Hello, Crescent77! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumpscot Formation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
Your edits have been reverted because you removed reliably-sourced statements and their associated reliable sources for no apparent reason. You are welcome to discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page, but removing relevant, reliably-sourced material without discussion or explanation is disruptive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the statement about climate change is directly sourced to an impeccable reliable source, The New York Times, and the statement that Trump's claims were incorrect is sourced to four separate mainstream reliable sources. Again, if you disagree with these conclusions, you're invited to open a discussion on the talk page, but simply removing reliably-sourced material (because you disagree with it?) is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time. I was not using original research, I was writing what was written in the accomponying references. That original statement in question rather bluntly contradicted itself, I was trying to represent the information in a more coherent grammatical structure. Crescent77 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:BeckwourthRangerDistrictSign.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:BeckwourthRangerDistrictSign.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
An article you recently created, Antelope Creek (Plumas County, California), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~Amkgp✉06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. You were on it fast, you could have given it a minute or two. Bored? Don't you have some real vandals to chase down or something? ;) Crescent77 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
August 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Squaw, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Why are refusing to say which source cites the content you are adding? I don't see it in any of the available sources. This leads me to assume you can't cite it. - CorbieVreccan☊☼03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. Are you're intentionally being obtuse? As in referwncing standards, it is at the end of the sentence. Try clicking on it. And read it. Crescent77 (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello Crescent, my apologies for delaying answering your first message.
In line with the issues noted in the header of the article, I have tried to get the contents more in line with the one of an Enciclopedia, and all the edits are along that line (I do not see the point on putting the same edit summary on each edition....."adressing issues noted to this article", or the like).
This means trimming some very specific details that fall more on the scope of specialists or a research article article of an owl specialized book or professional paper or a PhD thesis. There is excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.I have also trimmed the references, to a reasonable number (and they are still some 300ǃ). There may be some information, that could be argued should be kept (I will work in adressing your comment on passerine birds), and I am open to discuss any additional suggestions you may have. Best regards, --Uruk (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thank you for your concern. I find it interesting that the other editor's insults stand. He has a long history of unethical behavior concerning editing, but knows how to play the rules and stay just out of the reach of trouble. It seems he has the time and persistence to manipulate messaging in a way most casual editors are unable to counter. Hopefully you're not supporting that, Wikipidea's credibility continues to decline because of such behavior. Crescent77 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, just to follow up on this, recently, the editor in question handed in their admin powers under scrutiny in ArbCom. There was evidence of the misuse of admin powers over a 17 year period, which included coordinate POV pushing.
Respectfully, I'd like to suggest those actions are far more damaging to the community, specifically the community project we all work in, than our back and forth personal attacks, in which you unfortunately chose to take the side of a well intentioned but misguided admin, rather than take a deeper look. Per above, this was not a content issue, this was a contributor issue.
Not trying to point fingers here, as I agree I was also out of line in this situation, I just want to make sure we all learn from our mistakes.
Yes, not a content issue. I think you mean she. I wasn't trying to take sides and I'm sorry if you think I was. As for the case itself, it wasn't quite as clearcut as you suggest if you read all the comments (and I can read suppressed comments and know a lot about the history, unfortunately). The outcome, giving in the mop, was inevitable and one I support. It's a shame that we lose some of our best content editors (I can name others) because of their behaviour. Looks like we've lost three from the topic area. Doug Wellertalk15:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Climate Change
Have I added this correctly to your page? This is FinancialCents. I would like to discuss Climate Change article with you and without the other off-base tangential comments! FinancialCents (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello. I hope you don't mind me giving you a few tips about editing Wikipedia :). I'm excited to see somebody else passionate about making Wikipedia more accessible to a wide audience, even if we may have had our disagreements.
On talk pages, we use WP:indentation to ensure people can easily follow a discussion along. If you use the reply button, this is done automatically.
I've noticed you use the WP:minor edit checkbox for edits that are not considered minor in the sense of the specific Wikipedia meaning. For instance: this copyediting, this removal of redundancy, this improved section title. On Wikipedia, you would call these normal edits. The minor edit checkbox is only for simple spelling, formatting corrections, and removing vandalism.
Feel free to make a user page, so that other editors see you're not a brand-new editor. Not obligatory of course, some very experienced editors do not have their own user page.
