/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your recent hard work, including creating Energy poverty and cooking article :) Bogazicili (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks! This is very sweet. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a much needed article, and it already looks like it's in a good shape in a short period of time. Great work! Bogazicili (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T283429 Sadads (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clayoquot, I saw your notice on the Australian Wikipedians notice board. Whilst ordinarily I am supportive of efforts to encourage new Wikipedians, I have been made aware that this Sydney Uni assignment mandates students add a minimum of 2000 words to an article. Such a policy encourages verbose, low quality additions where quantity is the primary motivation. I am unsure where to take these concerns but this smacks of the forth bullet point at WP:NOTHERE. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Cavalryman. Thanks for sharing your concerns. My alarm bells are ringing too. The best place to raise these questions is probably WP:Education noticeboard - they're the experts in figuring out where the students are getting their guidance from and diplomatically re-directing things. I might chime in too. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the reply, please see my post at WP:Education noticeboard#Minimum word counts in assignments. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Fitzpatrick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard § RfC on banning word or edit counts for student assignments. Chess (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

	Vegan ice cream
	Hope you're surviving the heat wave. Looking forward to your edits finding a good compromise on nuclear after temperatures have come down! FemkeMilene (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks! We are looking into getting heat pumps :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of creating the disambiguation page André Picard but was dragged away from the computer. Getting back onto it, I see you've done it in the meantime. Thank you! Schwede66 18:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, and thanks for dropping by! It's cool that a wiki can make teamwork so frictionless. You did most of the work in adjusting a gazillion links - thanks for that! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, most of the gazillion stemmed from the navbox. Once the servers had caught up on that, there were just five or six links left to do. And one of them had pointed to the rower but was supposed to point to the journalist. Schwede66 21:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sustainable energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UIT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October songs

Thank you and team-mate for bringing Sustainable energy to featured article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It feels very, very good to have gotten this done. Thank you for dropping by to help Femke and me celebrate! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, amazing, it's now already on the Main page! Introduced: "Over the past 2.5 years, this article has been completely rewritten from high-quality sources. I believe it’s now global in scope, reflects the most current accepted knowledge on the topic with balanced coverage of its many aspects, and gives the general reader an understandable overview of a complex topic." - Thank you and team! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2021. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, I really appreciate your kind words. I think for months, we have been hoping it would pass FAC in time for COP26. Yesterday I was wondering if it still might be possible to get it on the TFA schedule with short notice, and I was thrilled to see you'd done it. Thanks for understanding how urgent this topic is. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have been holding that slot for it since it was nominated. I am supposed to finalise the schedule a week in advance, so it got tight. But you got it through and it will be on the main page on the 2nd, just as the media are full of COP26. Hopefully it will get a lot of views and educate a lot of people. Congratulations again, it is clear that a huge amount of work has gone into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Clayoquot! The article you nominated, Sustainable energy, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello, Clayoquot! i had a quick question regarding this blurb. i noticed that, currently, the third sentence and the last sentence both discuss pathways involving electrification that are compatible with climate goals. this admittedly felt a bit redundant to me. was this partial duplication deliberate?

