User talk:RCraig09: Difference between revisions
→May 2023: comments |
→May 2023: r |
||
| Line 429: | Line 429: | ||
— [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 18:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) |
— [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 18:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
I appreciate that the content re right wing origins should be described as one person's perception; a point well made.<br>However, your text eviscerates the content and thwarts the intent of a reliable source in warning of misinformation. Specifically, you've ignored the reliable source's prominently placed "falsely accused..." language re three silly accusations against meteorologists in Spain, Australia and France—content that I succinctly included. Instead you place "Reporters at Phys.org" in context (reducing its credibility) and emphasize meteorologists are "accused of falsifying"—in a way that actually casts doubt in readers' minds on the meteorologists and not on the random public idiots whose claims were debunked toward the bottom of the article. Spanish meteorologists being harassed and threatened isn't the main point of my edit; ''misinformation'' is the point. My goal is not to summarize the entire phys.org article but to focus on its points exemplifying [[Climate change denial]]'s recent history which are recited in a small fraction of the phys.org article. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:50, 15 May 2023
Useful links, notes, templates, etc.
Click at right to show/hide Useful links, notes, templates, etc.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
——— COLLAPSIBLE TEXT {{collapse top |title=Click at right to show/hide ___ }} {{collapse bottom}}
<ref name= __>{{cite patent |country= |number=Patent ___ |title= |pubdate= |gdate= |inventor=__,__ |url=}}</ref> ———COMPLETE PATENT CITE: <ref name= __>{{cite patent |country= |number=Patent |status= |title= |pubdate= |gdate= |fdate= |pridate= |inventor=__,__ |invent1= |invent2= |assign1= |assign2= |class= |url=}}</ref> ——— REFLIST for TALK PAGES {{reflist talk}} ——— MULTIPLE IMAGE template </nowiki> {{ multiple image | align = right | direction = horizontal | total_width = | image1 = | width1 = | caption1 = | image2 = | width2 = | caption2 = | image3 = | width3 = | caption3 = }}
——— PROGRESSIVE WARNINGS TO OTHERS RE VANDALISM: ———— {{subst:Uw-vandalism1|article}} Information icon Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. ———— {{subst:Uw-vandalism2|article|additional text}} Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ———— {{subst:Uw-vandalism3|article}} Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ———— {{subst:Uw-vandalism4|article}} Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. ———— {{subst:Uw-vandalism4im|article}} This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ——— WIKITABLE
</nowiki>
——— SVG:
<switch> ——— Wikimedia graphics & video:
——— Wikipedia graphics:
——— MISC.
——— ———
|
Click at right to show/hide "Welcome" templates
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Excel .xlsx spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for .SVG graphics
Click at right to show/hide User:RCraig09/Excel to XML for SVG, etc
|
|---|
 Warming stripes (five examples compared) Warming stripes bar chart Bar chart (vertical) Pie chart Line charts Scatterplot I've uploaded .xlsx (Microsoft Excel) spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for charts in SVG format. You simply paste or enter your data into the spreadsheet, and specify image dimensions, number of grid lines, font sizes, etc. The spreadsheet instantly and automatically generates a column of XML code that you simply copy and paste into a text editor and save as an ".svg" file. The spreadsheets produce lean SVG code, avoiding the "extra stuff" that Inkscape inserts. They should save you time in creating SVG charts. Feedback and suggestions on my talk page are welcome. RCraig09 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Click HOW TO for detailed explanation.
Example SVG files: Category:SVG diagrams created with spreadsheet.
