EMsmile, my ping to you in that talk page did not work out, but I replied to your comments on that page. Cheers and thanks for the excellent work.Tytire (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tytire, thanks for that. I've replied on the talk page of capacity building now. Thanks for the ping. EMsmile (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Tx. I regret I don't have the time now. I am busy on other projects. This is a large domain with a tonne of literature. See also my earlier second comment to that talk page in a lower section. Cheers. Tytire (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Tytire Yea, time constraints is always a problem for all of us. However, I didn't see in your talk page comments any mention of particular publications. Perhaps if you can list there the top 3 publications that you'd say should be consulted and utilised, this will be useful for the next editor who comes along and has time. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The main point I tried to convey is to have a background in public administration. The decontextualised summary of aid guidelines on the topic is already there. Tytire (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I still don't get what "to have a background in public administration" means with regards to editing the page. If you could recommend a few publications that would really help. - I'll copy this across to the talk page of the article so that we (or others) can discuss it there further). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Pollution Prevention is an American thing (apparently)

Just wondering if you have ever looked at Pollution prevention? It had escaped my notice until today and I really wish that I hadn't looked. Apparently pollution prevention is an American thing and doesn't appear to happen anywhere else! Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Velella, I hadn't noticed that article before. I am wondering if we are not better off changing the article title to "Pollution prevention legislation in the United States" and then leave it alone. I don't feel particularly motivated to work on it. It has pretty low pageviews (around 200 views per month). I don't think it should even exist because pollution prevention is just the opposite of pollution and should therefore be integrated into pollution, shouldn't it? Same with e.g. water pollution - we don't have a separate article on "water pollution prevention". By the way, did you still want to discuss the structure of that article (water pollution) at this stage or leave it for now? I won't have much time for that one in the next few weeks; currently busy with effects of climate change and sustainability. EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sensible solution. I will revert my additions and move it to a better title. I too find the whole thing odd and it may be a target for a merger into a more main-stream article at some time. I will have another look at water pollution , but every time I look I get disheartened by the complexity of the whole article and how we represent cause, constituent and effect in a logical way without overlap. I will look again, but I will make no promises that it will productive. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with edit request on GoodLeap page

Hi EMsmile. I am Jesse and I recently posted an edit request to Talk:GoodLeap, a company that is working to bring solar power to homeowners in the United States. You can see their Wiki article here. I saw that you are an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Participants, and thought you might want to help out with this company's page. I really would appreciate if you could look at my edit request and implement whatever you agree adds value to the page. Thanks so much. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Paper you may be interested in

Hi EMsmile,

Based on some of our past conversations, I wanted to make sure you were aware of this new paper, about "Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language". I found it very interesting. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Crossroads, that is a brilliant paper. I love it. Have you thought about how to include it in the menstruation article (and possibly also Menstrual hygiene management)? I think it ought to be cited. I am also going to recommend it to my colleagues, e.g. in this thread on the SuSanA discussion forum where we talked about the term "menstruator". I like how they caution against "Cultural Imperialism in Global Public Health", something which I felt was the case but couldn't put a word to it. In my dealings through my work in the WASH sector, I've noticed that it's mostly Global North people pushing for the de-sexed language, not Global South people... EMsmile (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's bring effects of climate change to GA

Also pinging @Chidgk1. With the three of us working on it together, this should be feasible, right? I think bringing it to GA will allow us to completely sort out all the duplication and low-quality sourcing brought about by the merging. And it'll feel great to know that we're only having to update 1, rather than 5, articles. Femke (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Femkemilene Thanks for your confidence in my abilities and I see it is a rather important article. But sorry not promising anything as I have one article being GA reviewed right now and 2 I put in the GA queue about a week ago which really need expanding to be GA standard. As they are all country specific I am 99% sure nobody else is going to edit them much if I don't (even the equivalent Turkish article is not being edited, which is surprising as electricity is now a hot political issue here). Hope you can find someone else to help. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Femkemilene yes, sounds good to me! I'm in. I've never been involved in the GA process. My philosophy so far has been to bring lots of articles from C to B, or from Start to B. But not to spend too much time on just one bringing it to higher than B. But I'm happy to give it a go for this one. Hopefully we'll pull in some collaborators as well. Would GA automatically mean no excerpts though? I feel that topics that have detailed numbers which change with new publications should be dealt with in one place and then transcribed from there. This applies in particular to ocean acidification, sea level rise, retreat of glaciers since 1850, I think. But perhaps we can discuss this further on in the process later. EMsmile (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'm proposing this is to make you familiar with the GA process. Writing a few GAs will probably make your Bs stronger too :).

