User talk:Timothy2b

Timothy2b, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Timothy2b! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

Thanks for your addition to the Geography of Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad and Tobago and San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago articles, but your additions lack sources. Everything you add to Wikipedia should be supported by citations to reliable sources. Please add sources.

In the case of the table you added to the San Fernando article, you cited a website, Climate-data.org, but you didn't link to specific data, so it's not very useful. I'm also uncertain about the source's reliability - it says "All of our climate data comes from a climate model", but includes no information about the model, or who's behind the website at all. What's your rationale for concluding this is a reliable source? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Anne Boysen addition on the Millennials & Generation Z articles

Just a heads up, I reverted [1][2] your recent edits to the Millennials and Generation Z articles per Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and particularly Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. I noticed that the same edits you made to the two articles before have also been removed by another user [3][4]. Please consult the talk page before re-adding the Anne Boysen source to avoid Edit warring. Thanks, Someone963852 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. Your recent edit(s) to the page Hollywood, Florida appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 18:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I have, much to my surprise, found a website that classifies Fort Lauderdale as having a tropical rainforest climate, so I have restored your edit, and added a citation to that website to the statement in the Climate section. Sorry for my misunderstanding. - Donald Albury 15:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no worries, it happens. Just wanted to point it out.

If you ever wonder about why a place has a specific climate type, you can look at the article on the Köppen climate classification. Basically what you do is compare the climate data to the Köppen types and see which type the location falls under based on the climate type criteria. Just a friendly tip. Timothy2b (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

But, that is original research. We need reliable sources that directly support any statement about the climate of a place. The source I cited for Hollywood gives the Koppen climate classification for Ft. Lauderdale. I used that because I did not find a source that gives the Koppen climate classification for Hollywood, and Ft. Lauderdale is closer to Hollywood than any of the other places in South Florida for which I did find Koppen classifications. In general, climate data in Wikipedia is a mess. Try checking whatever source is cited (if there are any) for the climate data in an article. Many times, the link (if it still works) leads to a dynamic site where you have to search, often through multiple layers, to find the data, which is often in a form that is hard to compare to what is in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 22:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's often a mess, and often has expired links or the data is not easily accessible. I understand how comparing climate data to the Köppen model can be considered original research, but isn't that what everyone does in the climate sections? I always (at least on the frequently vetted articles) see links to the climate data, but the source itself does not state the climate type. That rather seems to be a conclusion the writers have made based on the Köppen criteria (which to be fair is very straightforward, so doesn't leave room for opinions). Timothy2b (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Forbes contributors

Hi Timothy2b, regarding the Forbes article you added, please note that the article says the author is a "Former contributor" and if you hover over the little icon next to it, it states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". Per WP:RSPSOURCES, "Forbes.com contributors" are generally unreliable and should not be used. Some1 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Some1. My bad, I didn't see that. Another website I found listed the same range, and it referred to a study by Fullscreen. I can't seem to access the study itself unfortunately, but it states all the statistics they found on the article. Do you think I could refer to this one since it's not the author's opinion? I'm a bit unsure myself. The link is below.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190617005597/en/Cuspers-Creative-Stressed-Impulsive-----Fullscreen-Generational-Study-Shines-Light-on-the-Unique-Life-Stage-Between-Millennials-and-Gen-Z

Let me know what you think. Thanks. Timothy2b (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fullscreen is a self-published source that hasn't been vetted or peer-reviewed by secondary, independent publishers or journals. Businesswire only publishes press releases, so it's basically self-published; these are largely not acceptable as sources. Some1 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Just wondering, how do I see if it is self-published or if it has been vetted/peer-reviewed? Just so I know, and don't accidentally add unreliable sources. I didn't quite understand how to differentiate between them based on the self-published source section. Sorry, I'm still a bit new to this. Timothy2b (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This will help: Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. Some1 (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Timothy2b (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong edit

Hey, I wanted to say that you’ve incorrectly changed the climate section in the Czech Republic article. Due to Köppen's classification it’s mostly located in Oceanic climate. Also the map you deleted was correct. It’d be pleasant if you delete the edit and keep your updates correct. Regards, VP Vojprojar (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, the map I used uses the 0°C isotherm, whereas the one that was there before used the -3°C isotherm. I can revert my change in the text if you want, but I think it would be relevant to state that the Czech Republic lies in the transition between a humid continental and an oceanic climate. Many areas can be classified as both depending on whether you use the 0°C or -3°C isotherm. Timothy2b (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, that's true. The Czech Republic basically makes the border between oceanic and continental. Altough in these days, mostly because of the global warming, the climate became actualy way more oceanic than continental. Some years you can't find any snow and the winters don't go far elow zero degrees, which are one of the features of continental climate. I think that it's better for people who don't know which weather and climate to expect, to use the more updated weather climate. The previous map that was used was I'd say more uploaded to the current situation. I appreciate your answer. In my opinion, I'd leave there the previous map and text, because I find it more accurate. Thanks :)

