Talk:Clearwater Beach

Multiple issues
This article reads like an ad, needs proper formatting, and only cites a single source. I suggest consolidating much of the information in an info box, and removing the large photograph at the bottom.--Test35965 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC) It seems to lack any basic geographic, demographic, historical or economic information. Reads like a tourist brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proboscidian (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Climate
Clearwater Beach is officially classified as having a humid subtropical climate, however, the area is actually has more similarities with a tropical climate, resulting in hot, humid summers with frequent thunderstorms, and mild, dry winters (my bolding). Okay, so if it's officially a "humid subtropical climate", what source states that it's more like "a tropical climate"? This is WP:OR and WP:OPINION without a source. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, Maryland has a humid subtropical climate, but I think you'd agree that Kentucky and Clearwater Beach have a very different climate. Maryland experiences blizzards, Clearwater doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Foote (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm at Clearwater Beach almost every weekend - does that count for anything or do I still have to source this, or have you revert it and give people the impression that Clearwater's weather is like Baltimore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Foote (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting again without discussing it first, especially without a source. I'm not start an edit war and continue reverting, because it's not worth it. However, basically you're agreeing that this is completely original research on your part and that you disagree with the official classification because you know better? Got it. Thanks for following the rules. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Original research, that is an absolutely ludicrous assertion. I've been editing Wikipedia for 13 years, and contributed to it since the beginning - I think it's safe to say that I won't put in anything false, and have perhaps earned the write to put in one sentence about the place where I go every month of the year.  Terry Foote (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ludicrous assertion or not, I offered a footnote demonstrating that Clearwater beach experiences at least half the year with temperatures at 85 degrees or above, pretty well corroborating my "original research." As always, such a pleasant experience with you Wikipedia pedants removing a perfectly truthful statement just because......well, I don't know why - you need to feel powerful. So, "right."  Have a nice day.  Terry Foote (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that since you've been here 13 years, have first-hand knowledge of things, and always putting in your version of the truth makes you believe that you have some special privileges and "writes" [sic] editing here, but you don't. You're just like any other editor here and you need to follow the rules. The source you added is crap, isn't close to being reliable, and even if it was, doesn't even back up your claims about the climate of Clearwater Beach. Maybe you should try learning some of the policies around here (specifically WP:OR) and then start following them. Then, don't go blindly reverting without discussing and maybe you'll have a more pleasant experience. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And then there are the entitled true believers such as yourself who just take out a perfectly valid bit of information instead of finding a link to put in for a reference. And how is that linjk crap?  It demonstrates clearly that Clearwater has more in common with tropical Miami than humid subcontinental Baltimore, WHICH IS MISLEADING. Unlike yourself more than likely, I don't have the time to go back and put in perfectly good edits that pedantic schoolmarm types such as yourself think that you're doing such a great and noble thing by enforcing these with an iron revert button.  I don't want to discuss this with you, I don't need to discuss this with you, because there is nothing to discuss.  Have you even been to Clearwater Beach?  If you don't like the link, then find a better one.  And go fuck yourself with your grammar lessons, I've had more education than you've been alive.  Again, great experience.
 * OK, you win. It's gone.  Now, Clearwater Beach can have weather just like Rehoboth Beach, Maryland.  I hope you feel better. Terry Foote (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

After seeing your latest source, you CLEARLY have not read a single thing that I've linked above. Let me try to explain it simply: You conceded that Clearwater Beach is officially classified as having a humid subtropical climate, right? Okay, then you need to find a reliable source that states however, the area is actually has more similarities with a tropical climate, resulting in hot, humid summers with frequent thunderstorms, and mild, dry winters. Both of your sources are mere maps. One is of the entire United States. Neither says anything about climate. Neither says anything about Clearwater, so they clearly don't back up your claim (true or not) about it really being a different climate. If it's officially one climate, then that is THE CLIMATE, whether you agree with the official designation or not. Right now what you are doing is making your own educated research on what you believe the climate is, which is considered original research. Yeah, sure, you may be right, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Do it right or take it out. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * NOR means a source must be used that makes this observation. The OR is flawed anyway.  There are days when northern cities are hotter than Barbados ever has been, although it has a tropical climate.  Bridgetown's highest recorded temperature was 91.6 °F.  (See:  Bridgetown.)  Chicago has been as hot as 111.  (See:  Climate of Chicago.)  In 8 months of the year, Clearwater Beach's temperature drops below 70 at night, which is not typical of the tropics.  It's more like the sub-tropics.  TFD (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Northern cities are hotter than Barbados very rarely. It's very unusual for Chicago to reach 111, or even 95.  Clearwater Beach's temperature drops below 70 on rare occasion.  Clearwater Beach experiences temperatures at 85 degrees F or above for half the year, which is very similar to Miami, which is categorized as tropical, I believe.Tropical moist climates extend northward and southward from the equator to about 15 to 25° of latitude - Clearwater Beach is at Latitude 27.9, almost in the tropics, as I stated.  Baltimore's latitude is 39, nothing close to 25, as I also stated, yet Clearwater Beach and Baltimore share the same classification as humid subtropical, when in reality they're almost nothing alike.  Terry Foote (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't not quite coming out and saying that someone is stupid against those rules you love to throw around? Comeonn smartypants, help this bumpkin get it.  Besides, I pointed out to you a whole paragraph of "original research" that you failed to remove.  Don't you think that Wikipedia has larger issues than half a sentence offering some clarification about the weather at a beach I go to at least once per month?  Terry Foote (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm giving you some more time to do the right thing: either remove your original research or find a reliable source that backs your claims up. I really don't care how often you visit there; your own personal observations and opinions don't factor into Wikipedia articles. This is what you are still failing miserably at grasping. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With this encyclopedia absolutely rife with a multitude of rule infractions, such as self-promotion and propaganda by political figures, major corporations, celebrities, to name just a few, I find your preoccupation with one half of a sentence clarification a bit weird. Furthermore, you completely ignore two times now how I looked through your edit history and found that you allowed an entire paragraph of "original research." "I'm giving you one more time....." who do you think you are, Clint Eastwood of Wikipedia?  Gonna have me blocked or banned - go right ahead!  Leave it in, take it out, I don't care, knock yourself out - just know, that if you do, you're being a hypocrite to these beloved rules you quote. Terry Foote (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Engaging in personal attacks and pointing out that there are problems elsewhere (feel free to fix those problems yourself) all the while ignoring the actual issue is not productive. Also, I never said "I'm giving you one more time.....". Please learn to read more carefully, preferably something like: WP:OR and WP:RS. Are you going to provide an actual source that backs up your claim soon or are you going to remove your false assertion? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find my latest edits a nice blending of what you're asking for, while giving a more complete picture of Clearwater's climate. If this doesn't work, I don't know what will. You do know that the section from the Climate_of_the_Tampa_Bay_area and the half sentence in question labeled as "original research" say essentially the same things, right?