by the way, in case you were not aware, the links to "greenhouse gases", "fossil fuels", and "wind energy" are all redirects, which tend to be avoided on the main page as per wp:mpnoredirect. the link to "clean cooking" is a redirect to a section of an article, so i am admittedly unsure if that one should be bypassed. alternatively, you may want to simply link to the article itself (instead of just to that section) if you think it is appropriate. dying (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great points! Thanks for watching out for this stuff. I'll look into these issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dying, I fixed the links and rewrote the last sentence. Does this work? The word "electrification" has two meanings. The third sentence refers to electrification in the sense of replacing equipment, such as replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with electric vehicles. The last sentence refers to electrification in the sense of making household electricity available to more people. Please let me know if these meanings aren't coming across. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your edits look good, Clayoquot. regarding "electrification", i had been thinking about suggesting the inclusion of "universal" in the link to the rural electrification article, to more clearly suggest to the reader that the two linked instances of "electricity" led to different articles, but had not been sure if the word was deliberately excluded from the linked text to imply that "universal" also applied to "clean cooking". in any case, as it stands, i was able to tell the difference between the two. thanks for addressing these issues! dying (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "to" to the last sentence which I hope makes it clearer. Yes, the term "universal" is supposed to apply also to clean cooking. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Environmental Barnstar
		Really cool to see sustainable energy as today's featured article. It's a great read and I see you were responsible for its promotion. Thank you for your efforts! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was a team effort of course, and couldn't have happened without the sharp mind and diligence of Femkemilene. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Jesse and I work for Hayes Barnard, founder of GoodLeap, a company that provides financial support to the solar energy industry. I see that you have a strong interest in sustainable energy and are a participant in WP:Climate change, and therefore you might want to help out with an edit request I created on Talk:Hayes Barnard. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at my request. I am trying to improve the article so that a paid editing tag can be removed from the top of the article, and I am asking for editors to help with that. Thanks so much. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HI JesseGoodLeap. I took a look at the article. Unfortunately, the article is so long that it would take me a few hours to review it and edit it thoroughly enough to remove the paid editing tag. Other volunteers are probably in the same boat - few volunteers are willing to devote the amount of time that this kind of task takes. If you'd like quicker action, one thing I could suggest is to make a new edit request to replace the entire article with 1-3 paragraphs that are neutral and based on the highest-quality sources. Leave out as much positive detail as you can and ask a few friends who don't work in financial companies whether it is a) understandable, and b) dry and boring - a Wikipedia article about a CEO should be both. Make it maximally easy for someone to review and say yes to. I have the page on my watchlist so if you make a new edit request I will see it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot, thank you for taking a look, and for your insight. I appreciate your help with this. Let me look into that and come back shortly. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Little Christmas card
		Wishing you a Happy holiday season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The photo of this White-breasted Nuthatch is not upside down. Femke (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Femke, I hope you have a restful and safe holiday, and Happy New Year to you too! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while I agree with the move, we didn't really have consensus. However, no one has objected so I guess it's staying there. As the page mover, please look at [what links to the old name] and fix the redirects and shortcuts that are now broken. Thanks. P.S. If you can't get to it promptly, please let me, or someone else at the page, know. Too many broken shortcuts just floating now... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Clayoquot! Hope you are doing well. Wishing the new year brings along with it all the joy and happiness you can wish for. Ktin (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too, Ktin! I hope you're well and that our paths cross again soon! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a side note, but maybe you or @Gandydancer will have some ideas about how (or whether) to address this: I've seen a few sources saying that trans masculine people may be able to breastfeed after top surgery, as can some women who have breast reduction surgery (although perhaps with low supply). But I have also seen sources in which breast cancer survivors have been pressured to attempt breastfeeding post mastectomy, even though the point of a cancer-related mastectomy is to make sure that there was absolutely no milk-producing/breast-cancer-susceptible tissue left. I'm not sure where the balance lies, because these are all really small populations, but I suspect that we don't do a stellar job with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, Happy New Year and thanks for dropping by. I'd like to help with this when I get out of this week's time crunch. Would you be able to point me to the sources you've seen? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I've seen isn't in the literature, so I don't think it will be useful as a source on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look for sources. Were the people you read about people who have had double masectomies? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I haven't been able to find any good sources. There are some primary sources, and some reviews that mention the subject in passing, and some websites that are probably correct but probably won't hold up to a MEDRS-based challenge (example), but nothing really obviously the right type of source (that isn't paywalled). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could drop me more sources that would be helpful, even if they're not kosher. (Shhh but I read sources that our colleagues would laugh at all the time because, well, they're helpful.) Our articles could probably use work in covering both 1) the physiological aspects of breastfeeding after cancer treatment (e.g. how much milk the individual can make and whether it is safe), and 2) the issue of mothers feeling guilt and shame when they cannot breastfeed. Are you more interested in one of these aspects than the other? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When nothing else works, try Google Books. There's a two-page section in this book that should be cite-able; start at the end of page 76. There are also a few brief notes in this book, which directly says that prophylactic mastectomy in the context of BRCA mutations means you can't breastfeed (p. 206). In case it's convenient for other purposes, p. 161 says that breastfeeding during chemo is "contraindicated".

I'm more interested in the physiology myself. The guilt and shame problems seem ...maybe artificially imposed on American mothers? I doubt that judging mothers according to their method of feeding a baby is a universal phenomenon, and I have this sense that people didn't do this here until a couple of decades ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is helpful. I'll look into what needs to be updated. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clayoquot. This is just a gentle reminder about my last edit request on Talk:Hayes Barnard. In addition, I answered some questions you had about the previous edit request, and offered a link to a citation that you had requested. If you are too busy to address this, that is fine, but I wonder if you could just let me know whether you intend to implement my edit request or not? Thanks, JesseGoodLeap (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse. I actually replied on the Talk page yesterday and also edited the article. If you would like to get notified when the article changes, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Watchlist. While you're here, let me gently re-invite you to edit other articles - I'll bet you'd be great at it :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I made this edit, I did actually try to type "mea culpa" as an edit summary but the interface glitched on my. I am embarrassed by the preceding error - one of those "wires crossed" memory things, but I am trying to live through my embarrassment without going back and correcting my previous edit. One of those "personal growth opportunities", I guess. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for your note! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your edits in, and your very incisive points made in discussion of, the topic of women's health. Crossroads -talk- 05:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clayoquot! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Forum for community review of draftifications, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As a member of WikiProject Usability, I wanted to draw your attention to a conversation currently underway on WP:VPR (see the beginning of the discussion) around adopting Vector 2022 as the new default skin.

