Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Hello EMsmile!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your ping on Flowering plant, please not that it is not acceptable to solicit inputs from specific editors to support some point of view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can ping another editor to alert them to a talk page with a discussion that they may wish to contribute to. Please point me to the Wikipedia guideline that forbids that. I you are thinking of WP:CANVASSING, that is different. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:CAN: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." This is all I did. EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

^ Just something I am apparently supposed to do now that we are going this route with the Climate change article. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Preventive chemotherapy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Preventive chemotherapy until a consensus is reached. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this event has been done since September 28, 2020, I don't see the use for Hemingway or other apps being linked there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean, LilianaUwU? As the event is over 3 years ago, I think we should just leave the description as is. Nowadays, I don't use the Hemingway App anymore. I use Chat-GPT to suggest simpler wording to me when I need it. EMsmile (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. SchroCat, any thoughts? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't understand why you User talk:LilianaUwU reverted my edit here and called it spam? The Hemingway App is not spam but a legitimate tool. Maybe it's outdated now (I haven't used it for a while) but what's the harm in having it mentioned there? EMsmile (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it’s second rate rubbish that is completely inappropriate for any form of writing. It’s spam rubbish. It’s also based only on a narrow set of criteria that’s only relevant to one country and ignores the standards of the majority of the English speaking world. Such narrow parochialism is not a constructive step in building good content. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Are we talking about the same app? I mean this one: https://hemingwayapp.com/ . It's not spam. It helps people to identify difficult to understand sentences; that's all. Similar to the tool that Wikipedia has now included in the tools section, called "readability". I don't think it's up to you to decide and tell me what I can and cannot use for working on readability. This event was in September 2020 and some of us used that website at the time. So what? Why do you want to alter the project description now, three years later. I think that is completely uncalled for and a waste of time. If I want to use that website and if I want to recommend it to participants at an edit-a-thon, I can. But it's over 3 years ago, so why does it bother you? EMsmile (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read what I have just written. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what the app is trying to do. It points me to sentences that are potentially difficult to understand. That's all. Same as the readability tool that Wikipedia now offers. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to use it. But if I want to use it I can. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. EMsmile (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no misunderstanding on my account. I think you are missing the point about advertising such a flawed app, but never mind. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're very welcome to join us at WikiProject Climate Change where we try to make scientific content understandable to lay persons. Interesting texts are good but my main aim is to ensure people can actually understand text that is about difficult scientific content. See for example here on the talk page where we are discussing how to improve the start of the lead for El Niño–Southern Oscillation... Or see here on the talk page of effects of climate change. No matter which app you use or don't use, it's not easy to get this scientific content translated into sentences that our readers can easily understand (and which are still completely correct in a scientific sense). EMsmile (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about writing an example for how scientific modelling works (and is reasoned) at either Scientific modelling or Scientific method, and was wondering whether you had perhaps run across a source that explained their method/model/reasoning in an accessible way. (Not sure, but I'm imaging that to be likely;) JackTheSecond (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:JackTheSecond, I have no opinion on this question. Good luck with your work. EMsmile (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Continued from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen_economy#Excerpt_safety?)

The safety section should be about all aspects of hydrogen safety and nothing else. I don't know how else to answer your question without spending a bunch of time that will not benefit the encyclopedia.

While I don't intend for my comments to cause distress, "ha-ha" is not the response I was hoping for either. We have a behavioural guideline that requires editors to avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.

I truly think your heart is in the right place. I don't think you realize your working style sometimes leads you to introduce pro-polluter bias into articles, as you did by removing the Hydrogen safety section without discussion. You do a lot of good work here but when you have no expertise in a topic, please for the love of Antarctica do not make edits in it just to try to move things along now. I am begging you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my "ha ha" comment was meant to inject some humor into this, just like a smiley face would have. Maybe I should have picked this emoticon instead: ;-)

Regarding competence that essay that you linked to is quite good, and I think my level of competence is generally quite sufficient for most of the articles in the climate change realm. When I really don't understand the topic of an article, I stay away from editing it. I think hydrogen economy is not so complex that I would have to stay away from it. Having said that, I have no plans to edit it further in the near future (although I can see some gaps which I have pointed out on the talk page).

