Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 9 February 2010

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pcap ping 07:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Type system

Copyediting is more than welcome on that article. The intro had been rewritten by another new user before you did it. But please consult MOS:BEGIN. The field of study should be stated for readers that are not computer scientist, preferably the 1st sentence. Pcap ping 07:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion 2

Hi,

Thanks for your message. I've read your notes on the talk page and still have concerns.

Point 1 about reliable references is still a problem, Two of the references are the previously deleted page on Wikibin, another is a Wiki page that seems to consist of very similar information to the deleted page if not the same information - these cannot be used as reliable references. Two other links are to a club listing and a calendar of events which could be reliable (the calender is I assume, but the club listing looks like it may be written by the club) but they don't show notability, just existence. The Michael Ryan statistics look okay but again they probably don't contribute to the notability of the club itself (they might be a good start on an article on Michael Ryan though if one doesn't already exist as Olympic participation would pass WP:ATHLETE).

On point 2, the main criteria for notability (and more specifically in this case club notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". The sport and club may be culturally relevant, but that has to be shown through high quality references that cover the club in depth.

Improvements to the article are definitely needed in respect to point 3 and I think this might be best achieved if the article was moved into your user space so you could work on getting it properly referenced without the pressure and time requirements of deletion requests. Then when it was ready it could be moved back to the main article area. Let me know if you would like me to move it to somewhere like User:AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42/UCD Fencing Club.

I'm going to post this on the article talk page as well for consideration. Camw (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've moved the content to the above link so it can be worked on. Camw (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link is above but it is at User:AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42/UCD Fencing Club Camw (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Climate change denial

I moved your comment on Talk:Climate change denial here, please read WP:TPG for appropriate uses of talk-pages. While we may sometimes digress from the topic at hand, talk pages are not to be used for general discussion. (WP:FORUM) - i moved it instead of deleting it outright - since there might be some who will answer it:

Either way the biosphere does change slowly. The problem with climate change is that it is hypothetical. Climate science works on the basis of thousands of years (at an absolute minimum). Basing evidence on human activity over a period of a hundred years - though some excellent efforts have been made, is a fairly speculative medium. Making global weather forecasts based upon this dissemination of material concerning human industrial activity? Pretty dicey - and all you can say is 'most likely scenarios' at best. This is what a large section of the scientific community, with political backing have done - they have come up with a hypothesis about a hypothetical future. There are certain fundamentals that are agreed upon. CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. Industrial activity 'creates' CO2 (discounting the fact that all animal life increase atmospheric CO2). After that the figures are subject to serious conjecture. Whilst looking at the atmospheric conditions of Venus are a sobering example of runaway global warming can do to a planet (without any cars or factories, in case you didn't notice) the trends that generated these catastrophic conditions on a planet like Venus took billions of years. Earth itself was much warmer a few hundred million years ago than it is now, (partially due to vastly larger amounts of atmospheric CO2) but that is talking about hundreds of millions of years, not hundreds of years (some 'scientists' have predicted doom within just 30 or 40 years !!!). --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate science, historically, as a largely geological discipline, may 'work' only on geological time-scales. But when the research supports it, there is no reason why oceanography, or atmospheric chemistry (for example) might not validly evaluate changes, and make projections based on those changes, within anthropological time-scales. A 'long-view' scientific evaluation of homo might not have predicted the industrial revolution - but once under-way, predictions based on real-world observations would have been infinitely more accurate than predictions based upon "thousands of years" perspectives of how our species might develop. A poor analogy, maybe, but hopefully the point is clear... ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately such reseach has produced a scientific consesnus in the country in which I live, whereby the local climate was predicted to become warmer and dryer. In the absense of any dryer weather over the last decade, predictions have changed to show significantly increased precipitation throughout the country. Recently the sientific community has concluded that global warming will make the local climate considerably colder. However, there is a large section that just say that it will become increasingly 'volatile'. In the recent big freeze this winter there were almost no stocks of salt or grit, which almost brought the country to a standstill.

I do not know whether there is a core of truth and the fruit is rotten, or whether such work is rotten to the core. Either way I have become 'skeptical' about the merits of such research. Does that make me a climate change denier, having been presented with this meticulous research? Maybe, according to this article. I know of no pressure group or media outlet in my country which challenges these dominant viewpoints, which points, to me, a poverty in the openness and flexibility of the scientific community. Climategate then, is just sympotmatic of something which must, by logical extension, be endemic. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at This survey of climate scientists, particularly Qn 17e (confidence in regional precipitation models) and related questions. Reporting of confidence levels is often the first thing that goes out the window in reporting of science - but it would seem climate scientists themselves don't have much confidence in their models when it comes to predicting regional precipitation changes. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing your analogy, I would suggest that the core is indeed true, but _some_ of the fruit is simply not yet ripe. There are reasons other than being rotten to leave behind a bad taste. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably right. However, knee jerk reactions to unripe research is, perhaps, not the best use of what work has been done to date - particularly if the implications of such reactions has a negative effect upon the research itself. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)