The Web team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been working on Vector 2022 for the past three years, collaborating with the English Wikipedia community as well as other wikis to ensure that the skin performs better qualitatively and quantitatively for readers and communities than the previous Vector skin. The goal of the new skin is to create a more welcoming and easier to use experience for readers and editors across the wiki. For more details, see our new FAQ.

For the past couple of months, we have collected thoughts from the English Wikipedia community on what changes need to be made to the skin prior to it being considered ready for deployment. Our next step would be to start an RfC to assess whether the community considers Vedtor 2022 ready.

Prior to the beginning of the RfC, we wanted to draw your attention to the current conversation and encourage your feedback on the skin.

Thank you, OVasileva (WMF), SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clayoquot! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Searching for citations to a specific website, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think technically you're over the limit for questions, and some people can be a bit hard line about that, so if you have anything else, don't hesitate to ask on my talk page or here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope you're having an OK week. Your dedication to answering questions this week is much appreciated. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this week ended up being far busier than I expected at work, so the timing wasn't great, but here we are anyway. Glad to answer questions, as that's pretty much what I signed up for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the fatneek topic, that source is user generated and does not claim to be reliable. The neologisms found here are not necessarily indicative of changes to the English language occurring nationwide and certainly not worldwide; Rice University is a small, close-knit community with a unique culture and its own traditions. Many neologisms coined here and used frequently 'within the hedges' may have no practical usage outside of the Rice campus... ENGL215/LING215 students can check, add, edit, and delete their entries by logging in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. Just a note that I'd like to respond to this; I'm just a bit swamped today so it might take me a while. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Regarding the Rice University Neologisms Database, I wouldn't call it user-generated. It's overseen by a professor who chooses who can contribute to it, has a fact-checking process, and who takes responsibility for it. I agree that it's debatable whether this is a good-enough source for a BLP claim in a Wikipedia article.

However, the discussion we're having isn't about sourcing for a Wikipedia article. It's about your statement "As for deciding on what's harassment, that's a damn hard question to answer without specific context, but it's generally easy to recognize when you see it,like the height shit and fatneek shit on Talk:KSI." The Rice University Neologisms Database is far and away reliable enough that it should give someone pause before they declare that the "fatneek" edit request is "shit" and constitutes harassment. What I'm saying is before accusing someone of being here in bad-faith, look for evidence that might give you pause. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Clayoquot, I hope all is well with you and you have made it through the last months/years OK. My family and I are doing well and hoping to organize a First Annual Second Line Parade from our place down to the Sheepscot River where the last dam has been taken out to allow ocean going fish to swim up to spawn. To my great surprise we actually found a New Orleans style Dixieland jazz group in Portland and we are planning food, etc., to raise a little money for environmental projects and such. Anyway, we are having a discussion at the pregnancy article--please comment if you have any interest. Best, Gandy (I lost my password about a year ago) Sectionworker (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandy! Yes, I noticed you had taken up a new account. It's so nice to hear from you and that you're doing well. Things are good here, thanks. I'm at the stage of life where a major ambition is what I could best describe as keeping the kids busy ;) I'll try to take a look at the Pregnancy talk page. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at WP:AN about #CfACP. Feel free to chime in if you have better ideas how to deal with this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Global iodized salt logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of improved cookstoves, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. I don't disagree with you moving this article to draftspace, but I do find your notification confusing. Why are saying the article needs at least three reliable, independent sources when the article already has at least three reliable, independent sources? The sources by Project Drawdown, the New Yorker, and the Harvey book all seem to qualify. Obviously you are using a template talk page message. I'm wondering why you chose to use this template. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The three reliable sources is simply a reminder that gets put into almost all draftification messages. However, I should have mentioned that in this case the true issue is with how much information still needs sourcing. So I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Onel5969 and thank you for clarifying. So if I understand you, the draft could be made ready for mainspace by 1) adding references to unsourced sections, or by 2) deleting unsourced sections, or by some combination of 1 and 2. Is that the idea? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tried to notify the other contributors to the list as I actually wrote very little of it. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clayoquot:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a two week long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 14 January 2023.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help! ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently moved a draft into the main article space manually. May I suggest you join the AfC review team so that you have access to the AFCH tool. Besides assisting in reviews, it also has some special functions that make moving the drafts better, including logging the acceptance in the AfC acceptance log, AfC tag cleanup, and more. I find it very useful. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you are already on the team. Do you have an issue with using the tool? UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to AfC so I haven't used the tool yet. I guess I will sometime :). Good to see you around! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. :) UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:CLIMATE and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 3 § Wikipedia:CLIMATE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 07:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on getting an acceptable ocean section in the CDR article. I promise I will find a better plastic lumber sequestration and deforestation-reduction source but it might take a few weeks. In the mean time, I'd like to ask you about this video. At 20:30 to 20:51, it is extremely optimistic. I'd like to know what you think of it, and what we might be able to use it for in which articles, if you have time to think about that. Sandizer (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for dropping by! I watched the segment you referred to and I'm familiar with Jacobson's views. Jacobson is culturally influential for sure, but I would not recommend using his writings or videos as sources in Wikipedia articles. Our neutral point of view policy requires us to indicate what the majority and minority points of view on a subject are. The way we generally figure out what's majority and what's minority is to use secondary sources that analyze the primary literature. Jacobson's video is a primary source - it tells you what Jacobson thinks but not the degree to which his ideas have gotten accepted. The secondary literature makes it clear that among the experts who are setting out paths to net zero, Jacobson's "wind/water/sun only" idea has gotten very little acceptance.