Said users comments clearly fall under WP:SPAM, as I indicated. There persistence as such had all appareances of malice, not to mention issues concerning WP:OWNership. As does yours, with appearances of agenda based editing. Your threats of a block on my personal page also come across as an inappropriate attack, please refrain from such activity.
Perhaps we should instead focus on the discussion at hand, concerning the lack of inline citations in the lede of a high profile article addressing controversial subject matter. I'm a little surprised at the lack thereof, especially considering several editors claims that the article underwent a thorough review.
You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I recently requested undeletion of Draft:Antelope Creek (Plumas County, California), since I wanted to create a draft on it and saw you already made one but it got G13'd. It has been undeleted, so I was wondering if you'd like to get back into working on it and collaborate to build the draft. Let me know if you'd be interested. Thanks! interstatefive17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make unsourced changes that remove references to climate change as you did here, where you changed
Roughly half of all wildfires in Canada are caused by lightning; due to climate change, lightning caused ignitions are happening more frequently. Lightning-caused fires account for about 85 percent of land burned.
to
Roughly half of all wildfires and 85% of land burned in Canada are caused by lightning; due to drier conditions, lightning caused ignitions are happening more frequently.
Please also keep in mind that climate change is considered a contentious topic.
Lol, wake up buddy. ;) No references were removed. The material "removed" from this quoted section was was relocated to the section talking about lightning for readability and continuity's sake. Crescent77 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, there were errors in my original comment—I meant to cite this diff and include the original wording prior to your edit ("lightning strikes" vs. "lightning caused ignitions"). I also realize my language may have been unclear. By saying "reference", I did not mean that you removed a citation, I meant that you removed a mention of climate change.
You changed the text due to climate change, lightning strikes are happening more frequently to due to drier conditions, lightning caused ignitions are happening more frequently. The sources specifically do not say that lightning-caused fires are on the rise simply because of dry conditions. They say that lightning is increasing in frequency due to climate change, and that this is causing an increase in fires.
I acknowledge that you may have been just trying to simplify the sentences, but you changed the meaning in a way that did not align with the sources; that raises a red flag with contentious topics, which is why I wanted to reach out. Thanks! Wrackingtalk!00:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts, but once again, you're not fully comprehending the series of changes. The source that was originally present in the line I changed specifically stated "lightning caused ignitions", not lightning strikes.
The new source does have a single individual making allegorical claim of more strikes (but the embedded hyperlink once again says "ignitions" not strikes. But that's more for your awareness, not for the sake of this edit, as hyperlinks don't matter, and the source does quote more strikes).
I see... thanks for explaining! I guess my main concern was leaving out context of the different ways climate change has affected wildfire causes besides raised risk due to heat/drought (as I wasn't aware of the rise in lightning strikes before editing this article). Thanks for being understanding (especially with my confusing messages!) and I think it would be great if you add to that section when you have the time. It's such a high-visibility article and so many people are looking for answers about the history and causes. (also, FYI, my moving '85% of land burned' back to its own sentence was related to sentence structure, not sourcing or anything like that.) Wrackingtalk!00:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crescent77 Facebook/Meta blocking local news stories about wildfires in Canada from being posted, does, in fact, fall under the scope of censorship. Me adding it after editing the hatnote link on 2023 Canadian wildfires is not actually a good reason for removing the excerpt outright from the Censorship by Facebook page. XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your work on Wikipedia. Since you're here on my talk page, we could discuss how some of your edits, including the collection surrounding the one mentioned above, have the appearance of political WP:Spam. If you'd like to discuss whether Meta's actions related to the 2023 Canadian Wildfires are indeed censorship and worthy of inclusion in "Censorship by Facebook", and if they indeed are, how that should be included, let's discuss that on the talk page there. Crescent77 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If what I just described doesn't look or sound like censorship of climate change-related news to you, then I don't know what else to say. I don't think this is an unreasonable opinion to draw, and me having an opinion on that and adding that information to a relevant article does not automatically make that WP:SPAM. XTheBedrockX (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have partially reverted Crescent77's edit. The {{excerpt}} template has a purpose, and this specific edit to the Censorship by Facebook article is exactly it. I haven't looked at other edits by XTheBedrockX, but there is no reason to insist that this discussion can only be had on the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may not realize this, but you most definitely have looked at other edits by said user. In fact, you specifically messaged me (see topic above) about said user's misuse of the Trudeau sidebar template. Crescent77 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crescent77: I still don't think it constitutes WP:SPAM, and we should be careful accusing each other of things like that. I can understand why a template about Trudeau would be added to a section about the response of the Canadian government, even if I think it shouldn't be there! Unless you're telling me that XTheBedrockX is a reincarnation of User:Charles lindberg (for which I see no evidence whatsoever), I see no problem with those edits. My message about the Trudeau sidebar was more about deleting that template altogether. As a creation by a user with a known history of bad faith edits, I am much less willing to give that template itself the benefit of the doubt. But that discussion should be had on the template's talk page. Renerpho (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think XTheBedrockX misused the Trudeau sidebar template. They like adding sidebar templates for articles about history and politics. There's no misuse there. Their addition to the wildfires article was reverted, and that's good, but that doesn't mean they didn't act in good faith. That the sidebar they added has problems isn't their fault either. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with everything you say.
