User talk:Chamaemelum

🌸

🌱

Proposed deletion of F102 highway (Nigeria)[edit]

The article F102 highway (Nigeria) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No explanation or sources to why this is notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

@SamX, thanks for your recent work at CCI. If you're wondering about any particular articles, feel free to ask me. I may be able to provide either where I got information from, or tell you if I remember closely paraphrasing or writing from scratch. Not sure if this will be useful, but I'd like to make the CCI as easy as possible for everyone. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! I'll let you know if I need help with anything. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CCI discussion[edit]

Hi Chamaemelum,
Your offer to help out with the CCI is greatly appreciated, and I've decided to take you up on it. I don't have any questions about specific articles yet, but I do have some more general questions that will help me determine the proper strategy for working through your CCI:

Do you recall ever copying text from one Wikipedia article to another? If so, do you remember which article(s)?
Is your general approach to writing to write text first and search for sources afterward, or do you search for sources first, then write text based on those sources?
Have you ever copied or paraphrased text from a source that you didn't end up referencing within the article?
Editors have raised concerns that you may have been using large language models like ChatGPT to write content. Is this something you've done? If so, what sorts of prompts did you give the LLMs, and how did you integrate the AI-generated content into the articles you edited?

Answering these questions would make my work much easier. I'm pretty busy with university coursework at the moment and your CCI is a fairly complex case compared to some others, so I've been spending time working through simpler cases. Progress on your CCI will probably be slow and incremental, but I'll try my best to get it closed sometime in the next six months or so. Again, I really appreciate your offer to help out.
Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Callitropsis (@SamX),

Sorry for the late response. I've been busy and haven't logged on in a while.

For English Wikipedia before the CCI, I am pretty sure I didn't copy text from one Wikipedia article to another. If I was paraphrasing too closely, it wouldn't have been from an article (I don't use Wikipedia as a source for articles). Since then, it is possible that I copied content as a starting point from English Wikipedia to Simple English Wikipedia. I just checked a few pages and I couldn't find a place where I did this, but it is possible. Either way, it would have been edited heavily for simplification.

I write text based on sources for topics or pages that I am not knowledgable about (types of cheese, roads). For topics I am knowledgable about (science), I usually write text (a statement), then find a source for it, then write the next statement. I can frequently recall sources I've read previously that I can use. A minority of the time, there's a really good source that I use that says everything I want to say, so it might turn into writing based on the source (as it was what I was planning anyway). One example is genetic nurture; if you look at the deletion discussion, you will see that there were copyright issues in early article versions (which were just edits I made in the Wizard "draft" before I published the article, at which point it was taken care of). There may be other articles like that but on a smaller scale; for example, an abstract that I used (Tayside children's sleep questionnaire) when there is not very many sources on the topic.

Pages like this will likely not be close to any sources, and pages like this will likely contain writing closer to sources.

One big tip is that existing pages where I make a lot of edits are very unlikely to be paraphrased at all (and there will be no LLM usage), but pages where I edit in one "chunk" (only one or two edits) are more source-driven and might be paraphrased. For example, I wouldn't expect this page, with lots of edits, to be closely paraphrased

When I've paraphrased, I've always referenced the text unless I somehow got something mixed up. I think my mistake was paraphrasing too closely as opposed to not referencing. This means that if there is a copyright issue, it will almost certainly be for one of the references I've added to the text (as opposed to some random other page).

Please let me know if there are other ways I can assist or if there are other questions. I wish I could go back and fix the edits myself. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block review request[edit]

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hello,

I am requesting an appeal of my site-ban on July 13, 2023. After reflecting on the discussions and feedback provided, I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. It was never my intention to be a detriment to Wikipedia. I admit that I made mistakes in my approach, such as arguing instead of collaborating, and making overly bold edits without proper discussion. I realize that my actions, while well-intentioned, ended up consuming a disproportionate amount of volunteer time and energy.

I’ve internalized the feedback I’ve received. If given another opportunity, I commit to:

1. Slowing down my editing pace and making smaller, incremental changes

2. Promptly dropping disagreements if consensus is not emerging in my favor

3. Focusing intently on collaboration and discussion on talk pages before making substantive edits (or, preferably, just avoiding making edits that might require this)

4. Contributing to less controversial topics to rebuild trust

5. Familiarizing myself with guidelines more before editing

Wikipedia is an incredible and fun project. I want to be a productive contributor, so I’m asking for a second chance to demonstrate that I can contribute positively. I am ready to abide by any extra conditions necessary to allow a return to editing.

The catalyst to this request, though, isn’t a desire to edit pages as usual, but to clean up and fix existing pages I’ve created or edited in the past. (I don’t want to add content; I want to fix my own old edits–though being allowed to edit more broadly would be welcome of course too.) Thank you all for considering. I appreciate it, and I will respect the outcome of this appeal.

Chamaemelum (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello,
I am requesting an appeal of my site-ban on July 13, 2023. After reflecting on the discussions and feedback provided, I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. It was never my intention to be a detriment to Wikipedia. I admit that I made mistakes in my approach, such as arguing instead of collaborating, and making overly bold edits without proper discussion. I realize that my actions, while well-intentioned, ended up consuming a disproportionate amount of volunteer time and energy.

