User talk:Efbrazil

Cosmic Calendar
Hey, I was wondering if we could update the image you created for the Cosmic Calendar to use a 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Cheers. Stvltvs (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

--Efbrazil (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Fixed. Please let me know if further changes would help.

Also
Thank you for submitting your image at featured picture candidates, I can tell you spent a good amount of time on it. If you'd like to review other nominations at "FPC", please do so. Leave a note on my talk page if you ever need any help with anything. Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd like to add to what Jujutacular said by mentioning that there is Picture peer review for getting feedback on images before submission to featured picture candidates. I noticed you asked about that on your Cosmic Calendar nomination.  Unfortunately, picture peer review isn't that active, but it's still usually worth a try!  Thanks for your nomination, btw, it's pretty good work, and those "last 60 seconds" are especially cool.   Mae din\ talk 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

--Efbrazil (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Thanks for the info! I'll give the featured picture another shot shortly.

FPC nom
Just FYI, I fixed your new nomination of the Cosmic Calendar. Since you used the same title for the nom, it was placed over the old nomination (we keep those for archival purposes). I have placed the new nomination at Featured picture candidates/Cosmic Calendar 2. Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Scientific Universe
File:The Scientific Universe.png is some lovely work. (It made me think of xkcd - Purity, in case you hadn't already seen that.) The File:Cosmic Calendar.png is also fantastic.

I just wanted to note my appreciation for these graphics. I look forward to anything else you might create. :) –Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I struggled with the idea for a while. I expect when teachers are introducing science they'll start with a Google search on "science", and I wanted to help with an overview image. xkcd is good fun, hopefully posting the image for science won't result in a debate like Star Trek into Darkness...--Efbrazil (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=625839956 your edit] to Ape may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * is a word of uncertain origin. The hypothetical Proto-Germanic form is given as *apōn F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache (2002), online version, s.v. "[http://
 * the Old World monkeys about 25 million years ago, near the Oligocene-Miocene boundary. cite web|url=http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2013/05/fossils-may-pinpoint-critical-split-

Letter frequency
Efbrazil - Your addition to Letter frequency is partially incorrect. I don't know how often each of the three methods you describe is used, but the third method, using existing corpora, is the source of the "table below", and likely most of the frequency tables reported in the article. In particular, Pavel Michka's site reports that dictionary frequencies are *different*, with 't' being less frequent than 'e', which is not what the bar graph below that shows. I'm going to make some edits (and clean up some other stuff in the article), but it would be good if you could take a look, and add references for the other two methods, and possibly expand on the differences in results. Argyriou (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Argyriou! I used information in this article in a project and was finding that the letter frequencies in the chart were very different from what I was seeing in Google's list of the top 100,000 words, which led to me doing a little research and writing that edit. I updated the edit to be a bit more explicit as to when each frequency type is used.--Efbrazil (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Projected Change in Global Temperatures.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Projected Change in Global Temperatures.png
Thanks for uploading File:Projected Change in Global Temperatures.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI
Thanks for committing time to this. Change is indeed hard. Have you searched the archives of both articles for "title" and again for "Scope" ? I have gathered some of the history at this user sub page. Comments at the associated talk page (or here or at my use page) welcome. FYI, I have an alternative way forward that I think will be an easier "sell". I have learned the hard way (my own and observation of others efforts) that making a premature proposal is fatal. I'm going to start working in my user space to try to start assembling ideas and testing ideas, and you're welcome to watch my contribs anywhere, and my contribs in the user namespace for this month specifically. I might flail a bit while I get started, but the link I provided will help you figure out where I'm at if I change the name of the subpage or use more than one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

you're welcome to chime in at my userspace efforts too of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm very happy to take a step back and support you in your efforts on this if you think you have a path forward. I'm neither a senior wikipedian or a measured consensus builder like you are. I just figured me blundering around trying to get this change pulled off was better than nothing. I did start drafting the rfi, but there's nothing I wrote that you haven't already seen me say in comments. I skimmed your "partial evolution" article but I don't know if it enlightened me much. I mean, I kinda get why things evolved to be the way they are now, it's just that the way things are now makes zero sense to the outside world. Maybe you could ping me to look at stuff when you want my feedback or inputs?--Efbrazil (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, but I wouldn't sell your Wiki experience/skills short. Anyone who can advocate concisely without ending up fighting has all the worthwhile skill as anyone else, and although I know a bit about all the stupid rules, and that might  be useful, there are much better things to "write home about".  Glad you're here! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ready for ya'll to take a quick peek (Start here). Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

First, thanks! I'm very glad you're taking this on. I appreciate how you have it structured- easy for me to digest.