I would just mention, even if an editor is operating in good faith, they still can be spamming. Especially if, as you mention, the editor "likes" to include material without consideration of quality or due weight.
I do agree my accusations of spam were hasty, I considered that before my reply, but the editor had already used questionable templates three times on a single article over a short period of time, and then brought their issue to my talk page rather than the article talk page, so I thought it best to be rather open and direct about my concerns.
I especially took issue with them escalating it to "Censorship", because, as I indicate on that talk page, it's hard to paint it as such, and since that is such a loaded word, it starts to run afoul of WP:NPOV, which is a much bigger accusation than WP:SPAM, so I wasn't going to start off by going there without opening a conversation with the editor. I still think that should be removed from the "Censorship by Facebook" page, but as I indicate both in talk and through my edits there, I am willing to defer to others on that matter. Crescent77 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crescent77: I've already gone wa-a-a-y over my word limit on the Arbcom case so responding here. Yes, law enforcement has been notified since (counts fingers) over fourteen years ago. They've been given updates on a regular basis since then. They park in front of the house sometimes. Thank you for your concern. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response Mark. I'm glad you responded here, because I might be able to utilize your insight on the complex web of issues surrounding the issue at hand; it has left me thoroughly perplexed. But not now, as it is late, and I am tired, but I will say that I do believe the largest issue here is that someone's physical safety would be threatened over something they posted on WP. I'm very sorry that happened to you, stay safe. Crescent77 (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crescent77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Antelope Creek (Plumas County), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
If you believe that there is a problem with another user, then I recommend that you make a report on the relevant noticeboard or to an administrator rather than make comments against that user on the article's talk page. The reason is so that the talk page can be focused on improving the article and so that issues can be resolved. If another editor is repeatedly being uncivil in a discussion, then report it. I understand that the discussion seems to have become heated at various points over the past week, but everyone needs to be more cautious about remaining civil. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Are you referring to the user that has been blocked for both edit warring and personal attacks? You're making no sense to me, why would I need to report that user?
Splitting this discussion in two might make things a bit confusing, but I can try it if you want to. I am suggesting that because of your comments on the talk page of the article. You personally attacked another editor over your thoughts on their editing. Not only that, but now you are starting to make uncivil comments against me with the your WP:ICANTHEARYOU is getting tedious part. Removing personal attacks from the article's talk page is permitted and has nothing to with the discussion nor is it tedious. This is a message that you should bring matters to an administrator or a noticeboard if there is a problem rather than make attacks against another editor. Making personal attacks against another editor does not help to resolve the issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're continued suggestion to "bring matters to an administrator" when three administrators have already sanctioned the user in question provides continuing support for my claims that your inability to fully involve yourself in this general conversation is problematic. I appreciate your focus on civility, but civility doesn't mean that a user can't be subjected to justifiable criticisms of their editing behaviour. If you think that constitutes a personal attack, please take it up in the appropriate channels. Thank you. Crescent77 (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might be misunderstanding then. I am saying that *if* there is a problem, then do so. There should not be a problem at this point in time, but there still seems to be a problem. The part about civility doesn't mean that a user can't be subjected to justifiable criticisms of their editing behaviour concerns me the most at the moment. You can bring up problems with the comments of editors, but at the appropriate locations. The article's talk page is not that place. You need to "comment on content, not on the contributor" on the article's talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
t
Yes, there does seem to be a problem. Why else would you continue to badger me here?
