User talk:Airborne84/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Airborne84, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. ZooFari 02:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, welcome

Are you in the 84th Airborn? Welcome to Wikipedia. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no 84th Airborne that I know of now - maybe there was one once. Thanks! It's an interesting place. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I'll be brief. Of all places you chose climate change, which is one of the most unwelcoming to newcomers. Some advice, if you get in a dispute with another editor read WP:PROCESS and WP:TPG. Also look at {{Cite web}}, it'll give you instructions on the type of citation you're using, save some time and do it right the first time. Good luck, I expect good things from that article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read through them. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

CCD?

Don't understand this.[1] Is it actionable? It sounds like you're defending that we should merge the appropriate info, but that's already done. By the way, for the two books in the "Bibliography" use {{Cite book}}, instructions are in the link. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's already been a merge of some of the data, then I'm just behind the times. I read through the paragraphs from the other article and there's still a tag recommending a merge. It's just my opinion based on the content of that portion of the other article. Some looks like it could go in the "Public Opinion..." article. Some looks like it could reasonably remain there. Airborne84 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the "Cite Book" link! I was trying to find that last night while struggling to insert those two items into the Biblio. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the sources, they're from scholarly journals, not books. Use {{Cite journal}}, however if you can find the doi number (which is very common, use Google Scholar), you can use {{Cite doi}} where a bot will complete most of the citation and maintain it for you. All you really need to add is the url and full free text. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this concerns you, Nigelj has a reply for you, see Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Attempt to address systemic bias. He's citing WP:WORLDVIEW, which is an essay, not policy; and WP:CSB, which is a wikiproject. You should nevertheless take them very seriously. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't phrase my earlier comments very well - probably because I was in a rush. Lesson learned! Airborne84 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Scientific opinion on climate change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia: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 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

You are very welcome - I am not sure it is a reliable source, but this has nice illustrations. Anything published before 1923 in the US would be public domain. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I am a bit busy at the moment, but will try to take another look at the article in the next few days, then weigh in on the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome - I am very busy IRL, but should have some time to make more FAC comments in a few hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the FAC was closed - I will make some comments on the talk page in the next day or two. Sorry - I think it is getting close. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Formal welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Airborne84, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Chris (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Surname editing

Hi A, I have addressed your comments but there may well be more that you would like to suggest?Granitethighs 09:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Obesity in Germany GA review

You said, "The "Blame" section is a good example of a bullet that needs to be expanded into a paragraph or more". Since I have sourced the 3 things that are causes for the development of obesity in Germany, would it be good to talk about the 3 things in general? Kingjeff (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading your question right, I think the answer is "yes". A good way to develop the article from here is to continue to gather the information you need and slowly start to write paragraphs to "tell the story" with prose. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#Lists versus prose. This link talks about lists of embedded links as opposed to prose, but the idea is the same (bullets vs. prose). Take your bullet points of data and develop them into paragraphs of prose. It would be good to check out a number of examples of Good Articles and Featured Articles. You will see that there are very few bullets or lists, and each section will tend to consist of one or more paragraphs of developed prose. Almost as if someone were telling you a story about it. If this didn't help, just let me know. I might have misunderstood your question. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Blame" section which is called the "Causes" section which is one sentence with three points. All 3 points are sourced. Can I add some general information provided it is sourced? I mean showing a connection on beer and obesity, showing a connection between fatty foods and obesity and showing inactive lifetyle and obesity. Kingjeff (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Yes. You can insert your own words to link everything together. Not every sentence needs to be sourced. You'll want to source anything contentious, of course—and anything with facts or figures or it will appear to be original research (I'm sure you know this). However, introductory sentences, sentences to link the data together, and ending and transition sentences may well be non-sourced and might exist only to provide some depth and context for the reader. As you asked, you can also add general information that is sourced to help show connections between all of your data points and information. You have some leeway in how to construct the article. Just be careful not to draw conclusions that are not stated in secondary sources—violating WP:OR.

By the way, I'll hold off on reviewing the same article on Obesity in France. It looks like it has the same problem(s), but if you can get another reviewer to look at it, you might get some more feedback. You might also consider putting one or both up for a peer review. If you get no feedback on the Obesity in France article at the GA page in a while, I recommend that you pull it and make improvements as in the Germany article. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A while ago I restructured the article a little bit, in paticular the last section with all the statistics. Can you check to see and give me an informal review of the article? Kingjeff (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence spacing FAC

Thanks for the heads up and sorry that I did not make any comments before. I will take a look at the FAC, though it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Terminal punctuation

Hi there, just a quick note to let you know I've responded to your feedback request and removed the review tag from the article. katherine_a (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Spencer (surname) GA

Hi Airborne am i right in understanding you have granted GA status to this article? ... if so, why is it still listed as a B class article? I'm not sure of the procedures here? Granitethighs 07:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I did. I just visited the article and it seems to be in order as a GA. Maybe the bot just updated the last portion. Let me know if there's something else amiss and I'll be happy to take care of it. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)