User talk:EMsmile

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

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

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

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

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

Close

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello again @EMsmile - long time no speak,

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

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

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

Hello @EMsmile

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

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

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

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