Jump to content

User talk:FinancialCents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California Housing Shortage

[edit]

If the opposing viewpoint needs to be set up on a separate page, what page would that be? The California Housing Shortage is a biased point of view and not a fact. References are to be added to the article through each point. The reader needs an introduction to be able to follow that there are opposing viewpoints, so that they know they will be reading more than one point of view and the two views do not agree. I only entered an intro to the page "California Housing Shortage" initially to point out that it is not a factual topic. I will proceed to add sources to each section for the opposing viewpoints. The intro is just a beginning. I am not able to complete all of the sections at once and there needs to be a natural progression to the page beginning with an explanation that the topic is non-factual. FinancialCents (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)FinancialCents[reply]

When working in mainspace. sources need to be part of the edit. You can build the edits in your sandbox but anything in mainspace without a source is liable to be deleted and WP:NPOV will cause any language calling the article biased to be removed, so I would not try the same text with sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful. A problem here is that the entire article on California Housing Shortage violates the Neutral Point of View principle. It is easily shown to be the case. The page is clearly opinion and not fact. I am going through the FAQ on NPOV. I would appreciate tips on how to address this problem with the page. I understand I need to provide sources. Adding various sources will be a process since this is an extremely broad topic. The two major points of view on the topic are somewhat polar opposites but there are also balanced opinions in between of a great range. May I show that the "Experts" cited are bakers and developers who profit from promoting a housing shortage? There are resources that spell out who the organizations are who are referred to on the page vaguely as "experts," and who is funding these organizations. FinancialCents (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, FinancialCents, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to California housing shortage does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's climate change articles

[edit]

At the Teahouse you mentioned wanting to add something about natural climate change to Climate change. By consensus here this is the article about the current rise in Earth's average temperature and its effects. See Global warming (disambiguation). The general article is at Climate variability and change. Not necessarily the best way of titling things, but there it is. This has been an area with a lot of editorial conflict and compromise. See Category:Climate variability and change and its subcategories for climate-related articles. It takes a while to adapt to Wikipedia collaboration, but we would like to see expert editors stick around. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming is the rise in the earth's average temperature. Climate change includes all kinds of changes to the climate. There can be warming or cooling effects, droughts or floods, dryness or storms. Global warming is a subset of all climate change. This is true in modern times. I realize there are expert editors, however the climate articles are lacking in meteorological and climatological expertise. It is important to distinguish that climate can change in various ways and does not always change as predicted or expected. Another distinction is natural versus man-made, for instance, not all global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Nuclear plants heating lakes also warms the earth. And a volcanic eruption is a natural way that gasses and particulate matter enters the atmosphere besides industrial pollution. The articles need to reflect science to be useful. FinancialCents (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FinancialCents, your personal opinions about global climate change are utterly irrevalant on Wikipedia as are my opinions on the same topic. The only thing that matters, without exception, is what the highest quality reliable sources say about the topic. So, if high quality sources say that the moon is made out of green cheese or that climate change is not the result of human industrial activity, then Wikipedia will reflect what those sources say. The vast majority of current reliable sources reject those claims, and so too will Wikipedia. Our role here, after all, is to summarize what reliable sources (not crank sources) say about the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cullen328, I have noted on another page that I am not posting personal opinions but rather correcting the accuracy of the articles based on science. The core material is Meteorology Today (Ahrens, Henson) and Climatology (Rohli, Vega). I am suggesting the page entitled "Climate Change" be renamed "Global Warming" if that is the actual topic. Climate Change encompasses all changes to climate, not only the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. I have actually not raised any issues that are controversial. There is a consensus among scientists on many areas related to climate and how it changes. FinancialCents (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia from me too :). The wording global warming vs climate change is a perennial discussion here on Wikipedia. I've responded briefly why we've gone for the term climate change (this is more-often used than global warming, especially outside of the US).
Decisions on Wikipedia are made based on consensus, and it takes a lot of time from the volunteer community to do difficult discussions, such as those of the title of climate change. My guess is that it won't be productive to redo that discussion, as people are likely still tired arguing over it. I would definitely recommend not starting such a discussion until you've become more experienced.
That said, it would be great to have you improve articles! Loads of articles are outdated, overly full of details, and in a poor state. Feel free to work on articles, ask for feedback at the climate change WikiProject, and if you seek a challenge, work an article up to WP:good article (GA) status, which is a great way to get more familiar with Wikipedia and ensure you're articles are written for the right (general) audience. The first time I wrote a GA, I had to completely rewrite is, because I'd written for an academic audience, so that nobody outside academia could understand. Femke (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the climate articles to be more rigorous and more accurate. As I said, I am focused on "Droughts in California," but I need to link to other overarching pages such as the "Climate of California" as well as "Climate Change" overall. The whole topic of Climate Change can not be covered on the "Climate of California" page and right now the section is trying to address overall climate change. What I would like to suggest, for instance, is that the Global Warming page include the most concrete evidence of Global Warming presented by the scientific community, which for one is the carbon records from Mauna Loa Hawaii. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ Secondly, have you seen the film Chasing Ice? The melting of the polar ice caps as documented by James Balog and shown in the film is absolute evidence of an escalated warming. Those two are at the top and belong in a prominent place on the Wikipedia page. As far as Climate Change being a broader category than Global Warming, are you familiar with the "Conveyor Belt" current and how the climate of Europe depends on its warm current? That current did shut down once and Europe had continuous winter. Its climate changed. That ocean current can be upset by changes in salinity and melting glaciers do change salinity. There are some scientific "opinions" (not mine) based on scientific evidence that there can be a global cooling as a result of greenhouse gasses. It is true that the term Climate Change encompasses all forms of change. I am bringing this to Wikipedia from my education at an institution with a top meteorological / atmospheric sciences program. No crank sources. Mauna Loa and James Balog are not crank sources. Please work with me and allow me to improve the content of the climate pages. There is much to be added to the "Droughts in California" page but it is not all pertinent to California, the climate in California depends up on Climate Change overall and how it relates to that particular region. FinancialCents (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. we're all busy, so you're more likely to get a response if your comments are concise. Femke (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have received snap negative responses so I have had to expound. FinancialCents (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you've experienced negative responses here. Sometimes editors may WP:BITE new editors :(. Going into detail to explain usually does not work, however. If you really need to (I don't think you do here), it's vital you use paragraphs. I saw you added a 400+-word paragraph to Talk:Droughts_in_California#Major_revisions_needed_by_meteorologist/climatologist. That's a wall of text. Better to chop it up in paragraphs of ~100 words each. Femke (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a call for a climate expert on the Droughts in California page. I can surely adopt a paragraph style. How can I improve the climate pages with university material? The mainstream media does not accurately portray climate science. There is a lot of hype in the media, and identifying articles that are reliable and accurate is not straightforward to laypersons. FinancialCents (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A call for experts is unlikely going to be read there. In general, it's difficult to engage experts on Wikipedia, and it's better to learn the ropes here first before contacting experts to help.
A good place to start becoming familiar with editing is Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Small to medium tasks.
You're right there is a lot of pro and anti-climate hype in in the media, and that mainstream media is not the best source to use. WP:SCIRS gives an overview of preferred sources for science on Wikipedia. The best sources are review articles / reports that review and assess peer-reviewed literature. There is more specific information for climate too: Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Recommended sources. Femke (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding. I have begun on "Droughts in California" and I need to refer to the "Climate Change" main page but that page is semi-protected. The content is inaccurate. I am attempting to make corrections. I have background; I am not attempting to involve PhD's or candidates at this point but could do so at a later point. FinancialCents (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection only bars brand-new editors from directly editing articles. Your account is auto-confirmed, so that's not a barrier. The article has been thoroughly vetted by the community, so make sure to reach consensus on talk first for larger changes. Femke (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to do so. FinancialCents (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small house keeping suggestion: A discussion such as this one is better off on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change, not on your own talk page. I see the discussion is also on the talk page of climate change now. - By the way, would you like to set up your user profile page so that this (FinancialCents) is no longer in red? If you plan to stick around then it's nice to know a little bit about you (or course you don't have to give away any personal information). - I am by the way also working on improving climate change information on Wikipedia, with the help of content experts. This is part of this project. EMsmile (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation here was added by someone else offering advice to me because I had gone to the tearoom which I thought the notifications were requiring. Please do include subject experts. There is much updating and revision needed in the climate area. FinancialCents (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about editing in a controversial area