With regards to that edit that I made which you objected to (and which led to this discussion), I only removed the excerpt on hydrogen safety, not original text. I didn't think the excerpt fitted at that point (you later on agreed with that assessment regarding the excerpt but put text on hydrogen safety back in). It was Chidgk1 who had suggested the use of an excerpt at that location in the first place (not me). - Overall, I don't want to waste our time with this, so am also happy to let it go and just move on.

I am curious about your point that "your working style sometimes leads you to introduce pro-polluter bias into articles". This is surprising to me as I am certainly not a pro-polluter person. Do you have any other examples of this? I try to always write in an objective, neutral style and to adhere to WP:DUE. EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to let things go when I feel assured that measures are being taken to keep the problem from recurring. I don't feel assured yet. In the case of the edit that you made that I objected to, prior to your edit the body of the article had contained 211 words on safety. After your edit the body of the article contained 0 words on safety. You did this after a talk page discussion in which two other editors expressed views that *something* should be in this section. Yet you don't seem to acknowledge that your edit significantly changed the article or that it might have been wise to first propose doing it on the Talk page first. Your refusal to admit an error here is concerning to me.

Regarding pro-polluter bias, as I said above I don't believe you are a pro-polluter person. I believe you introduce pro-polluter bias accidentally because you make highly substantial edits with insufficient knowledge. If you had understood hydrogen, you would have known that a section on safety is certainly WP:DUE. Furthermore you would have known that the vast majority of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels through highly polluting processes and that the fossil fuel industry is lobbying for more combustion of hydrogen in places where safety is a concern. When you minimize the safety concerns of hydrogen, which is what you did, you are making the article more favorable to the fossil fuel lobby.

Here's another example of inadvertent pro-polluter bias that you introduced into Wikipedia: Claiming that the lifeycle emissions of hydrogen gas are zero.[1] We discussed it but I'm not sure if you grasped why this introduced pro-polluter bias. So let me repeat here: The vast majority of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to discuss this any further with you, as it's wasting your time and mine. I am indeed very sorry that I removed the hydrogen safety excerpt without proposing this on the talk page first. Grave mistake.

If you have any other examples where I accidentally introduced pro-polluter bias to a Wikipedia article (not to hydrogen economy), I would be interesting to hear about that. I would actually be surprised if I did so but if you happen to remember any other examples, please do let me know. Have a nice day. EMsmile (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CFA were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't see evidence of WP:NORG notability. Parts of this are overly promotional, like "by fostering a global community dedicated to rural water supply, RWSN plays an important role in advancing the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6), which aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030." in the lead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rural Water Supply Network and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

C F A 💬 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EMsmile! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! C F A 💬 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Individual action on climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ridesharing service.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it has been a very long time, but I did promise a thorough review of Biofuel which I have signally failed to do, The last few months (and couple of years) have been very fraught with family issues outside of Wikipedia. Despite all of that I decided to throw my hat into the ring with the new trial RfA by election process. From my perspective, I have made my bid and now it is up to everyone else to vote!. But that should soon give me time to look again at Biofuel. Very many apologis for the inordinate delay - I don't like making promises and then not delivering. Regards.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update! Good look with RfA and if you find time for the biofuel article (and maybe even biomass (energy) and bioenergy articles, that would be great! EMsmile (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Greetings of the season ~ ~ ~