More than three people working together would lead to too much overhead.

Excerpts are allowed in GAs, but individual reviewers may wonder and argue against them. Of course, the inclusion of retreat of glaciers without citations wouldn't go, but there is a strong consensus against that forming in the current RfC anyway. While I'm willing to update sea level rise before our GAN, the glacier article is too much work for too little gain (low viewership) to update, so it would be faster to get the old text back or write something separate for that section. Femke (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Beland: fancy joining us in this effort :)? Femke (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I'm sorry, I've already spent way too much time on this article when I have many other issues I'm trying to wrap up, but I wish you good editing! -- Beland (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Water sachet

FYI, discovered that this topic didn't exist yet: and know its within your domain of interest, Sadads (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Very nice, Sadads, have made a couple of small comments there. Have also added it to the list of articles for WikiProject Sanitation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation#By_theme . You could also link to this new article from a few other articles, such as improved water source, WASH and alike. EMsmile (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wiki4Climate welcome note (newbies)

Template:Wiki4Climate welcome note (newbies) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wiki4Climate welcome note (oldies)

Template:Wiki4Climate welcome note (oldies) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST

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

Copyright problem on Water security

Hello EMsmile. Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://reachwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/REACH-climate-report.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, could you please send me the deleted text blocks so that I can rework it? You could either temporarily undelete it or send it to me through the Wikipedia e-mailing function. I am assuming it was text from the Ethiopia and Bangladesh sections? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. YGM— Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll rework those text blocks now. EMsmile (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa if you have time, could you check if my reworked section on Bangladesh is OK now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_security#Bangladesh)? I think there should no longer be a copyright issue. EMsmile (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The new version looks okay. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Signing in articles

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Water pollution. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, oh that was an embarrassing mistake of mine! Thanks for pointing it out. I was rushing my edits, working on article and talk pages in parallel. Will make sure it doesn't happen again. :-)

climate change article

Your edit summary is a little confusing to laymans. Could you perhaps explain it, either here, or on the article talk page? Do you feel it is an issue regarding RS or editor consensus? Sorry to be so nosy. DN (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi DN, I was referring to the discussion that is taking place here. Does that clarify things? And we might not have reached consensus yet, I am not sure. EMsmile (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Marine resources moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Marine resources, is not suitable as written to remain published, and more content. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Marine resources has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Marine resources. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt function

Yes, let us take it that moving forward there will be good faith. However, I prefer publicly transparent exchanges. There are issues with the excerpt function. We had an earlier discussion about that. I think the excerpt function is a good idea that can be seriously useful when used in the right way. You have often used the function appropriately, and have improved and rationalised a number of article. But it is a powerful function that, with very little effort on the part of inappropriate users, could result in havoc.

It is a new function with unaddressed teething problems. One of the issues is that if you have an article on your watchlist with an excerpt from another article, and someone edits the relevant text in the originating article (changes the subtitle for example), then there is no notification on your watchlist and you will not know if inappropriate changes have happened.

A more serious issue, and the one that bothers me, is that some articles do not lend themselves at all to making simple excerpts from other articles. The reason why the excerpts can be inappropriate can be nuanced, and I fear that this nuance will result in the excerpt function being used widely in inappropriate ways. A case in point is Human impact on marine life, which was the focus of our earlier discussion. To recapitulate, the issue there was that sections on marine polution and plastic pollution were replaced with excerpts from other (parent) articles. But in this case the substitutions were not appropriate. The article Human impact on marine life is focused on how marine life is affected by human impacts. But the article on marine pollution is focused on how pollution affects the marine environment. These are different foci. I eventually removed the excerpt functions when subsequent edits to the parent articles used for the excerpts were changing the excerpts in unpredictable and aggrevating ways, with no notifications on the watchlist for the article itself. The article was becoming something else, and ceasing to be about what was happening to marine life. — Epipelagic (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for getting back to me Epipelagic. I take your points on the excerpt and promise to be more careful in future / discuss first on the talk page if there are any doubts. I am looking at this article today: Aquatic ecosystem - would you say that the excerpts used there are justified? When I added them in a while ago my intention was to reduce overlap between aquatic ecosystem, freshwater ecosystem, lake ecosystem, river ecosystem, ... So I think when it's an overview of "types" of something then it works quite well, would you agree? - And point taken about the watchlist + excerpts. I remember seeing a discussion on that and I think/hope it'll be addressed eventually (see here). EMsmile (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the excerpts work well and appropriately in the Types section on the Aquatic ecosystem page. — Epipelagic (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Reversal of edits by new users