I really appreciate your reedit and that you just didn’t ignore my message. Although I’ve one last thing to say, because I studied the map and realised that there’s written 1980-2016, so it seems like it’s older map which doesn’t count with the climate change. Regardless on the different isotherm. I’m not a climatologist, although Ill prefer the newer map with both oceanic and continental climate contained in it. At least the map design looks way more accurate and representative. Vojprojar (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I'm happy to help. It gave the climate section more nuance. As someone who reads a lot about climates, as well as climate change, there is something called a reference period, which is a 30-year period of climatological norms, which has until recently been 1981-2010, but will soon move over to 1991-2020 once that data is finalized and published. I understand that the climate has changed in the Czech Republic in the last 10 or so years, and that's the case in southern Sweden too, which is where I am from. However, that doesn't mean that those reference periods should be disregarded, instead the text could make a reference to "noticeable warming in recent years" or something like that. When it comes to the maps, I would assume the one with both oceanic and continental also has a 30-ish year reference period (and as such reflects similar data to the other one), but that the results are different since it uses the -3°C isotherm instead of the 0°C one. If you want, we could add both maps to the page, and label which isotherm they use. Timothy2b (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I understand it now! It’s all clear. Big thanks for your explanation! :) Well, if you’ll find it correct, it might be good to show both maps for people to have the option of seeing both of the reference periods. Vojprojar (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I looked up where the oceanic and continental map got its data from, and it was based on a website called WorldClim.org. On the database it said they used data from 1970-2000, so the difference is definitely to do with the isotherms used, not which dataset they use. Technically the only-continental map is the more recent one even. I can still put up both maps if you want, but in that case I will write that the difference between them is that one map uses the 0°C isotherm and the other uses the -3°C isotherm. Timothy2b (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I see.. Well, I didn’t know which isotherm is more "accurate" neither which of the maps is actually newer, so although I fully understand what you’re saying I don’t know which map is more suitable. Both of them say basically the same just in a different isotherm. From this situation to me the most fair thing to do is to put both maps in there. Then people using each isotherm will have the information right there and they won’t have to be searching for the second isotherm. Vojprojar (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I added both maps :D Timothy2b (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your time :) Vojprojar (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help! Timothy2b (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Frankfurt

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Frankfurt, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Minneapolis climate

Hi. You have new messages at Talk:Minneapolis#Climate. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with NOAA

Hi, Timothy2b. Now that you saved the Minneapolis article, would you help us with Redwood National and State Parks#Climate? This stuff is quite difficult. I put the chart in my sandbox for now. No problem getting to NOAA's site, and found the Eureka, CA Office. But no idea what I'm doing. I copied Klamath, CA from the old data, and then realized we probably need Crescent City instead (but there are three different Crescent Citys). Then I went to [https://www.weather.gov/wrh/climate?wfo=eka NOWData, but as far as I can tell, their normals don't match. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to try again. This time for EUREKA WFO WOODLEY ISLAND, CA (NOAA) and NWS Forecast Office Eureka, CA (NOWData). These normals seem to match. NOWData gives us a few more numbers; I'll set it to 1991-2020. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, Eureka is close, but not in the parks. I will choose one Crescent City instead. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Bingo. CRESCENT CITY 3 NNW, CA matches. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Is 1991 to 2020 NOWData (for record high/low/precip days/snowfall) a valid measure? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the late reply!! I'd be glad to help :) From what I can see, the data on Cresecent City 3 NNW, CA (aka the link https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset=normals-monthly&timeframe=30&location=CA&station=USC00042147) differs ever so slightly from the data on NOWData. However, this could very well be because it seems they have not put in the data for the station from July 2013 onwards in NOWData when I am looking at average high temperatures. Since the averages on both the first site and NOWData seem extremely similar, differing only by tenths of a degree Fahrenheit, and both are called Crescent City, I think it is safe to assume they both refer to the same station. Therefore I think you can definitely use 1991-2020 NOWData for record highs/lows, precip days, and snowfall. The table you made and the way you structured the references all look really solid to me!

I was a bit unsure exactly what your question was but I hope this answered it. Otherwise just let me know and I'll help out as best as I can! Timothy2b (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)