User talk:Yaklib

July 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tipping points in the climate system have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Tipping points in the climate system was changed by Yaklib (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.861663 on 2021-07-08T10:03:56+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a false positive. I tried to strike it out but apparently I don't know how to use the strikethrough templates. — NormalPerson7 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWNTALK; once anything appears here its in the version archive, but you're welcome to delete messages from your own talk page. If anyone is looking at your history down the road, they'll still see it, and its assumed you read it, but you can clean house as you like. We prefer archiving over deleting. Personally I do some of both at my own talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Yaklib! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — NormalPerson7 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project Climate Change

Hi, you sure look enthusiastic, Yaklib (talk · contribs)! Welcome to the climate pages. There are a bunch of us with a common interest in climate, and we've organized a bit of our work at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change. You've been bulk editing rather fast. Please consider spending a little time saying hello at the project talk page and letting some of the regulars look over your work. If you have BIG BIG changes in mind, its nice to give the project a bit of a heads up first. Someone else may have input on what you plan to do. We do things by WP:CONSENSUS here, and if anyone disagrees they'll revert a change(s). Then it will be up to you to start a discussion using the article talk page and the outcome of those discussions will determine what goes in the article. That process is called Bold, Revert, Discuss. So welcome to the climate pages, and catch your breath for a day or two while the rest of us catch up! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy. No problem. The page has a lot of climate jargon, often taken out of context, that makes it hard to understand. It needs simplifying and updating. Yaklib (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there! Thanks for caring. Have you added yourself to the list of participants at the project page? That's optional, but there's a good group right now, and we get more done by working together. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree - as a layperson the tipping points and related articles are tough for me to understand - hope you can continue. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I think they were patched together when prior eds saw some abstract text and cut and pasted their favorite jargony scary bits, but without really trying to write a cohesive article about the subject. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Yaklib! Your additions to Tipping points in the climate system have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've improved. One of the things to keep in mind is that WP:close paraphrasing is also not allowed. You wrote:

Sciences warns that if polar ice continues to melt, forests are decimated and greenhouse gases continue to rise to new levels - as they currently do each year - a tipping point will be passed
With the source saying: "If polar ice continues to melt, forests are slashed and greenhouse gases rise to new highs—as they currently do each year—the Earth will pass a tipping point."

What you've done is replace a few words. Appropriate paraphrasing requires more: you also need to change the structure of the sentence. This is easy if you keep in mind that Wikipedia requires a dispassionate tone. Words as slashed/decimated are typically too informal. 'as they do each year' is also a bit of flourish that isn't quite suitable for the dispassionate tone that Wikipedia should have. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping points

Morning. I've again removed the claim that extreme weather indicates tipping points are nearing. The source you provided did not make this claim. Yesterday, I asked to to start a discussion before reinserting claims. Could you please do this in the future? A few further requests and tips:

Could you please provide page numbers if you cite works with ~more than 10 pages? That makes it easier to verify. Yesterday, somebody asked you to provide a page number for the IPCC report in the lede.
Could you please engage or acknowledge talk page discussions before continuing? It's difficult to keep up with you.
The style of editing you use is more appropriate for a newspaper than an encyclopedia. You often use structures like "X reported that" or "Y said that". A lot of newer editors do this, and it's not that big a deal. The reason we try to avoid this is that we want to avoid stating facts as opinions. If you attribute a statement to a certain person, it comes across as their opinion. In science articles with enough secondary sources, we can avoid those statements altoghether. See WP:WIKIVOICE. Femke (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for edits on ‘’Lucky (memoir)’’

Kudos for your work on the ‘’Lucky (memoir)’’ article. After the revelation of a false conviction, the article went back and forth between editors maintaining the status quo, and editors wishing to change “memoir” to “fiction” and place such words as ‘rape’ and ‘trauma’ in scare quotes, diminishing their validity. Your work incorporated the revelations into the article in a way that explained a new understanding of events, and maintained the trueness of the author’s recollections. Willondon (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

Your addition to Alice Sebold has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not upload it. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Notagainst per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notagainst. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yaklib (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As NotAgainst: [Guide to appealing blocks]: Understand what you did and why you have been blocked. I do understand. As Notagainst I used more than one account at the same time, so I won’t do that again.

As Yaklib:

The reason given for Yaklib’s block is “Abusing multiple accounts”. As Yaklib I only used one account.

[Guide to appealing blocks]: A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.

As Yaklib I do not believe I was making disruptive edits on the Tipping Points page. I had some concerns about edits made by Femkemilene and William_M._Connolley (hereafter WMC).
When I first started editing this page it was little more than [a stub]. I added about two thirds of the material to this page. Before reporting me as a possible sockpuppet, Femke was so impressed she wanted to nominate the page as a 'Good Article' - which suggests she thought it was ['well written', 'verifiable' and 'broad in its coverage'].
Much of the material I added was then removed by WMC, with inappropriate and confusing edit summaries.

[Under How to write an edit summary], WP says: Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.

WMC consistently ignores WP policy in his edit summaries. He has a history of tendentious editing and deletes material using specious explanations such as "can't say I like it"; "you're still confused"; "you need to read what I write"; "rm Yaklib's errors"; "rm over-emotional stuff".

WMC has previously been [blocked for six months from editing] the topic area of climate change - in which he pretty much described anyone who disagrees with him as stupid. Not surprisingly, he has also been [blocked for incivility].
When I pointed out on the Tipping Points Talk page that [WMC was engaged in tendentious editing], Femke, who previously said she wanted to nominate the page as a Good Article, then said "I agree with his edits".
Conclusion: WMC was clearly engaging in tendentious editing, and Femke seems to support his tendentious approach. From my perspective, they were being disruptive, while I was editing in good faith.
As Yaklib, I did not use multiple accounts. Neither did I engage in disruptive editing. I therefore request that the block is lifted. Yaklib (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"As Yaklib, I did not use multiple accounts" -- irrelevant. Using Yaklib itself was a breach of WP:SCRUTINY. Also, WP:NOTTHEM; unblock requests with attacks on other editors are generally ignored. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yaklib (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I take your point. I broke a rule. However, blocks should be preventative not punitive. WP is clear that indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption". No one has accused me of vandalism, disruptive editing or even editing in bad faith. WP:NOTTHEM also says: "The only thing that your unblock request needs to address is why you did not in fact disrupt Wikipedia or why you will no longer do so." I believe I have addressed that. Yaklib (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is disruptive to use multiple accounts inappropriately. As most people who do so deny it, you will have to do better than that since the SPI is reasonably clear. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yaklib (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes but I do not deny it, which sets me apart from other users. So my case is already "better than that". And I repeat. As NotAgainst, I did use multiple accounts. I have never denied that. As Yaklib, I did not use multiple accounts. This shows I changed my ways before the current ban was imposed. And blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. I'm starting to get the feeling that some administrators are unwilling to look at the actual facts in this case and give me a chance to continue as Yaklib. Yaklib (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a bizarre and confusing unblock request. "As Yaklib, I did not use multiple accounts." This is nonsense. Your use of Yaklib was your second account. Saying you did not use multiple accounts is utter, utter nonsense. Right here in this unblock request, you list multiple accounts. Yamla (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.