Hello EMsmile: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas3}} to send this message.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, same to you, User:Dustfreeworld! EMsmile (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be editing to promote the SRM NUA, possibly on a contract. This needs to end. Keep your edits neutral, this is not a place for PR - paid or otherwise. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Andrewjlockley I've explained my situation regarding contracts for my Wikipedia editing on my user profile page. Very transparent. I also explain there how I manage a potential COI. If you have any particular edits that you disagree with on the solar radiation modification article, please raise it on the talk page there, where it belongs. I am keeping my edits neutral. EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already raised it on the SRM talk page. Your edits are far from neutral. You're boosting the profile of your apparently client; this isn't about SRM, it's about your pay-to-edit practices. If you continue to distort Wikipedia in this way, I'll seek to get your profile shut down. I've already publicly raised this in an open letter to your apparent client. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing wrong. See WP:PAID. I am surprised by the highly aggressive tone of your message, threatening me with "getting my profile shut down". This is not in the spirit of friendly collaboration. My edits do comply with Wikipedia policy. I have nothing else to add about the paid editing aspect at this stage. - If there are specific edits on the solar radiation modification page that you disagree with, then the talk page of that article is the right place to talk about them and to reach consensus. I have been editing the SRM page since June last year and in general, the other page watchers of that article seem to have been OK with my edits. EMsmile (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously false. You have been edit warring with at least 2 people I know personally (both highly respected in the field) and you've been criticised by multiple other people on the article talk page; now it's been escalated to the admin process you've even got new, unrelated complaints there. I'm not engaging with you further, because I don't regard you as acting in good faith. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you're not even engaging positively with the legitimate criticism. Others have complained or gone through your work and found other problems. So you can now deal with it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-neutral_paid_editor Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this seems like an overly aggressive way to deliver notice of ANI. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the bit that's incorrect? @Bluethricecreamman Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping: There is now an entry about this also at COI noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Bluethricecreamman-20250119181200-Earth_System_Governance_Project EMsmile (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission, or encourage other editors to attempt to do the same, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about my mistake in this regard. Will do better in future and ensure it doesn't happen again. EMsmile (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EMsmile, happy to learn more about your climate change activities. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's chat. I am also keen to find out more about your work in the area of open access publishing and all the other interesting things you have mentioned on your profile page. I've just sent you a message through the Wikipedia e-mail messaging tool to connect directly. EMsmile (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Daniel Mietchen in case you didn't see my post or e-mail message. EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"The Earth System Governance Foundation supports the implementation of the research programme and diverse activities of the Earth System Governance Project and the Global Alliance of Earth System Governance Research Centres."[2] These two, plus their major people, are the affiliates I have in mind. The best place to get answers to your other questions is WP:COIN or WP:Teahouse. I am exhausted from this issue. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

To anyone watching my talk page or who would like to weigh in on this question: I've been wondering for a while now if I should perhaps have two Wikipedia logins to separate my volunteer editing from my paid editing. What are pros and cons of this approach? I see some people (who work as Wikipedian-in-Residence roles) who have that and some who don't. I have not seen any clear guidance or recommendations in the Wikipedia help pages, e.g. not at WP:PAID or WP:COI. In my case, in the past I have been mixing paid and unpaid hours without thinking much about it, simply because the topics that I've been working on are (mostly) close to my heart anyway. I've explained it in the recent AN/I discussion (see Special:PermanentLink/1274969384#Non-neutral_paid_editor) like this: My editing hours went far beyond what was covered in any of those paid editing gigs. To give you an example: say I had funding to improve the article on WASH. Say I got 8 hours. I usually ended up working on it for far, far longer as the topic simply interested me and I have some background knowledge on it, therefore often editing late into the night, like other volunteers do, too. [...]. I have worked on them in a Wikipedia-in-Residence type capacity with lots and lots of volunteer hours thrown in, too.

User:Horse Eye's Back you then asked me: "So how can someone tell whether an edit you made was paid or not?". My answer: it's not immediately clear; people could look at my user profile page to see which article I had (some) paid hours for, but for any individual edit it cannot be pinpointed by anyone other than me. But is this a problem? Wouldn't it only be a problem when there is an undeclared, unmanaged COI?

If it is regarded as a problem then I probably should work with two Wikipedia accounts even though it would be very cumbersome at times: I would have to switch mid-thinking-process from one Wikipedia account to the other e.g. if I started editing the WASH article, then after a few hours (when the billable hours for a specific aspect are used up), switch to the "volunteer account" and continue. I guess I could try it out to see if it worked.

I've also looked for advice about this on the talk page of the Wikimedians in Residence page. I asked there if I should create a second Wikipedia login name for paid work, such as "EMsmile-Utrecht" or "EMsmile-various clients" so that in future, the distinction between my volunteer edits and paid edits are clearer?