When you gather feedback, I hope you have a way to say "is this better than what's there today?" To that I would say absolutely yes to your proposal. On the flip side, I already see myself being happy and willing to pick it apart to death. So I'll leave it to you to figure out how to make sure this sort of feedback is constructive:
 * Typo- you say climate change redirects to climate. You meant to say climate system redirects to climate.
 * I don't like having a new article called "climate system". I think in truth that "climate system" really does mean the same thing to people as "climate". I would prefer that the new article be called either "climate forcing mechanisms" or maybe "pre-industrial climate changes", so that the scope of content is clear and different, plus it matches the surplus content from the existing "climate change" article.
 * I think ideally the main article should sit at "climate change", not "human-caused global warming and climate change" as that's too wordy and I think could cause unnecessary confusion for search engines and end users. It's the IPCC, not the IPHCGWCC. We shouldn't be pulling punches here, the term for "human-caused global warming and climate change" is "climate change". Having said all that, maybe it doesn't matter. I just wouldn't want search engines getting confused.
 * Merging climate change and global warming I'm happy with, although others might not be since the terms do not strictly mean the same thing. It might be less controversial to have global warming point towards a disambiguation page that points either towards "climate change" or an article that talks in more detail about about the history of the term and how the area of study came to be renamed "climate change". The advantage of disambiguation as an approach is that it provides a relief valve for people that want to document how the terms differ. Having said all that, I'm really happy either way.--Efbrazil (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it and taking time to comment! For anyone else late the game, you're welcome to do the same. At that stage of development, I'm not working on a proposal getting it read to present.  The text I'm writing will be part of the proposal, which I have not yet made, so pile on with the feedback!
 * (1) Typo fixed
 * (2) "Climate system" is a top level concept at IPCC. Note their quote that we have used in lead paragraph 1 at Global warming since AR4 Warming of the climate system is unequivocal...  So I'll thank you for opining and its one of those things that might be best addressed when the whole thing is put together.
 * (3 and 4) Having been around for rescoping/titling discussions, even launched a proposal or two, my read on reality is that "climate change" will never become home to the content at "global warming". If we were starting from scratch that might make sense. You can certainly root for that suggestion as an alternative, now, or later.  In article space alone there are close to 5000 pages linking to Climate change.  That's just article pages.  Cleanup for my proposal will be huge, very huge.  If I understand your alternative its much more complicated and involves simultaneously untanglihg "WHAT LINKS HERE" for both phrases.  I'm certain other eds will want to know how you plan to do this for two reasons. First because I want to. Second, because I was on the receiving end of others' comments like this one when I proposed similar reforms before.  So by all means!  Please scratch your head a bit on how that would work.
 * (3 and 4 - More) But I do like your idea of a redir to a disambig page.  Thinking about my version of a reform, climate change should not point to "human caused GW and CC" as I first suggested. Instead it would need to point to a disambig page, since going forward sometimes people will write "climate change" and they will mean it in the generic sense, rather than the current humandriven warming sense.
 * Thanks for comments, keep 'em coming, if you think of any! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding "climate system", my point is that even if the idea of "climate" and "climate system" are clearly separate in your mind, I don't think that'll be true for others, so it'll be very hard to keep the articles separate. That means the articles will be likely to overlap and turn into a mush, and people won't know which article to refer to or click on. If you really want "climate system", maybe it should be a section in the "climate" article itself, that should resolve some of the issues with linking and with keeping the articles from overlapping, since they'd be together.
 * You took my idea for disambiguation in the opposite direction I hoped you would :) Disambiguation for "climate change" I'm opposed to, I think that'll mess up search engines and the vast majority of people visiting wikipedia. If anything, we could have a sentence at the beginning of the new climate change article telling people where to go instead if they want to learn about pre-industrial climate changes. I'd only want disambiguation on the "global warming" article.Efbrazil (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize you want to rehabilitate "climate change" so that it becomes the home of current content at global warming. I will gladly entertain fully-developed proposal(s) how to achieve such a change, with lots of thinking how to propagate the change through the rest of our pages.   But I'm not going to invest a lick of energy trying to develope such a proposal.  You haven't yet tried to do this heavy lift via RFC and the usual resulting tumult, so I understand you still have hope that this is a possibility. And maybe it is.  But I've been there, and believe there is one-and-only one compromise that can potentially win a WP:Consensus and that's to put both terms in a single article title (Human-caused global warming and climate change.   That is the #1 thing I want to accomplish.  All the rest, is detail.  Out of all the  many details, the whopping big one is "what happens to the 'climate change' article title and what happens to the current content at that page?  Speaking of, you are quite correct that there is are rising sea levels of overlap between our articles.  All along it has been my plan to keep working at untangling much of this.... currently I am trying to merge Climate state to Greenhouse and icehouse earth.  I don't plan to launch my proposal until much of the overlap is cured or proposals for curing it are part of the proposal.  I could be wasting my time, of course, but at least untangling the overlap is a worthy goal in its own right.  If you choose to develope a competing proposal then bless yoy my... uh... son?  Daughter?  Other?   The more thoughtful ideas for improvement the better!  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not looking to compete with your proposal, just improve it :) I think you're right that an article merge between global warming and climate change is a good thing. I'm happy to see how your proposal plays out and I'll do my best to back you up as you attempt the merge. In the mean time I'll continue fiddling with upgrades to the global warming article to keep myself out of trouble. Let me know when you think I could be of use going forward.Efbrazil (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK great and thanks... And BTW, if you do decide to run with a Plan B I would not see it as evil competition but the best sort that helps get the best possible consensus.  So here is a standing invite to change your mind (and this isn't permission obviously just a promise of taking no offense.)  Meanwhile, any input on the new draft text for "climate system", or thoughts on the merge I mentioned above?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have time, please consider calling other articles with large overlap to my attention. The partial list is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like your proposal hasn't been moving forward, meanwhile there was that kinda half assed proposal for "Climate Change (Historic)". What's the status of your effort?Efbrazil (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From conception, I thought of it has a 24 month process, and to reiterate.... the best way to implement it is to work in the sub articles. (A) Purge the accumulated crap and badly cited primary sources (B) Sort out the overlap  (C) Update.  That process is underway via the first of two likely merges, see merge templates at top of Tipping point (climatology) and Runaway climate change.    Working in the sub articles is time consuming.  The easy part is purging crap and identifying obvious redundancy.  The hard part is assembling, reading, understanding, intergrating reliable sources and only then trying to write text.  I'm doing a lot of that work out of Wiki view right now.  After those two merges are done, it will be time to repeat the process with some of our other sub articles that overlap with the climate system big picture.  At the end of that process, we'll be able to step back and see that climate system (new article) is a small step in well-organized structure, instead of an enormous leap that would be lost in the current clutter.  And once we get to that point, there will be a huge pile of sweat work and accomplishment on which to stand as we call an RFC for a mega change.   Trying to do that right now?  No thanks.   We'll spend weeks hashing the same hash and at best a crummy bandaid will be forced through but there won't be anyone sticking around to do the heavy lifting to implement it.   So this is another reason why doing all the grunt work before the proposal is the best way to eventually make the proposal.  If you want to try something else, don't worry about offending me!  But I'm sticking to my certainty that the best way to improve the overall climate pages is to work from the bottom up for the time being.  A list of overlap articles is in that sandbox page I already shared with you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How long until you propose having the "climate change" topic point to the global warming article, or at least to a disambiguation page between the two articles (climate system vs climate change / global warming)? I mean, that's the key pivot point I'm interested in. I totally understand and agree with laying the groundwork correctly, but I'm hoping that time frame for rolling out your proposal is more like a month from now, not a year from now. Your 24 month overall time frame is concerning to me because I think what's there now is very broken and 2 years sounds like forever. I don't want to propose something half assed that's not likely to happen and will waste everyone's time. If you are looking at something that'll take longer than 2 months to flip the switch on, is there something I could do that's an intermediate step and you would support?Efbrazil (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you study my plan it involves four major time investments. (A) The cleanup I have already described (B) Bringing the new article to a very high standard before going live (C) RFC talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk-talk and finally, if consensus is to make the change, (D) a truckload of link verification and updating.  I am vastly more interested in doing a good job executing (A) before working on (B) and then working on (B) before getting sucked into (C).  This is not just a time and emotion management issue, but a thought-out strategy.  It might be pigheaded or insightful, but either way it's intentional. I don't see much hope for my plan until after (A) and (B) are both behind us.  That will make a proposal look serious, will prove rather than promise there is editing chops to execute it, and sell the argument by actually showing the product instead of speaking an opinion.  You may figure out a slicker faster something, but I'm not that smart.  The only way I know to make any change is to actually MAKE the change in A, and then B until we go live with Climate system (new article).  Its my belief that the proposal will then strike most people as a small nobrainer step...... and the #1 reason it will seem that way is that the most of the work will already be done .  If nothing else happens, that is still a success, so that's where I'm going to be working.   I would lllllooooovvvvveeee to have your help!  Femikemilene has already pitched in on the proposed mergers now on the table.  There is a list of other overlapping articles to tackle on my sandbox page, as I mention4ed.  Jump in anywhere you like!  I have to keep up with my personal life and obligations too, and since a lot of my current work is offwiki it may seem like I'm gone, but I'm not.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll give a try at helping you out with this process, but I'm confused as to where to start, can you give me a link to start with plus an assignment?--Efbrazil (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome, you bet. Please look at Tipping point (climatology) and compare to Runaway climate change.   has already done a good bit of clean up on those, in preparation of merging.  I'm not sure which article is best to point at the other right now.   Could you think about completing the merge please?  I have a large project in real life to do then I will resume RS reseaerch for the other merge that is under way (see Climate state) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Speaking of other merges, see also Runaway greenhouse effect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that's really a different topic - Runaway greenhouse effect is an astronomical term that refers to what happened on Venus and other planets where the oceans boil away. Climate change tipping points is really about the Earth switching between states in the past and present, and there's zero risk of a runaway greenhouse effect here, at least for several million years.Efbrazil (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good comment. I think they are parts of the same thing, here's why.  In both cases you start with a forcing... most likely an "external forcing" rather than a forcing from "internal variation".   Once the forcing takes place, [{Earth's energy budget]] is kicked in a positive or negative direction.   In response Climate change cascades through the system in a complex feedback-feedback series of responses.  If it's your planet then you hope pray that at some point the net response brings Earth's energy budget back to neutral.  That would mean a changed climate but at least a stable one.  So far so good.  But what is the very first nanonsecond of Runaway greenhouse effect?  Its that first nanosecond when the net climate change feedback is so positive that Earth's energy budget is no longer able to return to neutral. There's nothing magical or special or different about the climate change feedback that does this.  Its just the effect of the total sum of all the climate change feedbacks we are familiar with (and maybe those we have yet to discover).   Once warming climate change feedback is SO GREAT compared to cooling feedbacks that the energy budget is locked in a positive state, that's when RGE starts.  These are the same topics, it just adds the wrinkle "Is stabilization still possible or did we pass that point?"  Otherwise, its the same thing.  The RGE article has a lot of detail about this on Venus, and studying it on Venus, which should maybe move to the Venus page.  The concept itself is part of the story of climate change feedback, earth's energy budget, and the ultimate tipping point beyond which there is no return (save drastic geoengineering).  That's why I think it should be part of end target we're shooting at. Remember that the other merge I'm working on is Greenhouse and icehouse earth.  Those related alternating climate states are part of this too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see it either way. It's not straight forward like merging "runaway climate change" with "Tipping point (climatology)" was. The overlap between the two articles is fairly small- one is talking really about Earth bouncing around inside the habitable zone, the other is talking about planets exiting the habitable zone entirely.
 * To move things forward, I put out a proposal to split out climate change "causes" into a separate article on the Talk:Climate change page. Please let me know if I did that the right way to draw people in for a consensus vote, it's not clear to me how that's done. If approved, I think the change will assist with the goal of merging Global warming and Climate change by removing the contentious and unique content from the Climate change article.Efbrazil (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Elsewhere, you reasonably asked "do you know why Talk:Climate change isn't drawing comments?" When I saw it I groaned. I can't read others' minds and can't separate out the background context of our various coversations, where you've expressed very urgent impatience over the way we defined the scope under Global warming and Climate change. There was just another round of bitter debate about this, which went no where, and everyone who said more than 20 words have been through it before. This is just a guess, but maybe people see it as an incomplete proposal whose real goal is some sort of big picture change, and everyone is weary? Beats me. But that's how I saw it and why I groaned. Anyway, instead of saying anything, I've started editing the article. I'm also juggling three other things at the same time so editing is spotty. Wikipedia is not an emergency! Enjoy your weekend, look in again in a few day. Anyway, that's my thought. Your mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I intended to spend a couple years working on a great draft in my sandbox, but what the hell? I think we should take the "causes" and "effects/evidence" sections content and repackage it all in sections focused on the climate system's components and how they interact.  Far too much of the article seems weighted towards arguing with deniers about ACC/AGW. Should that content get exported to a stand alone about forcings?  I'm not sure.  First let's see what we can do repackaging it to be about the INTERACTIONS of the system components.  I'm not entirely sure what that outline should look like... that's one of the reasons I wanted to wait and do sweatwork while mulling over the details.  But now that the beehive has been kicked over.... if you get ideas, have at it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the splitting proposal as a clear step forward, it's as full-ass as I could make it. If you read the rest of the Climate change article that isn't the "Causes" section, it really is focused on modern climate change, so just removing the Causes section defuses a lot of the denial I think. Even the "Terminology" section says very clearly that climate change is modern climate change, not historic. Ideally the next step would be merging with Global Warming, but it can also happen by just moving appropriate sections from Global Warming to Climate Change so that Global Warming is really about the history of the word and about global temperature change, nothing more.--Efbrazil (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Filling out the Climate Change article
OK, so the climate change article split happened as Femikemilene suggested. The remaining climate change article is really "stub" status. Next up is fixing the climate change article to match the definition of climate change given in both climate change and global warming articles already, which is that climate change is "global warming plus its effects".

So next up is pulling the trigger on a proposed merge of the "global warming" and "climate change" articles. I'm happy to make that proposal or NewsAndEventsGuy can and I'll support his effort. I do think it needs to happen very soon, while the article is clearly in need of content.

An alternate approach is to make a bunch of edits instead. The end goal of that would be to have "Global Warming" be the place where we talk about terminology and really dwell on recent global temperature change, then move over the other content.