I’ve internalized the feedback I’ve received. If given another opportunity, I commit to:

1. Slowing down my editing pace and making smaller, incremental changes

2. Promptly dropping disagreements if consensus is not emerging in my favor

3. Focusing intently on collaboration and discussion on talk pages before making substantive edits (or, preferably, just avoiding making edits that might require this)

4. Contributing to less controversial topics to rebuild trust

5. Familiarizing myself with guidelines more before editing

Wikipedia is an incredible and fun project. I want to be a productive contributor, so I’m asking for a second chance to demonstrate that I can contribute positively. I am ready to abide by any extra conditions necessary to allow a return to editing.

The catalyst to this request, though, isn’t a desire to edit pages as usual, but to clean up and fix existing pages I’ve created or edited in the past. (I don’t want to add content; I want to fix my own old edits–though being allowed to edit more broadly would be welcome of course too.)
Thank you all for considering. I appreciate it, and I will respect the outcome of this appeal.
<span style="color:darkblue;"><b>[[User:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:green;">Chamaemelum</span>]]</b></span> (<span style="color:red;"><i>[[User talk:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:purple;">talk</span>]]</i></span>) 01:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello,
I am requesting an appeal of my site-ban on July 13, 2023. After reflecting on the discussions and feedback provided, I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. It was never my intention to be a detriment to Wikipedia. I admit that I made mistakes in my approach, such as arguing instead of collaborating, and making overly bold edits without proper discussion. I realize that my actions, while well-intentioned, ended up consuming a disproportionate amount of volunteer time and energy.

I’ve internalized the feedback I’ve received. If given another opportunity, I commit to:

1. Slowing down my editing pace and making smaller, incremental changes

2. Promptly dropping disagreements if consensus is not emerging in my favor

3. Focusing intently on collaboration and discussion on talk pages before making substantive edits (or, preferably, just avoiding making edits that might require this)

4. Contributing to less controversial topics to rebuild trust

5. Familiarizing myself with guidelines more before editing

Wikipedia is an incredible and fun project. I want to be a productive contributor, so I’m asking for a second chance to demonstrate that I can contribute positively. I am ready to abide by any extra conditions necessary to allow a return to editing.

The catalyst to this request, though, isn’t a desire to edit pages as usual, but to clean up and fix existing pages I’ve created or edited in the past. (I don’t want to add content; I want to fix my own old edits–though being allowed to edit more broadly would be welcome of course too.)
Thank you all for considering. I appreciate it, and I will respect the outcome of this appeal.
<span style="color:darkblue;"><b>[[User:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:green;">Chamaemelum</span>]]</b></span> (<span style="color:red;"><i>[[User talk:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:purple;">talk</span>]]</i></span>) 01:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello,
I am requesting an appeal of my site-ban on July 13, 2023. After reflecting on the discussions and feedback provided, I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. It was never my intention to be a detriment to Wikipedia. I admit that I made mistakes in my approach, such as arguing instead of collaborating, and making overly bold edits without proper discussion. I realize that my actions, while well-intentioned, ended up consuming a disproportionate amount of volunteer time and energy.

I’ve internalized the feedback I’ve received. If given another opportunity, I commit to:

1. Slowing down my editing pace and making smaller, incremental changes

2. Promptly dropping disagreements if consensus is not emerging in my favor

3. Focusing intently on collaboration and discussion on talk pages before making substantive edits (or, preferably, just avoiding making edits that might require this)

4. Contributing to less controversial topics to rebuild trust

5. Familiarizing myself with guidelines more before editing

Wikipedia is an incredible and fun project. I want to be a productive contributor, so I’m asking for a second chance to demonstrate that I can contribute positively. I am ready to abide by any extra conditions necessary to allow a return to editing.

The catalyst to this request, though, isn’t a desire to edit pages as usual, but to clean up and fix existing pages I’ve created or edited in the past. (I don’t want to add content; I want to fix my own old edits–though being allowed to edit more broadly would be welcome of course too.)
Thank you all for considering. I appreciate it, and I will respect the outcome of this appeal.
<span style="color:darkblue;"><b>[[User:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:green;">Chamaemelum</span>]]</b></span> (<span style="color:red;"><i>[[User talk:Chamaemelum|<span style="color:purple;">talk</span>]]</i></span>) 01:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

As you were banned by a community discussion, there must be a community discussion to remove the ban. Is this the statement you would like transferred to a noticeboard for discussion? 331dot (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to clarify point 4, "Contributing to less controversial topics to rebuild trust". I think this is already a long-shot appeal but I think it has zero chance without you suggesting a WP:TOPICBAN on Aspartame and on alternative medicine, broadly-construed. I think any such topic ban would need to also encompass Alzheimer's disease, so you'll have to think carefully about the wording. Maybe medicine and alternative medicine, broadly construed? Anyway, up to you. This is a non-binding suggestion. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]