Hi EMsmile, It's been a while. How have you been?

I am doing a series of training to introduce new editors to Wikipedia and have them edit Wikipedia articles related to the SDGs. I just noticed some of their edits were reversed which is quite discouraging for new editors. Let me know if there is anything I can do to reduce that and also if there are any tasks new editors might find easier. New ideas will be appreciated.

In the meanwhile, here is a link to the Meta page and Wikipedia page to see what we have been up to Wikipedia:Meetup/Wiki Loves SDGs Campus Tour (should have been signed by User:Prithee P. EMsmile (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Prithee P that sounds like an interesting project! If you tell mw the user names of those newbies whose edits were reverted, I can take a look. Or tell me which Wikipedia articles they worked on. It might have been me who reverted some edits? Especially for the SDG articles I find people sometimes add information that is non encyclopedic in nature. I can explain further if you give me some examples. - Please also don't forget to sign on talk pages with the four tildes: ~~~~ to produce a signature such as this one: EMsmile (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Natural disaster

Hi ... you are right, I should not have changed the wording of a quotation from another source. I did not notice the origin when I changed "in the event" to "if". Usually, "if" is a better and shorter way of expressing the wordy "in the event that", but in this case should have been left alone. Thanks for noticing it. Cheers. Friothaire (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Friothaire. Let's continue this conversation about this and other improvements on the talk page of natural disaster. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Check out my new article

Hi Elizabeth,

How are you doing?

I noticed Climate of Nigeria did not have it's own article rather a redirect link to Geography of Nigeria. I looked through the edit summmary and talk page of 'Geography of Nigeria' article and it was created sometime way back in 2012 (I guess) and was joined because of lack of citations/data. I believe there are more content on the climate of Nigeria and worked on creating one in a draft and I am done. Draft:Climate of Nigeria

I wanted to seperate them like Climate of the United States and Geography of the United States. However, I noticed the 'Geography of Nigeria' was a B article and removing content from it might reduce it's quality so I decided not to.

Would appreciate if you could go through the draft as you are more experienced and let me know what you think.

Many thanks,

Prithee P (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S I didn't forget to sign out this time. Prithee P (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Climate of Nigeria to Geography of Nigeria and I don't know how to redirect it to the draft article. Would appreciate if you know how Prithee P (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Prithee P, I've written on the talk page here to ask for feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimate_of_Nigeria#Draft_article_(July_2022). I think you need to add more inline citations for it, especially in the first half of the article. I don't think that you can change the redirect to a draft article. But in general, redirects are easy to change in the source editor. By the way, have you seen this one: climate change in Nigeria? I would find that one even more exciting to work on than climate in Nigeria. EMsmile (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to respond and always been available. Would definitely add more citations like you advised.

I was also the editor that started the climate change in Nigeria article in 2020 and i think some aspects needs updating. Thanks for bringing it to my notice,

Many thanks, Prithee P (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodLeap

Hi EMsmile, back in February you were quite helpful with my edit request for GoodLeap. I have a new edit request recently posted at Talk:GoodLeap#Update company numbers and add two awards. I would so much appreciate if you could take the time to implement the request, or at least tell me which of those edits you think I could make directly, since I believe they are non-controversial, so maybe you do, too. Thanks so much. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, JesseGoodLeap, OK, done, written on the talk page there. EMsmile (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to know about long term and short tem rain fall priduction of gujrat in india