Terry Foote (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC) This is significantly better, but the reference links are broken. I'll assume that they were correct and working properly at one point. I apologize that I didn't explain what the original research policy is in a more clear and concise manner otherwise you would have probably understood the concept much sooner and not continued on so long with this. Also, once again, now that it appears that you are beginning to understand how Wikipedia actually works, if you continue to find errors in other articles, rather than continually pointing them out to me, you should try fixing them yourself. It's not hard; you obviously have the time. Look how much you spent here arguing against established policy. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You really can be a rather passive aggressive fellow - it's a rather cowardly way to communicate, but that's your issue, not mine. I understand how Wikipedia works just fine, thank you.  My

initial error was with not offering a footnote to my one half of one sentence that is of absolutely zero significant difference between the more acceptable to you sentences that's in there right now. I should've put in a footnote, you're right. However, as I've pointed out to you, this encyclopedia is chock fully of paragraphs lacking footnotes, so I find your insistence on enforcing the rules rather arbitrary. If you're honest with yourself, it has a lot to do with my reverting your reverts with no comment in the comment line because I believed your edits didn't deserve an answer. It was a good faith edit that was simply stating an obvious fact that may not be obvious to someone who isn't familiar with the area. Your reverts were the equivalent of taking out "the sky is blue, and trees have green leaves", claiming that's original research, when I personally thought that obvious information didn't really need a footnote. Anyway, perhaps you should get a clearer understanding of how to interpret the meaning of "original research" and perhaps think about your tone with a seasoned editor. And it takes two to have an argument, so I suggest you think a bit more about yourself. Anyway, good luck keeping Wikipedia safe for democracy, Jack Bauer. I'll be sure to stay out of your editing way, and I hope you give me the same consideration next time. Terry Foote (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After all of this, I see that you still don't understand what WP:OR is. You really, really don't. No one disputes the "the sky is blue, and trees have green leaves", but you came to the conclusion that an official climate designation is wrong, so you decided it make up your own shit about what you really believe it is. How is this so hard for a "seasoned" editor to understand? Yet, you still believe that the footnote was the crux of the issue. No, the footnote was secondary; you making shit up and defending it as your "write" to add it into an article was it. Learn to follow the policies around here and you'll have less problems with me and others in the future. Stop assuming that since you've been around since the very beginning that you know what you're doing and that what you're adding is always right. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Write" - feel like you got a good "gotcha" moment, I hope. Yes, you're right, you're so much smarter and better educated. Your raw intellect humbles me. Make up my own shit.  Interesting.  Like I said, the sentence I took from the Climate of Tampa Bay says the same thing, so how is this made up shit?  Just because you are still desperately trying to justify your actions, it doesn't mean I made anything up.  I didn't say that the climate classification is wrong - where have I ever said that?  I said that the climate classification needed some clarification, which I provided, with one half of one sentence.  I will never, ever follow any *interpretation* of the rules of anyone who just summarily removes one half of one sentence, claiming that it's made up shit, when in the very same article, there is a whole section that could, for all you know, be made up shit.  Nor will I ever follow any interpretation of the rules from anyone as pedantic and self-righteous as yourself.  And stop assuming too that just because you have an imperious air, and you take on the screen name of someone who actually has some testosterone, that your editorial decisions are always what's best for the project.  Best for you feeling good about yourself, but not for Wikipedia.  Now, why don't you get busy on clearing Wikipedia out of all the other made up shit, because there is plenty of it.  Are we done yet? Terry Foote (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should take a step away from the computer before replying to people's comments about your actions and behavior, because you may believe that I'm passive aggressive, but you're just being outright rude with your continued personal attacks. Regardless of what you think about who is right or wrong about this discussion, I can guarantee you that if you continue responding to people who you disagree with in this manner, you will be blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Telling me what to do......again. And telling me that I'm putting in made up shit isn't a personal attack?  Dude.....you're the one stoking the flames, and as I said, it takes two to argue.  You know I'm right and you're just pissed off.  And you do whatever it is you gotta do, I don't give a shit.  Have a nice day.  Terry Foote (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)