I can take either approach this week, so let me know your thoughts today hopefully. Efbrazil (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ack.  I know you're on an emergency campaign to "fix" the "global warming" and "climate change" articles, and I realize you don't like my long weary sweat and callouses approach of fixing the sub articles first.   But that's a lousy reason to rush through a CONSPLIT to get it done, before there is a consensus about HOW to get it done.  So  I reverted.   Also since the real issue for you is fixing those articles, we should really be talking about all this at those articles.  I have added an explaination for the revert and some specific questions/possible problems at talk:climate change  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I totally get it if you want to do clean up on the edit, but reversion was really uncalled for- this split had general support by many users and no opposition except you, yet it moved things very far along towards what you say you want. Fiddling around in rarely read sub articles for months at a time is not a solution to the top level being hopelessly broken, and blocking edits directed at fixing the issue means you are making yourself part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Efbrazil (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the wise advice at WP:Closing discussions and WP:Splitting.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did follow the splitting advice. Closing process isn't necessary unless there is opposition that needs to be resolved. You are the only opposition to this change. So are you intent on throwing up more static or can you make the edit? I'm not interested in fighting you on something everyone else agrees on. You can drive everyone out of wikipedia and keep the climate change article broken if that's what you want. --Efbrazil (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary table for Renaming Climate change article
Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for user page
When I tag people, I usually misspell their names at first because spelling is difficult. When users have a user name, an existing name shows up blue, and spelling mistakes are easily remedied. Would you consider making a user page for yourself? Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. I really went all out on the text too.Efbrazil (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Colour blindness
I was wondering whether you could avoid using green and red together in a graph, if you can avoid it. The most common type of colour blindness leads people to not see the difference between those two colours. Specifically, somebody indicated on the climate page they couldn't see the difference in the 'global temperature and forces' graph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll look to make changes there. --Efbrazil (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at the image in gray scale and the lines are clearly distinguishable- the natural drivers are much lighter gray than the human drivers, so I think it should be distinguishable to color blind folks. The only other option that I can think of is changing lines to be dashes and dots. Thought? --Efbrazil (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The simplest solution is just replacing the green line with a light blue line. It keeps the distinction for rarer forms of colour blindness in dark/light, but makes it easier to write an accessible caption where the lines are referred to by there colour. Apparently (TIL), around 8% of Western males have this form of colour blindness. As there are a lot of versions of colour blindness, this simulator might be interesting: https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A colorblind viewer can see the graphics just fine if the grayscale differs. The caption can talk about natural or human influences instead of talking about color, as it does today. I would rather not change away from green as it is the most obvious color for "natural". I think what you're describing here is a solution where there is no problem. Go ahead and look at the page in grayscale- it works just fine. Efbrazil (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the aforementioned "somebody"; I changed a caption from "human activity (red line), with natural forces (green line)" to "human activity (green line), with natural forces (red line)". Right now, we have a black line, a green line, and a red line.  Why not make the green rather dark and the red rather light?  That way, we'll have a dark line at the bottom and a light line that parallels the black.  That way, we could say "dark line at the bottom" and "light line paralleling black".  Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! No problem, done, let me know if happy. I don't think it adds value to talk about colors in the caption though- that's why there's a legend in the picture- best to keep the caption short and focused on the meaning of the picture. Efbrazil (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't think they need to be mentioned at all, that's fine too :-) I just wandered into this situation by accident and probably won't return, or at least won't return for a good while. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail
Hi - I sent you an email request about gallery images

CC
You may want to strike through the argument CC is more neutral, as that is a weak point (judged by people that reply and previous disagreements). It distracts from the most important point: CC is the common name, and allows people to read the wrong motives in your proposal, confusing you for a bit of a skeptic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll second that NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. Climate change is the term used in the scientific community by a ratio of more than 12:1 according to Google, while global warming is considered to be a more alarmist term that is primarily relegated to the popular media. If our focus is on the science, climate change is clearly the word we want to focus on. Removing "global warming" from the title increases the likelihood people will approach the article with an open mind and that the content will be more scientifically grounded. I'm certainly open to persuasion though. For instance, if NewsAndEventsGuy will withdraw opposition to the change I'm happy to rewrite things however he wants :) Efbrazil (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , haha, I don't think NEAG can be convinced that easily. It's your call. I think focussing on accurate (scientific community uses it), and common (used more than GW) are stronger arguments than subjective notions about what would be more neutral. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that everyone is right, provided they understand that everyone else is right too. But everyone is wrong if they think their side is right and other side is wrong.  That's because there is the technical (correct) meaning and the common speech (equally correct meaning).  And the one-and-only way to write a 100% neutral and comprehensive article is to address these two equally correct mutually exclusive meanings in a way that confronts the paradox head on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "'GW' is alarmist" perception is outside WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and shouldn't be raised any more than the "George-W.-Bush's-administration-switched-to-'CC'" argument should be used to argue in favor of "GW". They're both exogenous/external politics, not objective WP criteria, and is the source of no small amount of diverting argumentation in the current renaming discussion. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * RCraig09 Yeah, in retrospect I should have left that out, it just muddies the waters by raising the question of which term is "better" instead of putting the focus on common usage. I don't think this rename is going to go through since support and opposition is tied at 10 each. If I had 2/3rds support I'd feel more confident pushing for the rename to happen over opposition (sound like the right threshold?) I think I will try again in a few months using the lessons learned from this time. Most importantly, we need to debunk the idea that "climate change" is an ambiguous term that often refers to stuff other than modern, anthropogenic climate change. Efbrazil (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And NewsAndEventsGuy, your holding out for "GW&CC" amounts in practice to a !vote for retaining "GW", which almost nobody wants (see chart). —RCraig09 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, please put forward your rename proposal in the next month after I pull this one. If your rename idea doesn't go through, please stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Efbrazil (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused.... if you want to pull the current one go for it. For some reason I thought we weren't going to try this again until after FAR, and then I got preoccupied with RTG and the CBAN that just passed at ANI.   So its taken me awhile to assemble and format my thoughts.  I'm glad for the motivation to get that job done, and its well underway and I will keep working on it, but I don't need to post it now....  if you want to withdraw the current discussion and try again later, please do.   Or maybe you mean pull the current one and make way for me to take lead next time with my alternative Idea.  either way is fine by me.  On the other hand, if the current proposal stays up, my goal is to add my thoughts, not to be a jerk or annoying but just becaue I think it would be a better outcome, for reasons I'm still assembling. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cut & paste moves
You didn't read my edit comment? You didn't follow the link? No wonder you are confused. However, before you do anything else, I suggest reading WP:BRD, that's bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-start edit war. I suggest you reverse your second cut/n/paste move and then start again.

1. Cut and paste moves. Succinctly, you have created a new article which appears to have been written entirely by you in one fell swoop. It was not, so this is at best plagiarism. It was written by many editors over many years, then tweaked slightly by you. Put it back and start again. Pages can be renamed (called a moved, but no mind) in a way that takes their history with them and is documented in the history as a move instead of the whole article appearing as if by magic. Normally, this can be done by any (auto-confirmed) editor so long as the target page does not have any substantial history. You've stomped all over that idea, so now the move must be performed by an admin (see WP:RM, but not until you've finished reading).

2. Move discussions. You claim that the move has been "approved". In what way? The normal method for "approving" a page move is a move discussion (again see WP:RM). This does not appear to have taken place, but maybe I just missed it. Informal move discussions can also be done, but again I find no sign of this. Lastly, you could just boldly move the page (properly, don't just paste it over the new name! )and see if anyone objects. If someone objects, discuss. Your first reaction to having one of your edits reverted should *never* be to just make the edit again. Even once, this is called an edit war and is the first step (the only step in egregious cases) towards getting banned from Wikipedia. If you start a formal move discussion, it will most likely be closed by an admin after a week or so and the page will be moved properly, assuming that is the consensus. You can shortcut this step, if consensus has already been found or is obvious, by making an "uncontroversial, technical" requested move, which an admin will perform usually within 24 hours.

Lithopsian (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "move" was done following the move of a grandparent article (global warming to climate change), so a bold move would have been fine. FYI, I have requested an admin to fix it at WP:RM. I think I also messed up a bit by moving the talk page, not seeing that Efbrazil had already done the cutnpaste move. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You should be able to move back the talk page, since the creation of the redirect will be the only history. The admin will then move both at the same time.  Or leave it and explain, but I worry that bots will rush in and try to "sync" things, or that admins will look dubiously on things that have been messed about a lot.  It would be a good idea to link to any discussions that have taken place to make it obvious and easy to see for the admin.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the help here. I added link to recently closed move at WP:RM and moved the page back. There are 3 other moves done like this it seems. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I reverted the other copy paste moves, sorry for doing this the wrong way. If you have a link to guidance on how to do a page swap I'd appreciate it (these are not page "moves" really, just swaps).Efbrazil (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  A move request has been made for the page.  Keep your eyes open.  Go to Talk:Climate_change to see a formal move discussion, which was closed by an admin who then did the move.  Go to WP:RM to see a "technical" move request.  Note that this will disappear when the admin performs the move, although it can still be seen in the history.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So that's moves done by an admin. In many cases, you can do it yourself.  Look at the top of any page (or the side, depending on theme).  There is a more menu, with a move entry on it.  Do that.  You need some permissions, but you probably have them.  If the new page title already exists, and it has a non-trivial history of edits, then you won't be able to do the move and will have to go to an admin.  You can usually overwrite a redirect to the page being moved.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I feel stupid for having created this mess. I tried moving a couple pages with the "move" command but I keep getting this error back: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." That seems wrong, since the target pages only contain redirect text. Maybe my botched moves earlier (that I already undid) messed things up by creating history. Should I just resubmit all these move requests as technical move requests? Efbrazil (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that the best option here. Some of the climate change articles of course also move projected, so only the admins for that anyway. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, once you mess with an article, you create a history so the simplest style of move isn't allowed any more. I noticed one of these redirects has been tagged by another editor for a "maintenance" speedy deletion.  This is another way of getting rid of the redirect to allow a move.  An admin will (should) delete the redirect, but keep an eye on it because you might have to do the actual move yourself.  Lithopsian (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

bold, revert, discuss
Hello. I notice is causing me a bit of stress if we don't follow bold, revert, discuss. The article is too difficult and too busy to follow discussions properly via edit summaries. Could we agree to not re-revert unless somebody is making a clear and controversial mistake? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although the ideal is no reversions at all, instead improving upon what the other person added to address any concerns. But yeah, taking disagreements to the talk page makes sense in general. I pulled the cloud study for now and will discuss that one with you there. Efbrazil (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks great. I try to avoid reversions if I have the time, but when I see additions that I feel insert non-neutrality into the article (usually unintentionally), or mistakes that are not easy to fix I typically revert. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review
I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

friendly reminder
Friendly reminder that one source often provides citation for multiple sentences. In the edits you did yesterday about the free rider problem, you removed the two citations about the freeride problem from the introductory sentence. The free rider problem is described in one of the air pollution sources, and the trade source. I'll fix it later, trying to preserve the spirit of your edits. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