I am pinging a few people who I know are Wikipedians in Residence (or work like them) and have either two accounts or just one account. Perhaps they can help with this brainstorming of pros and cons for the two options:

• User:Bluerasberry, User:TatjanaClimate, User:Noura2021 (they all have just one account as far as I can see);
• User:Adam_Harangozó_(NIHR_WiR), User:MaryMO_(AR) (they both have two accounts).

(Do people take up a third and fourth account when they do Wikimedian-in-Residence with other organisations?)

I guess an alternative would be to put it in each edit summary ("this is a paid edit") but this seems to me rather cumbersome, and I haven't seen other people do it like this (?). EMsmile (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking. I also do a lot more editing on the same articles than what my work would require. For me having two accounts is helpful:

• It clearly demarcates the edits which others need to watch with a more strict eye (due to my COI).
• It helps me track my edits to see (and report) the impact I make. I often do small edits on articles I come across but I wouldn't want those to be included in the tracking of aggregated pageviews.
• With my personal account I edit a wider variety of topics and I don't want that to be associated with my workplace.
• I do have a third account that I used in the past for a shorter-term residency (Adam Harangozó (OSA WiR))

It is a minor annoyance to switch accounts (using a private window) but I think it is more transparent this way. Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I use one account. I consider Wikipedians to be comparable to social media influencers. Whenever an organization collaborates with an influencer, they do it because that person is a community member with standing in a particular platform. I am not trying to be a faceless account which is processing a set of instructions. Instead, I am a person with my own interests and objectives, and it is more the case that my university sponsors me to do the activities that I choose to do, rather than me receiving a task list which I do not fully understand.

There are Wikimedians in Residence who really do operate on task lists. This is common for Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikisource uploaders, who have a collection of media to share but who are not highly engaged in Wikimedia social activities. For them, I think having short-term role accounts is fine, because they are not bringing their own personal identities into the role. The role defines how they engage with Wikipedia.

For me, I edited Wikipedia a lot before getting sponsorship, and I would remain socially engaged even if I were not paid. I use my own personal account because in the wiki social hierarchy, the relationships I have with other editors are personal, and I am not just a waypoint for communicating between editors and an institution. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: where do you make your disclosures? I don't see any on your user page or in your edit summaries (you say you're a WiR but thats it unless I'm missing something). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My primary disclosures are User:Bluerasberry#Biographical_sketch and meta:User:Bluerasberry. When needed, like in social situations where I am having a discussion on a talk page about something potentially controversial, then I disclose in that conversation. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither actually seems to be a paid disclosure, all it says is that you're a WiR... But not all WiR are paid, for many its a voluntary position. If you are being paid you're supposed to directly and clearly say that someone is paying you. Best practice is to use Template:PAID on the user page (full credit where credit is due this is something that EMsmile does) and Template:Connected contributor (paid) on talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think two accounts would be an improvement for the rest of us, I also think that they would be helpful on your end because as it stands I'm kind of baffled as to how you would track your work and communicate your deliverables to your employer. One thing to avoid though is editing a topic using both accounts at the same time, but you should already not be mixing paid and volunteer edits to the same page over the same time period. I would also advise you to follow best practices, that means making a lot less edits directly to pages and disclosing the paid nature of the edit on your user page (as you currently do), on the talk pages of articles to which you make paid contributions (which you do not appear to do), and in every edit summary (which you do not appear to do). Just disclosing on your talk page is the bare minimum required, you should be shooting for best practices not bare minimum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these inputs; very interesting. I will ponder over this. There's a meeting planned by the metawiki:Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network next month which I will use for further brainstorming (anyone is welcome to attend, just add the page to your watchlist to be notified of the meeting). - Overall, I think my work and approach is a bit similar to that of Bluerasberry (although not as varied and impressive!) and what he wrote really resonates with me, e.g. "I edited Wikipedia a lot before getting sponsorship, and I would remain socially engaged even if I were not paid.". But I can also see the advantages that User:Adam Harangozó (OSA WiR) explained above for having more than one Wikipedia login. - Regarding tracking hours for my client/funding source/sponsor, I keep a detailed timesheet for that, so that's no problem. EMsmile (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]