I can't speak English very wel but I can talk slowly in English So we can talk 2405:205:C868:C488:6F4:EE43:2D25:F058 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Try Climate change in India as a starting point... EMsmile (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Your edit to Water security has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, please let me know which sentences you objected to in this edit? I have been very careful to either use quotation marks or to paraphrase & summarise when I take content from publications that are not open access. If you tell me what the content was (send me an e-mail if necessary, please), I can improve it. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

YGM — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. So it was those sentences about the “trans-boundary hydrologic legacy". I had already tried to paraphrase that content but will have to try harder & try again. EMsmile (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Explaining reverts

I see you've taken a more active role reverting poor edits on climate change. Really appreciate the extra pair of eyes! I noticed you did not provide an explanation in the last two instances however ([1], [2]). Per Wikipedia:REVEXP, an explanation is best practice. It can be just one or two words (like "too detailed"), or a short sentence external links should not be placed in the body. I know you're passionate about helping new editors, and giving them a bit of guidance on why their contributions didn't stay is important for that :). Femke (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Femke, thanks, and true, I only wrote "reverted good faith edits by new user", should have said more. I've tried to get in touch with the organisers of this event (the editor had mentioned #CfACP in their edit summary). Turns out it's this event: Code for Africa Climate Change Project - Meta (wikimedia.org) (I found out through the Telegram group Wikimedians for Sustainable Development). I think it's important that the organisers explain to their participants that the main climate change article has a different status than all the sub-articles. Any edits to there should really be discussed on the talk page first. EMsmile (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Great you found the group. I did an unsuccesful search myself.

I think it's important we don't treat climate change as too different from other articles. There is an informal agreement with the core group non-trivial changes to the lead should get prior consensus, but overall, WP:BEBOLD is still the guiding policy. WP:FAOWN just says it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Discussing too much on talk can lead to a status-quo bias, and perhaps a bit of fatigue among the regulars. Femke (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, point taken. :-) EMsmile (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Granting confirmation to other accounts

Hello, EMsmile. I noticed that you have recently begun adding users to the confirmed user group (AquariusTom, Richarit). You have the technical ability to do so due to your membership of the eventcoordinator group. However, as the name of the group suggests, it is meant to facilitate your role co-ordinating outreach programmes on Wikipedia. Grants of confirmed should not be made for users that are not participating in such events.