NASA temperatures are out
If you have the time, would you be able and willing to update a new figure of global temperatures (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Change_in_Average_Temperature.svg)? This year, we can use the default 30 year baseline! Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do Efbrazil (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, with a couple tweaks- I added Fahrenheit, and I changed the baseline to 1961- 1970. Interested in your opinion on the baseline shift. I went with 1961-1970 because it's right before recent warming really kicked off, and as a 10 year window it nicely matches our current window of 2011-2020, and I figure early data from the 1950's might have a few more errors than data after 1960, and because 50 years is more elegant than 60 years. I could also shift to "last 60 years of warming" and baseline to 1951-1960, or stick to 50 years and use the wide baseline of 1951-1980, or something else. Thoughts? Efbrazil (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon the intrusion, but... possibly, shorter baselines may lead to perceptions of cherry picking for dramatization purposes. In a different context, NASA GISS uses 1951-1980 (see NASA source in this paragraph). See also, the different baselines for different organizations' datasets in five sources at File:20200324 Global average temperature - NASA-GISS HadCrut NOAA Japan BerkeleyE.svg. Just observations, not suggestions. Whatever you decide, you should update the "Structure data" in your file description page if the reference period is different. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Craig! Good find on NASA using 1951 - 1980. That probably makes more sense then. Annoying to have to change it again, but oh well. Efbrazil (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant :). I agree on the longer baseline. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI: I just ran across the following MeteoSwiss article that shows WMO's favoring 30-year baseline periods for long-term studies:
 * Climate normals.

("Norms" would have been a better term than "normals". :-) — RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Interview request
Hello, Efbrazil!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “Climate change” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure Dalorleon, either way works. Either specify your email and I'll contact you, or ask away right here.


 * Hello, Efbrazil!
 * Thanks so much for agreeing to speak with me. I've posted my questions below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them. You can post your replies right here or send them to danielleonard@college.harvard.edu.


 * 1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “Climate change” Wikipedia article?
 * 2) When adding content to the “Climate change” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?
 * 3) When removing content from the “Climate change” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?
 * 4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)
 * 5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?
 * 6) Has adding or deleting content from the “Climate change” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?
 * 7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?


 * Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.
 * Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) I made my first few edits in the early 2000’s, but didn’t really get into it until after quitting my job working for Microsoft in 2011. I started editing the Climate Change article in January of 2019. Most of the graphics on the climate change page are my work. That’s how I started making contributions- seeing the really bad state of the graphics on that page and reworking all of them. My skill set is good for that- I’m a visual thinker who knows about localization and accessibility and visual file formats and how to use Office to render data.
 * 2) For importance, I rely on listening to and reading a wide range of sources, including denial sites like National Review and alarmist content put forward by liberal media. I find that’s the best way to figure out the dialogue around the issue and to know what we need to address. There’s also a lot of judgment involved with what to promote. For instance, I try to keep the focus on the impact on the natural world, because ecosystems are more fragile and cannot be reconstructed like the human world can. For reliability, I try to side towards data from NASA / national climate assessment / us government sites or from the IPCC reports or from agencies like the world health organization- all those places have lots of people second guessing them and generally aren’t looking to attract attention (like the press or academics can).
 * 3) Content that’s alarmist or repetitive or ideological I try to purge. I also look for content that seems really forced, like there was a thing about how clean energy empowers women, and it used really tortured liberal reasoning to get there that didn’t make rational sense, so I cut that. I’ll also look for balance, so that if somebody has a pet issue and all they want to talk about is geoengineering, I’ll look to turn 4 sentences on the topic into 1 sentence.
 * 4) When there’s conflict we fall back on process. I led the effort to rename the article from “global warming” to “climate change” this past summer, and that required a lot of policy / guideline work to make the case clearly. In general, I find that the underlying ethos of consensus driven decision making is most helpful. We have lots of good people editing the page.
 * 5) They are helpful when there’s conflict. You can definitely forge your own path, provided you can achieve consensus (or pick a page nobody is looking at).
 * 6) Typically arguments are about content and don’t get personalized. If you can avoid personalizing an argument then it gets resolved pretty easily through standard process. One guy frustrated me because he kept flip flopping and then getting very anal about specifics without seeing the big picture (I thought). Fortunately, he kind of lost interest and disappeared. Sometimes winning an argument is just a matter of persistence over time. Again, we are lucky that the people on the climate change page are all good editors as a rule.
 * 7) I identify mostly as a graphics editor who believes in clarity and condensing information to make it as clear as possible. When I edit the text of the page, it is almost always to try and reorganize it to improve clarity. If some nonsense claim is wedged into a sentence way down in the article I think it’s less of a problem than if the intro is failing to correct a common misconception.