I know it's counterintuitive for people with academic backgrounds, but the ideal sources for Wikipedia articles are secondary sources, not primary ones. If you have university textbooks on any of these topics, we actually love those. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a literature review which treats his conclusions favorably. I'm not sure what the implications of him being a co-author are, though. Could you please show me a secondary source rejecting them? Sandizer (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's IPCC AR6 WGIII Figure SPM.7, which says there is more mitigation potential by 2030 for nuclear power than for hydropower. Or open any IPCC report on mitigation and search for "bioenergy" or "nuclear" to see what they say about using them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :). I saw you try to ping somebody in an edit summary. Are you aware they don't work, and you gave to link to the username directly instead? See Help:notification. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's a useful tip. Thanks for letting me know! Hope you're enjoying your holiday! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clayoquot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of improved cookstoves, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carbon neutrality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natural History Museum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I finally got round to fixing the "failed verification" you tagged on solar energy in Turkey - thanks. If you like that kind of thing and have time I will be happy if you find faults in other Turkey articles I got up to "good". I hope there would be very few "failed verification", but I suspect in the articles which were promoted some years ago like Climate change in Turkey you would fairly easily spot and tag other things which could be improved. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for dropping by. I think I came across that article while intending to do a GA review for Renewable energy in Turkey. I never got around to finishing the review, and I'm very glad someone else did, as it means your articles are getting the attention they deserve. I wish I had more time to work on articles with you - it's always fun. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just saw your reply to my comment on the talk page for Net zero emissions saying "Adding “CO2” or “carbon “ to the title would not be accurate. Limiting climate change requires net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases...". That part of the discussion was closed so I just thought I'd explain here that this is not the case. See e.g. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8.

Pagw (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at those papers and get back to you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pagw, I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:Net zero emissions and reply there, as it would benefit from having more people looking into it. See you there. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you could give any comment to this. I'm kind of frustrated with how the timeline standard is, and I think an alternative standard would be as a table instead of a simple bulleted list. I tried this out over on the Hydrogen safety and North Atlantic Treaty pages because I wanted some pages to reference over at Wikipedia:Timeline standards if the conversation ever got anywhere, but nobody has ever commented.

In short, I'd like to suggest an alternative or for the standard itself for timelines to be to use a table, what do you think/what should I do? Fephisto (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for dropping by. I'll comment over at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards . I know it's often hard to get peoples' attention around here, which can be frustrating. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clayoquot:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1800 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

israel didn't win in the 1973 war It ended by egypt getting sinal back

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clayoquot, need assistance to improve the article, can check the draft:João_Ferreira_Sardo that the local historical society is making about a regional individuality. Thank you very much for your time. GafanhadaNazaré (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reverting me [1] [2]. I usually would notice that the edits I was reverting were months ago... Very sorry about that. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realized what happened, was reverting a vandal in RC and clicked on the wrong name. That was completely my fault. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for going back and fixing things. Cheers! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reassessed this as B class. A class requires two impartial reviews. Schierbecker (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks for taking care of this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing, but I discovered some plagiarism on the Blackberry page. The entire section under "Plants" comes from this blog post: https://creaseymahannaturepreserve.org/blackberris-vs-raspberries/. I saw in the Talk page that you hosted a Wiki-athon and worked on this page, so I'm thinking it may have come from the newbies. Could you let me know how this should typically be handled by an editor? Thank you! Shaynaalice (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Congratulations, I am awarding you with a Barnstar of Civility for interfering in [of interest discussion] between me and another editor. I am sure she's good at handle such issues and judging accurately with civility and just. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uncle Bash007! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Clayoquot – the quote you're displaying at the top of User:Clayoquot from @DGG strongly speaks to me. Thank you for sharing it and @DGG, thank you for offering this perspective to the Movement ^ _ ^

By the way, I arrived here through the conversation you started about automatic citation generation. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and for bringing back good memories of DGG. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You too ^ _ ^ PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clayoquot! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Sfn error, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:25, 31 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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]