Please, stop misconstruing my comments. They were specifically relevant to the page content, the addition of the NPOV tag.
If you feel like I am badgering, then we can either end this discussion or both of them. To brief quote with what I said at the other discussion, you claimed that the other user had "again become impatient" and then claimed that they were repeatedly making bad faith edits with the words "latest tendentious tactic." The fact that you are suggesting that there is still an issue with the other editor is a point I have been trying to make. If there is a problem, take it to an admin or a board. If there is not a problem or the problem has been resolved, then don't suggest that there is a problem or still is a problem.
That is primarily it. Additionally, it is impossible for me to cover or conceal another user's edits as I don't have any permissions related to it. Special:Contributions allows anyone to see edits and the content made by another user as long as they have not been oversighted or suppressed. You can also use Template:Diff or Special:Diff to link to them. For example, this is technically the 50,000,000th edit made to Wikipedia. Currently, there have been roughly 1,183,538,200 edits as seen with Special:Diff/1183538200. This allows the Wiki the ability to see who has done what and take action if necessary. I have had to remove comments by three different editors, including both yourself and the editor who you are bringing up right now. Everyone needs to be more civil. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again. the editor's behavior was addressed and the NPOV tag was removed. My issues were resolved. After all that, you came here suggesting that there is a still an issue. Don't turn that around on me, it's your issue, you continue to harp on it here.
Again, I believe pointing out how the addition of the NPOV tag was their "latest tendentious tactic" was not uncivil. I see it as exactly the opposite : pointing out uncivil behavior is essential for ensuring civility. I think we agree on that concept, at least.
Anyways, thank you for your efforts to ensure civility. I may not agree with your methodology, but I do appreciate your well-intentioned efforts. Crescent77 (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wildfire
Hi Crescent77, on the page Wildfire, you just added that “roughly 20% of which comes from wildfires” after the line “As much as 94 percent of Arctic warming maybe the consequence of dark-carbon-initiated melting on snow,” but I can’t find it from the Scientific American source. Would you please provide the quotation for verification? Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article opens "Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires...", which begs the question, how much of the enumerated effects are relevant to the topic of the article, Wildfire? Per the article, "roughly 80 percent of polar soot can be traced to human burning", leaving 20% per wildfires. Under WP:CALC, I believe that is acceptable.
Context needs to be provided to show the relevance of the source, since it covers a broader topic, and I believe this is a fair and accurate way to do so. Crescent77 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As that statement opens "Whereas forest fires contribute to the problem—" I read it as saying the 80% from "human burning" was non-forest fire, the aforementioned "Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes".
As the article is not about emissions from wildfires specifically, and suggest wildfires are a minor constituent, and is somewhat vague in its terminology, it may not be the most appropriate source for this article. Do you have a better source for this info about black carbon on snow? Maybe the primary source for this research? Crescent77 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the source is old, and that’s why I added “research in 2007” for our readers. I did a brief search but still think the Scientific American source is good. There maybe a better source but it would take much time (which already did).
Quote: “Applying biomass burning BC emission inventories for a strong (1998) and weak (2001) boreal fire year, we estimate global annual mean BC/snow surface radiative forcing from all sources (fossil fuel, biofuel, and biomass burning) of +0.054 (0.007–0.13) and +0.049 (0.007–0.12) W m−2, respectively. Snow forcing from only fossil fuel + biofuel sources is +0.043 W m−2 (forcing from only fossil fuels is +0.033 W m−2), suggesting that the anthropogenic contribution to total forcing is at least 80%.”
.
My calculation:
Anthropogenic contribution to total forcing = fossil fuel + biofuel sources = 0.043/0.054 = 79.6 percent
Fossil fuels = 0.033/0.054 = 61 percent
Biofuel = (0.043-0.033)/0.054 = 18.5 percent
Biomass burning = (0.054-0.043)/0.054= 20 percent
.
It seems that they aren’t counting biomass burning as “anthropogenic contribution”. IMHO, this may be not that correct since stubble burning, various types of waste burning, as well as wildfires caused by human can also be “anthropogenic contribution”.