Feel free to include my quotes and username and so forth- no secrets here. Efbrazil (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your response, Efbrazil! I really appreciate your thorough answers. I'll let you know if I have any follow-up questions. For now, I wish you the best of luck! --Dalorleon (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Climate variability and change
In your of Climate variability and change, you introduced a non-working :
 * , which put the article in category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I have commented out this reference. I encourage you to redo this reference correctly. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Another request for improving images
On sustainable energy, we've got two maps from Our World In Data with small-text headings and legend. Would you be able to improve those? If not, point me towards software I can do it myself with? FemkeMilene (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems weird to me that we have separate articles on "renewable energy" and "sustainable energy" that largely cover the same territory. Kind of like revisiting global warming vs climate change (technically different, but used the same way in popular culture).
 * For the graphics, I think I'd completely stop using the "people without access to energy" map and instead just use the per capita energy use map. They say kind of the same thing, and the former map is using older data. There's also the chart there on renewable energy generation in the world. I think I'd cut that as well, since it is kind of redundant with the first chart on the page coupled with this pie chart that's used on the renewable energy page and could move over and be updated: Template:Latest pie chart of world power by source
 * As for mechanics, I generate svg graphics from Powerpoint and then touch up the SVG export after the fact. Usually I try to regenerate graphics from Excel and then take that to Powerpoint and export to SVG, but for maps and and graphs where I don't have source data I find the highest resolution version and then manipulate the rasterized image in Powerpoint, you can still save as SVG from Powerpoint.
 * So those are my thoughts. Make sense? I could probably tackle making changes starting tomorrow. Efbrazil (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant :).
 * I agree that a case could be made to merge them.. Or not.. I'm not sure what my opinion is. Nuclear is maybe the big sticking point.
 * Access to (clean) energy is the prime metric for sustainable energy by the UN, and more important than energy use I believe. Important for the social aspect of sustainable energy. As there aren't any competing images for that section, it's doesn't do any harm
 * The pie chart now Sandwiches, which is not FA compliant (ugly / decreased accessibility). I think we can leave it out? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see keeping both maps then, just cleaning them up. The pie chart I think makes sense to leave in as well though, as it shows the relative usage of various sustainable energy sources. It replaces a more complicated graphic that showed the same thing but pushed the images beneath it out of the sections they belong to. I switched to the pie chart as it was slimmer and could go on the left hand side so that thumbnails could correctly align with the section they were associated with. The new location is staggered so it's not pure sandwiching and will work well on smartphone. Efbrazil (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated both maps with larger fonts. I would like to enlarge the thumbnails but that's not possible without pushing the other images down. I just used inkscape to make the edits. Happy with overall effect? Efbrazil (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. I can now understand the graphics without having to click them. With sandwiching going against the accessibility guidelines, we will have to find something. Maybe our future GA reviewer will think of some text to add, also solving the problem. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Interrupt request! Efbrazil, can you literally export Powerpoint-direct-to-SVG? (With some difficulty I can export PPTX-->PDF and import PDF-->InkscapeSVG . . . . Is my 2008 Powerpoint just too old to go direct to SVG?) — RCraig09 (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, PPT exports directly to SVG, but you will need to open up in notepad and make several changes after (use open source fonts, fix text breaks ppt inserts, make sure clipping is correct). See here. Efbrazil (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Climate Change
Regarding your edit warring, can you revert yourself? There is already a talk page discussion, which we have been discussing and which you haven't participated in: Talk:Climate_change Bogazicili (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * {u|Bogazicili} But you didn't get agreement on the talk page either. Put another way, 3 people thanked me when I reverted your initial edit on this in the intro. I'll add to the discussion on the talk page now. Efbrazil (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is edit warring from two sides here.
 * @Bogazicili, you've not yet convinced me; I've not had a chance to respond to your comment, and to check the paraphrasing of the sources, nevermind correcting the various typos you've introduced. When an edit is contested, the old text should remain until consensus is found, especially when we're talking about the lede of such an important article.
 * @Efbrazil; it would be good if you could participate in the discussion, so that we can find a text that works for all, or if we don't succeed in that, find a rough consensus for a solution.
 * You're both aware of discretionary sanctions. A delicate topic requires patience, and hopefully staying away from ANI. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I can't know if it's contested if people do not respond in talk page. I had thought the 2019 article convinced you. Bogazicili (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Patience patience :). I'm not able to respond as soon as I'd like as I'm busy with work (working in the evening a bit even..), trying to manage my back pain, and other wikiprojects. Fortunately there seems to be more response now after the team was tagged. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Efbrazil, I can't see thanks from my end I think, so not possible for me to know without you commenting on talk page. On a side note, it made me realize I was using that function wrong. Bogazicili (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation of Cosmic Calendar
Hi Efbrazil. Congratulations for this beautiful image Cosmic Calendar. I am a professor in Brazil (Pará) and would love to use this image in our program of environmental education for children. To do so the image needs to be written in portuguese and I volunteer if it please you. If you are interested please let me know. Daniloelo (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, that's great ! I'm glad you like it, it's a labor of love. There's a text free version here, maybe you can just layer text on top? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cosmic_Calendar_No_Text.png
 * If you'd rather have the powerpoint file I could give you that, just let me know. If you do create a new version, please upload it to wikipedia and link my version to it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sustainable energy
(originally posted at Talk:Sustainable energy) Hi. I am saddened to see that you removed the 7 million deaths from the lead for the fourth time in around four days, when there is currently a consensus on this Talk page to keep this information in the lead. Re-doing the same edit over and over against objections is not how we resolve disputes here. What do you see as the way forward? Are you looking for a clearer expression of consensus from a wider group of editors? Or are you planning to keep re-doing this edit regardless of consensus? Or what? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out . My concerns with this information have not been addressed by discussion so far, so this is disputed information at this point. If you want this information added, then I believe the correct way would be to go through the request for comment process: Requests for comment. We'll each succinctly state our case for why this information should and should not be in the lead, then see what fresh eyes have to say on the matter. If I can't make a convincing argument then I deserve to lose and have this text added to the page. I honestly don't understand the argument for adding this information here, so I think I should only write or contribute to the "why not" part of the RfC. Efbrazil (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. As for mentioning the SDGs in the lede, I can kind of take it or leave it. I'm thinking there are three questions that are still under dispute: 1) Should the 4 million deaths from dirty cooking fuels be included, 2) What, if anything, should be said about why climate change is a problem, and 3) What, if anything, should be said about other environmental problems of burning fossil fuels. What do you think of the way I've worded these questions? (Courtesy ping to u|Femkemilene). Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When there is no consensus (which could maybe be argued with three people), we have to go back to the status quo. Air pollution deaths have been in the lede at least since November last year, taking random diff. The onus is on you to start a RfC if you want to deviate from this and arguably the consensus. The RfC formulation is meant to be neutral description of the proposed edit, so doesn't have a 'why not' or 'why yes' part. Your reasoning for deleting it could then be the first nonvote.
 * I'm thinking of proposing a more radical rewrite of the lede following various recent improvements to the body when my back is cooporating. You could also wait for that. My proposal will put more emphasis on other environmental issues (maybe only biodiversity). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a procedural comment, while the onus is on Efbrazil to get consensus if he or she wants to change the status quo, RfCs often work best if all "sides" of a dispute work together on framing the questions. RfCs are easier when they're about how to choose sources and how to interpret content policies and guidelines. When it comes to issues where there are no real factual or POV disputes, just questions of editorial judgement for an extremely broad yet specialized topic area, we need to frame questions carefully to get the best chance of yielding creative discussion rather than drive-by polarization. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I added more info to the talk page on this, continuing that discussion is probably the best way to proceed. If the edit is redone, I'll add Template:Disputed inline to it and begin RfC instead of reverting, but I think that would be an ugly way to go about things. Efbrazil (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of just continuing to talk. I'm probably going to step back from these issues for a bit, since Femke might be coming up with a rewrite and there are more urgent issues I want to address in the rest of the article. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm also concerned about removal of this information, and there seems to have been a bit of edit war also. I see multiple reverts by Efbrazil of multiple editors regarding air pollution deaths  ., can you restore the material until we can reach a consensus in talk page or proceed to an RFC, per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Bogazicili (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Femke suggested waiting until the rewrite instead of going through the RfC. I am OK with that. If you are not, please add to the discussion on the talk page. I provided the con statement there for the RfC. I do not want information I think is misleading going back on the page without an RfC. Efbrazil (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what to do
Failed verification after failed verification... Are you trying to edit too fast? Are you getting information from other sources and mixing it up? Help me understand what's going on. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm using text almost verbatim from the source. Meanwhile, you are using the Lancet source, that is paywalled so I can't even see it. Should I start reverting all your edits? I will add quote to the sentences and put them back in. Efbrazil (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't access a source, but you are adding more information from the same source? That is really unacceptable. That's why 'agriculture' was in direct contradiction to the source. I spend a lot of time on my edits, so that they do confirm with the sources I use. For greedy publishers, alternatives such as sci-hub exist, and Wikipedia also has some deals with publishers for access you could get if you want to.
 * If this doesn't stop, I think I will have go to WP:Arbitration Enforcement, which I really don't want to, because you act as a much-needed counterweight against people doing advocacy. (and you're language / graphics skills are also to valueble to lose). FemkeMilene (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And now WP:close paraphrasing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_energy&type=revision&diff=1015501901&oldid=1015501492&diffmode=source. And those parts where you did not copy the text, your text has a different meaning (less than 10 times, compared to over ten times). FemkeMilene (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * *sigh*. Look, I said up to 10 times because over 10 times is the most extreme case. Many countries are not the most extreme cases of Egypt vs New Zealand. Up to 10 times is the most accurate reflection of the source content, not the source wording.
 * Regarding biomass, I though I was simply clarifying what you were trying to say. My understanding of the issue is that biomass burning is agriculture related, if that's incorrect then say what it is from. Better still, use sources that are not paywalled so people can read for themselves.
 * Regarding sanctions, I'll choose to ignore that for now. You go low, I'll go high, all that. Efbrazil (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a lot of the highest-quality sources are paywalled, and only open for extended confirmed Wikipedia editors like you (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/). I cannot write this article to FA level with sources like Our World in Data, which do not give the appropriate context, but zoom in on specific issues. For medical information like deaths, OWiD is not great per WP:MEDRS. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I may have been a bit too harsh yesterday. Next time you think something needs clarification, just drop me a note or put on a tag instead of guessing.
 * Do you want to have a read of the tips in WP:Close paraphrasing? If you stay to close to the source, it is most likely a copyright violation. Do you want me to rephrase or do you want to try it yourself? FemkeMilene (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @FemkeMilene Thanks for being more understanding. Exact wording vs paraphrasing is the same problem we are having on the climate change page where we are talking about reducing demand. Bogazicili wants to use original wording from sources- any paraphrasing is being vetoed- and you meanwhile are reacting to words like "carbon footprint" that you think are misleading. That's all fine, we should incorporate your concerns, and if we don't understand the concerns, we need to question them.
 * On the flip side, I think you pushed aside my concerns on sustainable energy by offering options A, B1, and B2, which are effectively identical to the wording I initially objected to. All 3 throw the 7 million number out there and point the finger directly at sustainable energy as the solution without providing any context. Do you see zero validity in my concerns with that? Why put that wording out there if you understand my concerns? The lede is what most people will read, so it is important not to plant false ideas in people's heads if they only read that. Efbrazil (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to capture the opinions of everybody in at least 1 option, as long as they are supported by reliable sources. Soysal & Soysal, not cited, also formulates it in these terms (p460-461): "in 2012 nearly three million persons worldwide died prematurely for reasons attributable to outdoor ambient air pollution (...) Energy-related human activities are main sources of ground level air pollution". I don't see the context you want to provide in the HQRS overview literature on SE. I don't want to go into too much depth of your argument, as that risks OR.
 * If people agree with your reasoning, support for A, B1, and B2 will be low. I can live with C as well, and wonder what A will become. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your comment point the finger directly at sustainable energy as the solution without providing any context. Do you see zero validity in my concerns with that? is giving me pause. I, for one, am not sure if I understand what context you want. I just added a Discussion section to Talk:Sustainable energy inviting editors to explain what additional context is needed. I would really appreciate it if you could comment there, as I do want to understand. Take care, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Clayoquot Thanks for checking in, I will add context there, although it risks repeating what I said in my "con" statement for the RfC. Efbrazil (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

, what is wrong with OWID? As far as I know, it's a WP:MEDRS source. See, for example, WP:MED Talk page archives here and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_105#cite_ref-7 here] Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 22:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not against using OWID altogether, but I believe it collects data from HQ reliable sources without being an expert in each topic they cover. Having a source like the Lancet report is preferable to me, as that is written directly by the experts. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 23:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Sustainable energy
Hello Efbrazil. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential copyright issue with your image
Note that this image might have a copyright issue if it's a screenshot per. Bogazicili (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion on the 2020 map and decided that reusing the original image was fine according to this source: http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/public-domain-maps.html
 * Please let us know if something about the original map was in fact subject to copyright, and if so what part.
 * We also decided that having the key in the image was best, so that the image would be legible on it's own without requiring a caption. I think it's a step backwards to pull the key out of the image. Efbrazil (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was an issue raised by Chipmunkdavis. You can see the discussion here (also includes the key issue) Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop/Archive/Mar_2021 Bogazicili (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was an issue raised by Chipmunkdavis. You can see the discussion here (also includes the key issue) Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop/Archive/Mar_2021 Bogazicili (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Image request for climate change
I'm trying to make sure that our climate change article is ready for the main page. One of the open issues is that we have some WP:SANDWICHING going on since you updated. I was wondering if you have ideas to make it less vertical; maybe some drivers can be omitted, or the vertical distance between gases in one category can be decreased? Thanks! FemkeMilene (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be more work, but you could make the bars vertical, like most other bar charts in that article. — RCraig09 (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I could squeeze a bit of white space out, but I think rearranging images would be a lot easier than altering that image. How about we cut the third intro image from the article (Energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and Earth's surface) and replace it with CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years as measured from ice cores? The third intro image is confusing and has always been close to being cut, and the CO2 concentration image pairs well with the short term temperature rise image. Efbrazil (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with 'switching the energy flow (GHeffect) diagram with the 800K CO2 chart. In that case, the File:CO2 Emissions by Source Since 1880.svg could be moved down a bit to make space. I favor keeping the GHeffect diagram because it instantly conveys the central principle behind global warming, one that many in the public don't really understand (some think the earth is warming because of the heat emanating from smokestacks). — RCraig09 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion for our against Efbrzils proposal, so let's continue this discussion on talk? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind coming to consensus here first, before going to the larger group. Another option is moving the schematic to "terminology", then changing the caption there to talk about how climate change is caused by a radiative imbalance that is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Would that be OK, or would that create sandwiching complaints for the top of the article? Efbrazil (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving GHeffect diagram to the 'Terminology' section would not crowd anything (for my desktop screen anyway) so long as the Table of Contents ToC is not collapsed. If the ToC is collapsed, it's crowded anyway. My main concern is that the GHeffect is be adequately emphasized pictorially for people who skim the article. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that will work. The GHeffect figure will still be in a relatively prominent place. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. I tried to update the GHeffect image caption to fit the location better. The change required a bit of left / right alignment changes to prevent stacking and sandwiching. Feel free to twiddle further as desired. Efbrazil (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Complex png --> svg conversion: How?
Happy 2022! Can you tell me which software you use to create, like, totally awesome SVG graphics like File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg from PNG originals? I can't get Inkscape's "Trace bitmap" function to work on PNGs of any complexity. I'm not asking for detailed instructions—just checking feasibility using cheapo software. Reason: I'm thinking of using this Fig. 3 and on principle would like to go SVG, but the PNG is only ~250 KB (compressible at tinypng.com to 79KB!). — RCraig09 (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Craig, happy 2022 to you too! The ideal is to get the source data and reconstruct the graph. The data is available for the climate change indicators thing you link to above. I'd load the data into Excel, then render a chart as I wish. Second choice is to trace the graph, which I've done when I can't get source data. Last choice is to paste a high resolution version of an image into powerpoint, then save that as svg after adding text and such. That's how I did the map you're asking about. Svg files can have embedded rasterized images. --Efbrazil (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks You may not have realized that the image I'm interested in ("Fig. 3") is a 2D map (click), not the simple Surface Temp graph that's the default Fig. 1 showing at the website I linked earlier. So there's no simple data to chart (was your Choice 1). Your Choice 2: Tracing is too laborious for the 50 contiguous states, so it looks like an embedded rasterized image (your Choice 3) is the remaining choice—which is uniformly frowned on among Commons dudes. (Does File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg habe embedded raster images? Cheater!) I think I'll just use the original PNG, unless I'm missing something. — RCraig09 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That source bitmap is from NASA, so nobody complains about that. You should be fine too showing stuff from the US Government. But yeah, I cheat with maps, as they are a gray area for licensing. If you want to try to do things the "right" way, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Maps_for_Wikipedia --Efbrazil (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