|
Re: Spam-like
Sorry for trying to be helpful. Can you fill me in on why naming that particular musician is spam-like? I see zero other occurrences on the page. Your reference to the section title is only further mystifying, as if anything the current title is an argument in favor of providing clear attribution of the work. -- Andrew (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Andrew. All elements in
/* Inclusions in film, television and events */list only the name of the film, TV program, or event—and not the particular artist. The section has to do with inclusions of the song and not of the artists, the article being about the song. Listing artists would serve to clutter the section. My edit was not a personal attack or denigration of Downie. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)- Surely you could just communicate that editorial preference instead of cryptically accusing me of spamming? I look at the revisions to my contributions because I’m new and want to learn from them. What was I supposed to get from that? I’d been warned that the Wikipedia community is toxic and thus far it’s succeeding in living up to its reputation. -- Andrew (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrew Kvalheim: I wasn't accusing you, personally, of "spamming": my edit comment referred to what was in context a "spam-like recitation"—which you took personally. It was not a "cryptic" personal attack, and I hope you will see that most experienced editors talk about edits and not about editors. Separately: reducing clutter and conforming to existing formats and conventions within articles, are not my own "editorial preference" (I've yet to meet another editor who's been in favor of further clutter). "Toxic" editors usually don't stay for long. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Surely you could just communicate that editorial preference instead of cryptically accusing me of spamming? I look at the revisions to my contributions because I’m new and want to learn from them. What was I supposed to get from that? I’d been warned that the Wikipedia community is toxic and thus far it’s succeeding in living up to its reputation. -- Andrew (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The Atmospheric Transmission image caption
I just copied the diagram and caption from the greenhouse gas article, so you may want to update the caption there too. Efbrazil (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Done —RCraig09 (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Bowling picture
I understand you think the picture doesn't add encyclopedic content to the "Bowling" page - though I do - but to mark it as vandalism is a bit extreme. FYI, there is no picture of 1) the actual pins, 2) their setup or 3) pin to ball size ratio in a regular court; that's the picture's "addition to encyclopedic" content. You don't agree, that's fine, this is not a hill worth dying on, I'll not revert it. But be a bit more cautious in the future with the "vandalism" label. Some of us fight hard against vandalism. Cheers. WikiUser70176 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, @WikiUser70176:, but I clicked on "undo" and not on anything related to vandalism. Further, pin-to-ball-size is already shown in File:20190107 Bowling balls and pins.png, in File:20181230 Bowling ball at board 17.5 with pins.png, in the two videos above where you inserted your red-ball picture, and also in the more specific Ten-pin bowling article. That is why I said the red-ball picture didn't add any encyclopedic content. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for he clarification. I appreciate your nice tone. The "vandalism" label appears to me when I click on the two versions. It's bold and red. Maybe it appears only to me? In any event, I'm ok with the picture not being on the page, the videos show what it needs to be shown. Have a good week!WikiUser70176 (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
May 2023
Your edit to Climate change denial has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've shortened and changed the wording per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. There should be no question of copyright infringement, especially in dealing with two sentences whose content can't readily be paraphrased in a way that's substantially different from the sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have had to remove it again. The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns and verbs; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. If you are unable to achieve that, you should not add the material. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: In 14 years on Wikipedia and decades as an intellectual property attorney, I've seen zero indication that content must be "completely re-written using your own words". Copyright protects particular expression—not ideas or their "order" or the "sentence structure" that you mention. Contrary to your claim, my first sentence summarizes the source's expression of a simple idea that can't be expressed much differently, and my second sentence constitutes a bare-bones list of three accusations made against meteorologists. If you persist, please adapt the content yourself rather than deleting it on the insinuation that one is "unable to achieve" this "complete re-write". Show me. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from, but so far there only seems to be this one report. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. I have to go to work now, but I can try rewriting the content for you after work if you still need me to do so. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank for the links, which I will review. I'd be interested to see how you can present content that does "not include any wording from the source material". —RCraig09 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from, but so far there only seems to be this one report. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. I have to go to work now, but I can try rewriting the content for you after work if you still need me to do so. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: In 14 years on Wikipedia and decades as an intellectual property attorney, I've seen zero indication that content must be "completely re-written using your own words". Copyright protects particular expression—not ideas or their "order" or the "sentence structure" that you mention. Contrary to your claim, my first sentence summarizes the source's expression of a simple idea that can't be expressed much differently, and my second sentence constitutes a bare-bones list of three accusations made against meteorologists. If you persist, please adapt the content yourself rather than deleting it on the insinuation that one is "unable to achieve" this "complete re-write". Show me. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have had to remove it again. The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns and verbs; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. If you are unable to achieve that, you should not add the material. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Any wording" does not mean "any words"; if people are being harassed it's okay to say so. I have had a good look at the source article and noticed that some of the content in the opening paragraphs doesn't match what's present in the remainder of the article. For example, "misplaced weather stations": what the body of the article actually says is that the detractors say the French meteorologists were overemphasising data from urban locations, which are typically warmer than rural locations. The statement about the far-right should be attributed to the person who made the claim. I would leave out his speculation about what the far-right people's motivations might be.
Reporters at Phys.org note that meteorologists have been accused of falsifying weather reports and overusing data from weather stations in warmer locations to promote the concept of climate change. In Spain, meteorologists have reported being harassed and threatened on the Internet and by telephone and email. Alexandre Lopez-Borrull, a lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia, notes a recent increase in climate change denial, particularly among supporters of the far right.
— Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that the content re right wing origins should be described as one person's perception; a point well made.
However, your text eviscerates the content and thwarts the intent of a reliable source in warning of misinformation. Specifically, you've ignored the reliable source's prominently placed "falsely accused..." language re three silly accusations against meteorologists in Spain, Australia and France—content that I succinctly included. Instead you place "Reporters at Phys.org" in context (reducing its credibility) and emphasize meteorologists are "accused of falsifying"—in a way that actually casts doubt in readers' minds on the meteorologists and not on the random public idiots whose claims were debunked toward the bottom of the article. Spanish meteorologists being harassed and threatened isn't the main point of my edit; misinformation is the point. My goal is not to summarize the entire phys.org article but to focus on its points exemplifying Climate change denial's recent history which are recited in a small fraction of the phys.org article. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)