Your addition of “20 percent” is probably true for “biomass burning” (with the definition of the source). However since it’s vague, missing the mention of biofuel and may also lead to the guess that “80 percent comes from fossil fuels”; also, as you said the source is old (and when searching for source I have the impression that the effect of wildfire on climate change is currently underestimated, so the percentage in that research might be under estimating as well), I think it’s better not to include the percentage of each component.
.
This is the version I propose:
It was estimated that as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming maybe the consequence of dark-carbon-initiated melting on snow. Sources of dark carbon investigated include fossil fuels burning, wood and other biofuels, and forest fires. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right on, I think we're mostly on the same page here. I agree that not counting "biomass burning" as an "anthropogenic contribution" is incorrect, literally. Unfortunately, alot of confusion surrounds the terminology, as different authors look at it differently. I think alot of the issue revolves around the differences in how agricultural or prescribed burning is conducted in different regions. In more developed nations, very specific plans or permits are required for intentional burns, and if the burn goes outside pre-designated areas, it's labeled as a "wildfire". In less developed nations, burns are set to clear land, without clear goals or approved plans, so it's hard to tell when it goes from "intentional" burn to "wildfire". It gets even more messy with arson : technically you could say it was "planned", at least by the arsonist, and you could definitely say it is an "anthropogenic contribution", but it is almost universally considered a "WIldfire". And alot of agricultural burning in less developed countries is technically illegal, or "arson", but locally, the law may not be enforced, and the practice is acceptable by community standards. Is that "Wildfire", or is that "Cultural Burning"? Looking at these nuances helps with comprehension of literature on the topic, but can be problematic here on WP, as we follow what the reliable sources say, and it can be hard to summarize across articles covering very similar material with very different semantics.
I agree the article is a RS, I agree with your summation of the article, and that for an accurate summation it may be better not to include the percentage of each component, but at that point, the article summation no longer provides a clear sense of its relevance to "Wildfire". With an obscure topic, we'll take any reference we can get, but with such a broad high-level topic like Wildfire, with a dearth of sources, we should focus on the most clearly relevant sources. The article in question is a good reliable source, and does belong on WP within the constellation of climate change articles, I would just suggest it doesn't belong on "Wildfire", as it gives too much weight to a single piece of research in a field with thousands of works, especially considering we're throwing out numbers without quantifying their relevance to the topic at hand. It would be nice to provide information that clearly indicates how soot from Wildfires contributes to global warming, and not just make this section a catch-all for wildfire adjacent articles related to climate change.
As far as I know, currently there’s NO “information that CLEARLY indicates how soot from Wildfires contributes to global warming”. Quantifying how much it contributes is a complex issue (e.g., with the cooling effect of smoke, etc.) Scientists are still working hard to figure things out. All we can say for sure now is that soot DO contribute to Arctic warming and global warming, and wildfire IS a major source of soot. And this is what our readers should know and what WP should include. Therefore, it’s responsible, DUE (which is about viewpoints rather than how many pieces of work are cited) and unbiased to tell our readers that soot contributes to global warming, and that wildfire IS a source of soot.
I still think this is OK for inclusion into the section, which is about the climate change effect of wildfire (FYI NPOV doesn’t mean no POV; perhaps I should have quoted the whole paragraph, so please read it again):
“Research in 2007 stated that the increase in temperature brought by black carbon in snow is around three times that brought by atmospheric carbon dioxide. It was estimated that as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming maybe the consequence of dark-carbon-initiated melting on snow. Sources of dark carbon investigated include fossil fuels burning, wood and other biofuels, and forest fires. This can occur even at low concentrations of dark carbon (below five parts per billion).”
I don’t mind if others can summarise the BBC report and add more to the section, though I’m not going to spend any more time on it :)
BTW please note that my “impression” is not used to support the addition of content to WP, instead, it’s used to justify the non-biased NON-inclusion of the percentage of each soot-generating component. And I don’t see any problem for an editor to do extensive research before editing. So, there’s no concern for OR/SYNTH, thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking further into this, I think my verbosity and the lack of fluency may make it lengthy and undue. My apologies ... What about this?
Research in 2007 stated that black carbon in snow changed temperature three times more than atmospheric carbon dioxide. As much as 94 percent of Arctic warming may be caused by dark carbon on snow that initiates melting. The dark carbon comes from fossil fuels burning, wood and other biofuels, and forest fires. Melting can occur even at low concentrations of dark carbon (below five parts per billion). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
.jpg)