science class 6
unit 113.199.230.110 (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about your recent deletion of my post on the talk page
Efbrazil, pursuant to the Resolving user conduct disputes section of the Dispute Resolution page, I’m taking this initial step of asking you to stop engaging in harrasing editing on the Climate change talk page.

On March 25 you removed of my posts attempting to find a compromise position with you regarding edits to the first paragraph of the Clean energy subsection of the Climate change article. This seems to be a violation of a number of elements of Etiquette policy, including: “Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar.” Your actions went far beyond merely editing.

In working through this edit with you, I tried to find compromise, and recognized the merits of some of your positions where I saw them. I apologized when I made an edits after you had posted on the talk page. I also posted to the talk page when I did a reversion of your edits, explaining my actions. In your posts you basically reiterated your earlier statements, without responding to the concerns I expressed. In addition, you did not propose any type of compromise language to resolve our differences, but instead you reverted my edit and then reverted my talk page posts. You made no attempt to engage with me in conversation when you made reversions, but just posted cryptic remarks in the edit summary.

Please refrain from these kinds of actions. They make it much more unpleasant for me to work on this article, and require extensive time to deal with. Time that I would much prefer to spend on constructive edits to the article.


 * As others have said, I didn't delete anything you wrote, here is the edit I made on March 25th: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClimate_change&type=revision&diff=1079216409&oldid=1079019751
 * Efbrazil (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize Efbrazil for accusing you of something you did not do- When I went to respond on the talk page to your reversion of my edit, I looked for “Reverting other March 15 Edits to the Mitigation Section”, which had been the title of our discussion. I saw you had made some edits on the talk page, on March 25 and did not see that discussion listing anymore, so I assumed you had deleted the that topic/section - but I missed the edit where Chidgk1 changed the title of that discussion topic to “Energy”. I sometimes have trouble figuring out the diffs, for some reason. It was a very bad, mistaken assumption on my part, and again, I apologize. Dtetta (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries! I do plenty of things actually wrong so I have thick skin. Just glad it's not my fault this time! Efbrazil (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump
The above article has a clear WP:1RR restriction which you appear to be well over, I suggest you revert your latest edits and discuss on the talk page otherwise you may be blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Related Discretionary Sanctions Notification
 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Partial block
You have been blocked from Donald Trump for two weeks for edit warring and violating the article's 24-hour restriction, see comments here. This sanction leaves you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, including Talk:Donald Trump, but there will be no tolerance for similar disruption at other articles. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Here you say that Donald Trump is an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. You blocked Efbrazil, a user with clean block log and later acknowledged they made only two reverts. The block was normal admin action, not arbitration enforcement. Doesn't this mean that you are creating a submarine 1RR restriction outside of page restrictions (as authorised by standard DS)? If the answer is yes, what would be the point of not informing all editors at the article that there's a secret 1RR bubbling under? Politrukki (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not a secret 1RR on the article, there's a quite open and in-your-face 24-hour restriction which appears when you click "edit". It says "The following discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article: If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit". You know, a page block, from one article only, is a very mild sanction. There is still the whole of the rest of Wikipedia to edit. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Yes, I'm well aware of the BRD cycle restriction. Praxidicae claimed the article has a clear WP:1RR restriction, which is not true, because 1RR was "temporary" lifted in 2020. 1RR would be consistent with your claim not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. Perhaps you meant to say that nobody should repeat their own edit without a discussion and waiting at least 24 hours. What you're citing from the article's edit notice is a discretionary sanction. Efbrazil was not sanctioned for violating discretionary sanctions as I already said. I think a part of confusion here is due to you ambiguously referring to 24-hour restriction or article's 24-hour restriction. Politrukki (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging you again (previous ping was one day ago) since you still haven't clarified why exactly Efbrazil was blocked (you are mixing DS page restrictions with non-DS blocks – they don't blend). The wider question here is whether you are going to apply the not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours rule to all editors or is this about miscommunication. Politrukki (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Politrukki. I'll be replying later today. Sorry about the earlier ping; I did see it but didn't understand what it was for, and concluded it must have been a mistake. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC).
 * Yeah, not a mistake, understandable error. Thank you for your comments. Politrukki (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's my answer, Politrukki. The edit notice applies to all people who edit the article. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Is it that I didn't name the partial block as a discretionary sanction, neither in the block notice nor in the log, and also didn't log it here — i.e., that I altogether didn't treat it or define it as a discretionary sanction? I didn't do that because it seemed like a lot of formalities that could only be negative for Efbrazil (especially making it harder to appeal, and having it logged at the Arbitration enforcement log). I'll be glad to do the DS paperwork iff Efbrazil asks me to. Not on your request, I'm afraid. If I've misunderstood you and your complaint is other, please explain further. You're welcome on my own talkpage, btw.


 * Efbrazil can appeal the block, of course, either at WP:AN or WP:AE or, more simply, here. I'm afraid you can't appeal it for them. (You can help them write an appeal, though.) But you can indeed complain of any inconsistencies you see in my admin action on one of those boards, without presenting it as an appeal for Efbrazil. Another possibility is to ask at WP:ARCA for clarification from ArbCom, who should, if anybody, understand the arcana of their own discretionary sanctions. All these things will be too slow to materially shorten the block, which is about to expire, but then I think part of your point is that it's not simply a matter of being prevented from editing Donald Trump for two weeks, but also of a blemish in the block log. You mention their "clean block log". I'm rather proud of the blemishes in mine and feature them on my userpage, but I do understand that not everyone feels that way. If the block is deemed to be inappropriate by the community or by ArbCom, there could be a note to that effect in the block log. Please note that if you take one or more of these actions, I wouldn't in any way resent it or take it as hostile. You're very welcome to do any of them, AFAIC. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC).
 * okay, I think understand the problem now. Discretionary sanctions can only be enforced when the user is WP:AWARE of them. This is explained in the talk page template, but for some reason not in edit notice. Makes no difference, because an edit notice cannot subvert Arbcom procedures.If you look at the EW report, the time stamps span from 22:51, 18 May to 16:49, 19 May. I can't find any evidence that Efbrazil was formally aware of DS until EverGreenFir templated them on 16:54, 19 May. Two minutes after Efbrazil was reported to ANEW. I always assumed that you knew Efbrazil wasn't aware, and used non-AE block mechanism as an alternative way to sanction them. That's why the block seemed disproportionate to me. Please correct me about the lack of awareness if I'm wrong.Had Praxidicae reported this to AE, as they should have, this oversight would have been easily discovered because the standard AE request template requires evidence of awarenes. And I'm almost 100% certain that in that case the worst possible for Efbrazil would have been a warning. For example, see a case where someone effectively self-reported their 1RR violation to AE.I posted my comments here because that was basically what you initialy told Efbrazil told to (better to complain on your own page). I'm very thankful that this discussion seems to progress somewhere, even if the original block is about to expire very soon. Politrukki (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diligence here. I would still like the block removed from my record as you say Politrukki. I responded to Bishonen on the block page a while back and didn't hear from them. See here, I did include a ping: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1089469733#User:Efbrazil_reported_by_User:Praxidicae_(Result:_Page-blocked_from_the_article_for_two_weeks)
 * I don't know the process around blocks but I guess I can say "I appeal" if it means Bishonen will take a second look at it. I'm not going to repeat what I wrote on the admin block page, but the fundamental issue is that in politics any point of view can be backed by googling your point of view and finding an article or study to support it, so the result is that the articles on politics can be very biased in favor of whatever view the editor wants to express. Trying to remove bias from those articles requires back and forth. And no, I was not edit warring, every edit I made addressed a concern made in response to a previous edit I had made- what was happening in those edits was a discussion that was progressing. The only direct reversion I did was in response to Praxidicae deleting an edit I made without giving any reason at all, and in my reversion I simply asked them to provide a reason in comments for deleting content. Efbrazil (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to appeal on your talk page, please use the template Bishonen provided in her first message. That way, an independent admin will see it. I think the confusion may stem from the fact that partial reverts are still counted as reverts. Femke (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Femke, I did do partial reverts, but they were done while addressing the concerns raised in comments of the people that removed content originally. Is that considered "wrong"? I mean, if somebody complains about an edit and removes it on a certain basis, and you address that basis, shouldn't it be OK to put the content back in? Efbrazil (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the bold-revert-bold cycle (see WP:BRD). In most cases, it's not wrong, but just ineffective, as people perceive it as confrontational. In a few limited cases it can be better than the golden standard (the bold-revert-discuss cycle). If you believe people will very likely accept your adjusted second bold edit, it's faster than BRD. If there is a reasonable chance your second edit is reverted, it'll become more cumbersome, as discussion via edit summaries is difficult to follow for outsiders. In controversial articles like Donald Trump, it never really works (even if it were allowed).
 * In this case, it was not allowed as Donald Trump has a 24h WP:BRD restriction. To be fair, it's not worded clearly. Partial reverts/ reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. seems to imply that a partial reinstatement is allowed, which is not the case within 24h of the initial bold edit. Femke (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I guess I'll just let things be as it seems not worth it to appeal. The only reason would be to "set the record straight" and fix a bad moderator call by Bishonen, but I can't get worked up over process issues like that. Efbrazil (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think this light sanction was unreasonable. You had been warned about edit warring before (where 3RR violations typically lead to a 24h block), so the next step is a light sanction. That said, I think an unblock request that includes an explanation of what went wrong (F.i. if you didn't understand the brd restriction, but you do now), could have been successful.
 * The fact I agree here doesn't mean I don't enjoy working with you, let that be clear. Your more conservative views are valuable in discussions to get to NPOV, as our editor base is mostly liberal or left-wing. Femke (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this took me a while, Efbrazil and ; templates are not my natural habitat, but I believe I've got it now. I can't agree with the distinction Politrukki makes in saying Discretionary sanctions can only be enforced when the user is WP:AWARE of them. This is explained in the talk page template, but for some reason not in edit notice. Makes no difference, because an edit notice cannot subvert Arbcom procedures.