There are usage standards here: among other things, you should not grant the user group indefinitely. If you feel that a non-event participant should be given access to semi-protected pages, you should carry out an edit requested by them or ask them to request access and allow administrators to decide. Further inappropriate use of your access may unfortunately lead to revocation of access. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz, thank you for your notice and I apologise for my mistake. I don't normally add any users to that user group (these were the only two I have added since I got the permission to do so about two years ago). I was hoping it would be OK that I add them because this is part of this project, and I felt that I could judge them to be "safe/good". I thought one could say this is an "event" as well, just a very long one (two years). But I guess "events" only applies for short time periods. Also, I was confused about the time limit versus "indefinitely". I wasn't sure if by setting a time limit these users will automatically be set back when the time limit is reached, or not, depending on their edits. So there was a bit of confusion on my end. Thank you for linking more to the standards page, I'll read that and learn. EMsmile (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This is very much delayed – my apologies. This seems to me like a bit of a grey area, but I would say that it's advisable not to use your tools for this project, due to its relatively open-ended nature in comparison to most outreach programmes that last a day or maybe reach a week or two at most. As for what happens when the time limit is reached, if they don't have the ten edits and four days of tenure, they'll revert as before. If they do, nothing will change from their perspective. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz, thanks for your reply. I am just wondering what you would be scared of: that I give lots of people editing permission who then turn out to be vandals? Given my track record on Wikipedia don't you think this is highly unlikely? In any case, I don't think it would happen often that I would feel the need to give someone the autoconfirmed status. So far it's only been 2 people and I am not planning to do any more, given your warning/advice. However, I am wondering: if I did like to get the kind of status where I could give people the autoconfirmed status (even outside of a week-long event), then what would I have to do? Would I have to try to get admin status or is there also a level below that (i.e. in between normal editor and admin). If admin is the way to go, do you think I'd have any chance of getting that? I've also read WP:CANDIDATE but I don't want to waste my time applying if it would be quite clear from the outset that I wouldn't qualify. EMsmile (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Excellent work on Ocean temperature, bringing together a thorough package of information in short order. BD2412 T 04:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:BD2412 your note means a lot to me and made my week! And I have to say: you helped us enormously here in the process as the discussion about "redirect to where, disambiguation page or new article" had become stuck, and you managed to cut through the knot! - I'm planning to do more work on the Ocean temperature soon and hope that others who are more knowledgeable on the topic than me, will also help. EMsmile (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Your edits to Climate change mitigation and Climate engineering have been removed in whole or in part, as it appears you added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This is your fourth warning. Please stop adding copyright material to Wikipedia, or you risk being blocked from editing. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, you can see from my work that I always do my best to avoid copyright infringement (and that I fix it straight away if it gets pointed out to me). Therefore, I find it a bit unfair that you say now "this is your fourth warning. Please stop adding copyright material to Wikipedia, or you risk being blocked from editing". For someone like me who does so many edits (nearly 40,000 edits in total and over 5000 edits in main space in this year alone), it can happen that a copyright problem slips through. You might think some of my paraphrasing is not sufficient whereas I find it sufficient. See e.g. in this change. There is often only a limited number of ways to say the same thing! A statement such as "The global energy system is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions." is pretty much a statement along the lines of "the sky is blue". Do you want me to put it in quotation marks? Or change the order of the words to "The largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the global energy system"? (then you copyright detection tool wouldn't have picked it up?) Regarding the climate engineering article I don't even know what I am being accused of there. I am not even sure what you have removed there? The six technologies that are mentioned on Page 30 are included as a bullet point list under "overview". As far as I can see this is not a copyright violation as similar lists can also be found in other reports such as the IPCC reports. Please clarify. - Coming back to your mention of "fourth warning" so are you saying with the fifth/sixth etc. warning I will be blocked? Don't you think you also have to consider over what time period we are talking and how many thousands of edits I have made in the meantime which were all OK and helpful? I might get so scared by your stern warning that I either stop editing at all or that I put everything in quotation marks! Is that the solution? Please be reasonable and don't threaten me with blockage after 4 times of copyright infringement in 8 years of editing on Wikipedia (I am not sure when you started counting). EMsmile (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You can see here how I have now tried to address the copyright problem for content from the IPCC report in the climate change mitigation article. For some of the listing of things I could not come up with a better way than to use quotation marks around the lists. The only other option would be to find an alternative term for each of those terms - which seems very artificial. See also here: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing.". EMsmile (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Everybody who edits Wikipedia is required to follow our copyright policy, regardless of the length of their service or the number of their edits. Every single edit you make, whether large or small, has to comply with that policy. Nothing should "slip through"; you must be aware when you are copying and when you are writing original content (which is a lot harder to do, I know). If you can't think of a way to summarize the content in your own words, it's better to leave it out than to risk being blocked.

You say that you believe your paraphrasing is adequate, and that may very well be so. I would havew to see some examples. But the content I removed from these two articles was not paraphrased at all; it was copied unaltered. That's a clear violation of our copyright policy.

Using quotation marks is better than nothing, but in my opinion it's almost always possible to re-word or summarize content in your own words. Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of quotations, but rather prose written by our editors specifically for Wikipedia.

For your specific example "The global energy system is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions", the way I would do it is to find out what the term "global energy system" actually means, and substitute that. I discover it means "energy use", which currently nowadays is fossil fuels. So I would re-word it to say "As of 2022, energy use, primarily through the use of fossil fuels, is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions."

Regarding climate engineering, the bullet points are still there, and it's perfectly ok to add such lists, but I removed the descriptions of each point, which were copied unaltered from this document, page 30. Each item has a Wikipedia article; you could have copied from those articles (while providing the attribution required by the terms of our license; please see WP:CWW if you need more information on that), or youy could have written your own content.

Four warnings for copyright in eight years is four more than the vast majority of Wikipedia editors of your tenure have received. Don't think that you are immune from being blocked. This is a warning, not a threat. I want you to continue editing, but you have to do so strictly within the confines of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hayes Barnard

Hi EMsmile. This is just a gentle nudge to ask you to please have a look at a recent edit request I posted at Talk:Hayes Barnard#Early life, Career and Personal life. The edits are pretty straightforward. I would so much appreciate it if you could implement those edits, or allow me to implement them directly. Thanks so much. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)