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Repeating that this is a notice, and does not imply that there are issues with your editing. Femke (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Why are you creating a duplicate of climate variability and change and trying to re-frame the scope? Your time here would be better off spent creating articles we actually need. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Climate Change (scientific) (September 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Zero sources cited.
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.
Numberguy6 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, FinancialCents! 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! Numberguy6 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Content forking and do not create content forks. Please do not submit unreferenced drafts to AFC. Such drafts will be declined 100% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a content fork. It is a definition of Climate Change, from an encyclopedic format appropriate to Wikipedia. I would be glad to add references to the draft. I was trying to figure out where to put the information as an example so that other Wikipedia users could look at it. I have references but Climate Change page is not my focus. Your comments in general are not helpful to me because they are based on misinformation and a sort of an insistence on maintaining a degree of incorrectness, as opposed to constructively seeking out improvements as necessary. If you could be constructive as opposed to reactive, that would be a great start. FinancialCents (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a content fork, and Cullen is exactly right in his assessment. The real question is what is motivating to continue doing this when numerous editors have tried to gently guide you in the right direction. Are you aware that you are wasting an enormous amount of time bogging people down with your antics? Please stop what you are doing and start listening to what people are telling you. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that was about the snarkiest response I have received. I am receiving a few different responses, thank you, and they do not all agree with what you have written. A content fork would be replicating the same page and I am not attempting to replicate Global Warming. Why don't you stop what you are doing and learn about the topic at hand, so that you can make a meaningful contribution to a content that meets the Five Pillars? I have no reason to argue with you. I am seeking an accurate definition of Climate Change for a start. FinancialCents (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you need to read more carefully. The interpretation of the citations from NASA are misinterpreted. Provide another source for this info or interpret NASA correctly. That is the order of the day. FinancialCents (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you write A content fork would be replicating the same page, that shows that you simply do not understand what a content fork is. There is no "Global warming" article because that topic is covered at Climate change, which is a Featured article with 360 references, and which is the product of many years of collaboration among many editors. You are free to dislike that article. You are not free to create a content fork of that article. Submitting an unreferenced draft to AFC is disruptive because it is a blatant waste of the precious volunteer time of the reviewer. This is a collaborative project. Start collaborating, and your first step should be to take the criticisms of highly experienced editors to heart. I am not going to debate content issues with you because I am an administrator and I am here to address behavioral issues. So, please stop all forms of disruptive editing immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. VickKiang 01:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Climate Change (scientific)

[edit]

Hello, FinancialCents. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Climate Change".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 09:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FinancialCents&oldid=1148623284"