The talkpage template says "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial alert", my italics, whereas the edit notice says "The following discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article", also my italics. So there's a contradiction between them. When Politrukki says "an edit notice cannot subvert Arbcom procedures", I suppose they take only the talkpage template,, to be an official Arbcom template, while the edit notice template,  , is something else, something that "cannot subvert Arbcom procedures" — perhaps a wording invented by an individual admin? — but that's not so. The templates are both official Arbcom templates, and none of the wording in them has been introduced by individual admins at Donald Trump: their baseline, ArbCom approved, text says respectively that users must have an alert before they can be sanctioned (the talkpage template), and that "all people who edit this article" can be sanctioned (the edit notice template). Check them out on their respective template pages if you like (Template:American politics AE and Template:American politics AE/Edit notice), to see that this is so, and note that they both belong to the Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates. I didn't notice the contradiction at the time, and went by the wording in the edit notice. Theoretically, one should perhaps take the issue to WP:ARCA, to ask the committee to harmonize their templates, but I don't think I will, for my part. The whole discretionary sanctions system is in the process of being overhauled and (praise the Lord) simplified, and presumably the AE templates will be, too.

Efbrazil, I still don't think you have a good handle on what edit warring is, and I hope you'll take a good look at the Edit warring policy to see how it's defined. But I'm now much less sure you did something that I should have blocked you for, especially in view of the template thing, and I'll put a note into the block log to say so. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC).


 * Thanks Bishonen! I'll review the edit warring policy. In the future, I think warnings are much more effective than bans for when everyone is acting in good faith. Thanks for considering all of this in detail, and I'm happy to let the incident go.
 * In terms of offering conservative views, I'm a liberal who lives in Seattle that has a graduate degree from UW and all that good stuff. My personal view is that Trump is a narcissistic, mentally ill con man that would overthrow American Democracy in a heartbeat given the chance. That doesn't mean that every single thing he has ever done in his entire life is necessarily stupid and evil, but that's how the article is written. I think the credibility of Wikipedia is damaged by the current state of the article because of how it overreaches, so that's why I was trying to edit it down to just the facts. Trying to fix that is probably impossible though. It's good that with Climate Change we have physics to guide us and the IPCC as arbiter. Efbrazil (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You were edit-warring. It's just that your actions weren't super egregious so a warning should have been enough and closing as "no violation" could have been possible. Everybody should focus more on consensus building than reverting. Sometimes that is not enough because the article is a crazy town. One 2018 edit-war is documented here. I participated in consensus building on the talk page and made one revert. I believed my edit matched the "working talkpage consensus", but if even if it didn't, I knew I wasn't editing against consensus. The administrator who breached 1RR and escaped sanctions, falsely called me a "drive-by editor" and wanted me sanctioned. For making one edit. The craziest part is that the admin who egregiously violated DS still considers themself uninvolved admin with regards to Donald Trump topic. Politrukki (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for amending the log.The reason "discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article" [emphasis added] is not actionable is because if you sanction someone for breaching page restrictions, you must abide by WP:AC/DS: 1. the sanctioned editor must have been aware, and 2. an editnotice specifying the sanction was in place. Think logically: why would the first criterion even exist if editnotice can supersede it?No, I don't mean that a talk page template has any official standing. I mentioned the discrepancy because I don't think it would be reasonable to sanction a user in case of conflict (assuming the talk page template was properly placed and so on). For example, when the talk page template includes 1RR exemptions, they aren't necessarily enumerated in the editnotice. BTW, I helped in writing the documentation for American politics AE, which included a glaring error nobody noticed.In sum, you made a block out of process. In 2015, when Coffee indef blocked someone who was not aware of ARBEE DS, they were "advised to better familiarize themselves with the discretionary sanctions provisions before using this process again" through motion. Note that the appeal was submitted by a third party, which wasn't technically allowed even back then. Your actions were far less egregious, particularly when your explanation for not formally using AE process was to avoid causing harm to Efbrazil, and you corrected your mistake. I believe your explanation, but I do note that your advice to appeal to AN or AE indicates that the block was de facto AE action. (Note to Efbrazil: any uninvolved admin may lift normal blocks whereas lifting an AEBLOCK requires consensus at AN/AE or ARCA if the enforcing administrator doesn't accept the appeal. Typically, it's very hard to successfully appeal short-term sanctions unless they were based on clear-cut procedural errors. Also note that an expired sanction cannot be appealed, but an administrator making improper actions may potentially be a subject to review.)If you sanction someone specifically for breaching a page sanction, I don't think you can avoid logging the sanction to DSLOG, but now that you have acknowledged an error, logging would be moot. So we're done here. Thanks.PS re clean block log, I had forgotten it, but in 2017 when CFCF was blocked for reinserting an image (BLP vio/copyvio?), you said "this is the first smudge on his previously clean block log. I wish Coffee had considered this fact more deeply before hitting the block button", and unblocked CFCF out process. A questionable unblock, but I guess that was okay in the end because the enforcing administrator accepted unblocking. Politrukki (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

David Attenborough awards
Thanks for letting me know about your desire to avoid lede bloat. However, after explaining that the lifetime Emmy belongs in the award section, you deleted it from the award section, too, which places me in a quandary. Are you OK with putting that back in? Blainster (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! I'll go add it back in now, sorry for the over aggressive revert. Efbrazil (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect intro text re convention/conduction
Hi. Several days ago, we went back and forth a bit in edits about "convection or conduction" at the end of the intro to the Greenhouse effect article. I want to edit that again, but thought it might make sense to sort that out with you rather than just editing the article, lest we go back and forth reverting changes again.

The current text reads "Greenhouses primarily retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection), although their panels also limit heat radiation and conduction. The greenhouse effect only limits heat loss due to radiation; it has no impact on convection or conduction of heat."

I don't like the second sentence because what it would mean for the GHE to have an "impact" on convection or conduction is so ill-defined that I think this wording is "not even wrong." Also, the word "only" seems vaguely prejudicial, inappropriately suggesting some sort of limitation. In the first sentence, mention of radiation and conduction seems superfluous, since the effects of these aren't of great practical importance in the context of a greenhouse.

Here's a suggested revision: "Greenhouses primarily retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection). The atmospheric greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting the flow of radiation to space (reducing radiative heat loss)."

Thoughts? Rhwentworth (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think mentioning all 3 methods of heat transfer at once is necessary to make it clear they are exclusive with each other. People reading this may not have articulated in their minds that heat moves in different and mutually exclusive ways. If we don't present all 3 at once, people could think all the words are just different ways of saying the same thing.
 * Having said that, I think it's fine to not do it twice, in both sentences. So I'm fine with the edit to the first sentence if the second one mentions all 3 mechanisms.
 * I see what you mean by "only", I'm fine cutting it out. I don't really see a problem with "no impact", although I'm fine switching to "no direct influence" if that wins you over.
 * I don't think we should qualify "greenhouse effect" with "atmospheric" (is there another kind?)
 * Also, I'd rather we avoid this parenthesis: "(reducing radiative heat loss)". We've just finished a lead that was all about that issue, so we should be succinct.
 * Keeping that all in mind, maybe this: "Greenhouses primarily retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection). The greenhouse effect restricts the flow of heat being radiated into space, but has no direct influence on heat convection or conduction." Efbrazil (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a rabbit-hole trying to enumerate the types of heat transfer, as the Wikipedia article on heat transfer reveals. For example, should one list conduction (which is largely irrelevant in the atmosphere) but not mention advection or latent heat transfer (which is a major mechanism in the atmosphere)?
 * I'm happy to drop the qualifier "atmospheric."
 * My concern isn't addressed by substituting "no direct influence" for "no impact." Convection and conduction are irrelevant to the topic of energy balance at top-of-atmosphere, since convection and condition can't convey energy into space. It's that energy balance at TOA that the greenhouse effect is ultimately all about. Mentioning convection and conduction in relation to the GHE implies relevance, inappropriately.
 * In the absence of a greenhouse enclosure, materials inside would be cooled mainly by air movement. A planet is always cooled only by radiation into space, and greenhouse gasses decrease the flow of radiation.
 * I think it makes sense to talk about greenhouses and planets by mentioning their primary cooling mechanisms. If you want to enumerate more mechanisms, that could go earlier in the paragraph, before talking about either specific situation--but I don't think such an enumeration is necessary.
 * I'm not a fan of the verbiage "The greenhouse effect restricts the flow of heat being radiated into space..." because it plays into the unfortunate conflation of thermal radiation with "heat", and they're technically distinct, sometimes in important ways. Considering them to be essentially the same is maybe ok at the boundary of space, but the distinction is important along the journey from the surface through the atmosphere. If we're acknowledging the journey through the atmosphere, it's technically clearer to talk about radiation propagation (or "flow" if we want to avoid jargon), rather than "heat flow."
 * Here's my revised suggestion: "Both greenhouses and the greenhouse effect work by retaining heat from sunlight, but the primary cooling mechanisms in the two situations differ, so the heat retention mechanisms differ as well. Greenhouses mainly retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection). The greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting the flow of radiation to space." Rhwentworth (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with putting advection and latent heat transfer on par with convection, conduction, and radiation. Advection and diffusion are just types of convection. Latent heat is just energy loss or gain from phase transfer, so it also isn't a way that heat moves between substances.
 * The sources that are used for that section of the article are very clear that those are the 3 mechanisms to consider. Fine if you don't believe me, but here's the national weather service on the subject:
 * https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat
 * I also don't see value in adding ", so the heat retention mechanisms differ as well", as that's already clear from "the primary cooling mechanisms in the two situations differ". Efbrazil (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The relationship between "advection" and "convection" is complicated, and the distinction is usually not worth going into. (In climate, "advection" is generally used to specifically refer to lateral heat transport via air or ocean currents.) Yes, "latent heat" transfer relates to phase change plus motion. I'm not sure why you say it's "just" that. Diagrams of Earth's energy budget generally highlight latent heat transport as the most important non-radiative heat transfer mechanism, and consistently separate it out from simple "convection".
 * Classifying "heat transport" as only being convection, conduction or radiation is a common simplification that many sources use, but that doesn't mean there isn't more to heat transport in real systems.
 * In this particular context, I don't see value in trying to enumerate the various types of heat transport that could in principle apply. Hmm... how about adding a link to the word cooling which takes people to a page that mentions conduction, convection and radiation? Perhaps that would address the issue sufficiently?
 * So, the current proposal would be:
 * "Both greenhouses and the greenhouse effect work by retaining heat from sunlight, but the primary cooling mechanisms in the two situations differ. Greenhouses mainly retain heat by preventing the movement of air (blocking convection). The greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting the flow of radiation to space." Rhwentworth (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's better that the last cut, but the NWS article is very clear that convection, conduction, and radiation are the 3 main mechanisms necessary to understand how heat flow in the atmosphere works. Having those 3 mechanisms in mind is a good introductory model for people. Otherwise it is likely that people will think of heat as just being one thing that moves in just one way. It can also be unclear to people how heat leaves the atmosphere at all, since no wind is blowing into space. People just don't think about these things until they are articulated.
 * Wikipedia is supposed to reflect sources, not have any original research or ideas. If you have a consensus source like nasa or the ipcc that describes things differently I'd like to see it, but otherwise I think we need to stick with the NWS formulation. That formulation is also how the other sources in the article are describing heat flow, like the source on how greenhouses work.
 * Here's another crack at wording that tries to split the difference. I'm restating the entire paragraph here for clarity:
 * The term greenhouse effect comes from an analogy to greenhouses. Both greenhouses and the greenhouse effect work by retaining heat from sunlight, but the way they do so differs. Heat is transferred into and through the air by radiation, conduction, and convection. Greenhouses mainly retain heat by preventing the blocking convection (the movement of air). The greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting the flow of radiation through the air and into space. Efbrazil (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That version is acceptable to me. I've added it to article (with appropriate links restored/supplemented and citations restored).
 * The NASA's Earth's Energy Budget that I referenced concerning "latent heat" being prominently featured is a reputable source, not "original research." But, the issue is moot for now.
 * Thanks. Rhwentworth (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Femke! Efbrazil (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Climate change
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Climate change, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Efbrazil&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1216424747 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1216424747%7CClimate%20change%5D%5D Ask for help])

Collaboration on article leads?
I mentioned it already on one of the talk pages somewhere where we have collaborated (I think at effects of climate change): I am currently working through all the leads of the 135 articles that we have on our list for our project. I use the very useful readability tool of Wikipedia to point out the difficult sentences to me. I sometimes also use Chat-GPT for inspiration how things could be said in a simpler way. If you have time & energy to collaborate on this effort with the leads, you are very welcome. That would be great. As a second task, I also make leads longer. I like for them to be around 450 to 500 words long. Many of our leads are currently too short (only 1-2 paragraphs long). - I see this as a low-hanging fruit with quite a lot of potential for impact. EMsmile (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me, although I don't know that a lead has to be a particular length. It really depends on how many words are needed to provide a solid overview in context.
 * I'll poke at the list, but if you have a particular ask of me let know. The idea of tackling 135 leads makes me dizzy, because I work much more slowly than you. The only way I know how to get good results is to write and rewrite something several times, sometimes over a few days even. That's what it takes for me to feel like I've incorporated inputs and still have something that reads well. Because of that I've tended to limit my scope to a few very high profile articles. Efbrazil (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, see here for the guidance on lead length:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#:~:text=Length,-The%20appropriate%20length&text=Most%20featured%20articles%20have%20a,are%20discussed%20at%20Summary%20style. Efbrazil (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:leadlength has a bit of guidance on what typical FAs have (it's not prescriptive). Usually, between 250-400 words works best, depending on the length of the article. When you reach 500 words, you're more likely to make readability worse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead is not so much an overview but a summary of the Wikipedia article. The guidance recommends three or four paragraphs for the "full length" articles. I generally aim for 4 paragraphs. Readability is a different issue: it's to do with simple sentence structures, no jargon etc. So lead length per se would not reduce readability but it might start to "bore" people. If I had to chose between a lead that is too short versus one that is "too long" (but still well written, and a good summary of the article), I'd chose the one that is too long.
 * In any case, the first paragraph is the most important one as that one is displayed in the Google search results. Probably Chat-GPT also relies on our leads a fair bit...
 * With regards to tackling 135 articles: yes, it's a very long list. But just pick whichever topic you have an interest in and pick away at it. I've so far done the first 69 articles in that list, with regards to improving the readability of the lead (they could all be improved further of course). EMsmile (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Readability is more than what your tools measure. It's about making text easy to understand, and paragraph length is one of the key determinants for that.
 * Sources disagree with what constitutes a good paragraph lenght for readability. Some go as low as 40-50 words for online text . Sources focussed on accessibility, e.g. for ADHD say around 3 sentences (also ~50 words) . Newspapers usually use such very short paragraphs too . Some sources say that 100-150 words is okay for people reading on PCs, but you should aim for shorter paragraphs for phones (the majority of our readers): . I try to average about 80-100 words in a lead, with an occasional 125-word paragraph if needed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See also Goodhart's law... Efbrazil (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tools, even those with supposed AI, do not have the perspective to judge what's most readable, or most appropriate, in particular contexts. I can't count the number of times in which new green sentences were no clearer or better than old red sentences they replaced. Related: Thumbs down on "quota" word lengths for leads. — RCraig09 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you like the readability script?
I am curious to know why you don't like the readability script? Maybe it's different to how you think it is (unless you've tried it out already?). I could send you a screenshot to show you what it does. In most cases, I am finding it surprisingly accurate, i.e. if a lead shows up with mostly red sentences then those sentences are (in 90% of the cases) actually difficult to understand for layperson. - I actually think it should be added to the tools as a default because it would make more people aware of the issue that lots and lots of Wikipedia articles are written with overly complicated sentences, especially those on science topics... EMsmile (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't like it, it's just that I have other projects going on and it seems like you are using it well. I'm happy to help reactively with wording, but not proactively with finding issues at the moment. Hopefully that makes sense... Efbrazil (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand. If you are ever curious in future how it works but are confused by how to install it (I find the process a bit confusing myself), feel free to reach out and I can explain it. In general, I wish more people would use it, even to re-check their own text additions. I sometimes find that paragraphs that I had added myself some months or years earlier show up in dark red when I check them with the readability script. Then I know I have to do better...! EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Climate change
You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Bogazicili (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've been editing that article for years, along with other climate change articles. Why the notice? Efbrazil (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a standard notice/info template for people who received the old discretionary sanctions notice but not the one for the newer contentious topic system. This applies to your case. You can ignore it or remove it. Up to you. Bogazicili (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Greenhouse Effect
In the Greenhouse Effect article, there was a passage:
 * In response, the Earth's surface emits longwave radiation (heat) that is mostly absorbed by greenhouse gases. That heat absorption reduces the rate at which the Earth can cool off in response to being warmed by the Sun.

which I altered to:
 * In response, the Earth's surface emits longwave radiation (thermal radiation) that is mostly absorbed by greenhouse gases. That absorption of thermal radiation reduces radiative heat loss and reduces the rate at which the Earth can cool off in response to being warmed by the Sun.

You reverted my change. I'd like to change it back, but don't want to start an edit war.

The use of the word "heat" in that context is simple incorrect, with respect to the thermodynamic definition of heat. For the most part, greenhouse gases don't "absorb heat emitted by the surface." Instead, they inhibit radiative heat transfer away from the surface. If you're going to speak about "absorption", that is something that happens at the level of longwave/thermal radiation, not "heat." Rhwentworth (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2024‎ (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. The issue is that "thermal radiation" is likely to be no more clear to a lay audience than longwave radiation is. Heat at least conveys the general idea to people.
 * We could certainly look at different wording. For instance, "radiated heat" would work for me. Efbrazil (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ... @User:Rhwentworth: let's discuss this rather on the talk page of greenhouse effect? EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense EMsmile. However, the issue is no longer on page, it was edited out here:
 * So I think the issue is already resolved by simply omitting mention of heat. Efbrazil (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)