User talk:Avewiki

Welcome!
Hello, Avewiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean


The article Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is an essay or a paper for a school or college project, not an encyclopaedia article. It contains original research and is not written to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for these items.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Human vulnerability climate change in the Caribbean


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Human vulnerability climate change in the Caribbean. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - MrX 13:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to run before you can walk
You have asked for help because you are, as you put it, "getting slammed", but you're not. All you have done is not taken the time to learn and have dived in at full bore instead. Unfortunately Wikipedia has a different standard of inclusion from the one you are using to create articles. That's ok, but you need to learn the standard before you continue. In these circumstances I tend to show folk User:Timtrent/A good article and ask them to take time and effort to study it. I'm happy to advise you, so please read that first. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I see
Ok, looks like this is the proper place for responses. If you got a response I just sent using the incorrect page, my apologies. Long story-short. . delete the "Human Vulnerability . . ." page or let me know how I should have it deleted. Thank you for you response. I will do more homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avewiki (talk • contribs)


 * I found the message, no worries. Moved it to the right page (Talk pages) and replied. here. Don't forget to sign messages on talk pages with ~
 * Regrettably there is nothing whatsoever intuitive about it. Wikipedia is entropy plus ego, a difficult place to work, but it is worth it. You learn all sorts of things about writing neutral articles here. It helps in all the things you do.
 * No, you never messaged me. I simply spotted your message and pleas for help. Experienced editors tend to follow the contributions of new editors who come to their attention for whatever reason, to see if they can be guided onto the right path, so I looked at your edits and found the pleas for help. There's nothing private about Wikipedia, I fear.
 * If you persevere you will get the trick to it. The article about climate change? I doubt it will survive the deletion process, but it can be rescued, and someone may leap in and rescue it. Treat it as if you are its father, not its mother. Let it survive or fall on its own merits, and move on to the next thing. A wise approach is to start by limiting your work to improving articles until you feel you have the trick of it. Creating a new article form scratch that passes muster is hard. We all, without exception, face criticism form our peers, many of whom are less knowledgeable than we are, and who never fail to show that! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hilarious! thank you again for the response. "treat it as if you are its father" . . . that is so right and so wrong on so many levels, but i get it. it's been a good ride and I will persevere. Have a fab day. Avewiki (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Every single long term editor of Wikipedia started out by making mistakes. So you've started well. The first hurdle was to make a cracking good mistake, and you have. Most important is that you've kept your sense of humour. Wikipedia is a ridiculous place, often hostile, sometimes friendly. It gives the halt and the lame brained equal importance with those who happen to be experts. Always keep good humour and make the decision to learn even if the lessons seem based on insanity! The part I found hardest is that Wikipedia does not care about truth, it only cares about verifiable facts, some of which may be wholly untrue. And it must be neutral. Any opinions one has must be kept out f the text. It;s hard to achieve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fact or opinion
Getting ready to take a break from this for a minute, but had to ask a few questions about the opening line of the page. . . Is this fact or opinion: "Islands in the Caribbean can be vulnerable to climate change due to variable rainfall, and the intensity and frequency of storms in the region." it a quote from the study is used as a reference. The study is not mine, I just found it on-line. Had I started with a verifiable fact instead, might that have been a better beginning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avewiki (talk • contribs)


 * The answer is both yes and no. Let me attempt to explain.
 * The starting position must always be 'Is this something which warrants an encyclopaedia article or is it an opinion piece or a news piece?' That pretty much sets the position of what you hope to write.
 * It's often easier to decide what is not grist to Wikipedia's mill than what is suitable to be in it. Something is suitable if it is inherently notable, and may be included if that notability is verified in reliable sources. So an article about me, for example, meets verifiability and reliable sources, but I am not inherently notable. Even when I was working and was an expert in my field, I was merely an expert, and was not notable. My opinions may have been, and, if cited in reliable sources, might have been used to verify the notability of an allied topic.
 * I'm not sure this is helping much, the more so since Wikipedia has thousands of articles which you would probably agree are not notable, but which the community consensus has determined should be kept. A foible of the wisdom of crowds is that one should also beware the power of stupid people in large groups.
 * Salient points from the climate change article have huge relevance to an article on the geography of the region. These are the verifiable facts from it, not the verbiage that surrounds them. We learn, often later than we wish, to cut verbiage down. A good game, truly, is to see how much you can remove from an article, any article, and leave the sense the same. Conciseness is a huge bonus.
 * Too many words before an answer. The answer is that I cannot think of a fact that could be used to open this article because I think it will always be an opinion piece. That does not mean I'm right. It means that I, as a single editor, with as much right to an opinion as any other editor, hold that view. And I recognise that other people will disagree with me. I expect you to disagree with me and I welcome it if you do, and if you do not.
 * Has any of that helped at all? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly it's not a bad article. The problem isn't with the content, it's with the way you sourced it. Take the Livelihoods section. What you're saying in there makes sense, but you have made connections that the sources didn't make themselves. If you wanted to talk about aging, you'd need a source that talks about aging as a source of climate change vulnerability in the Caribbean. Your source merely gives information on age profiles. Even if you had another source, that connected aging with climate change vulnerability, it would still create potential WP:SYNTH problems for you to connect this (a) to the Caribbean, and (b) to the age profile in Belize. If you had a source that talked about aging in the context of climate change vulnerability in the Caribbean, then it might be OK to add the statistics from the CIA factbook. Might. Some people would still challenge that as drawing original conclusions from sources. (Oh, and by the way, I would drop the "human" vulnerabilities, just go with vulnerabilities. It would change the focus only slightly, but would make for a better article. After all, if you're going to talk about the threats to coral reefs, you shouldn't need to separate out "effects on humans" from "effects on non-humans"). Guettarda (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Avewiki, you are invited to the Teahouse

 * Thanks for the invite. I just posted my first page but it is under threat of being deleted for neutrality (or lack thereof) issues. Not sure how to rectify. Suggestions appreciated!


 * Easy: start by editing other pages and see how they work. Ignore the page that is under discussion for deletion. Consider WP:MENTOR, and, mainly, have fun. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yipppeee! Will do. May the Rabbit of Easter bring you the gift of chocolate!
 * Avewiki (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and never, not ever, take anything on WIkipedia personally unless it is praise. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ushau97 talk 11:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now it's time to start to have fun
I'm sorry your firstborn article was slain, and I'm sorry to be the one to propose it for death, but now is the time to start becoming a Wikipedia editor, and I choose the word with care.

Which areas interest you? Can one tiny article there be improved? Start small and work up. And ask for help when you feel you need it, or just would like some. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing
I'm glad you now have User:Avewiki/Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean to work with, and it;s in a place where only the most uncharitable of editors will attempt to interfere with it, but you need, grad class or not, to get to grips with what Wikipedia is and is not.

So determine what it is you are writing for your grad class for the 25% of the credit that you seek.
 * An encylopaedia article
 * A piece of inspired journalism

At present it tends to the journalistic. I was pretty close in identifying it as a school project when I proposed it for deletion, it seems. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for that type of material. A free Wordpress site, or a Blogger site is a far better home.

So is the credit to be for an encyclopaedia article? If so it needs to become one. Start by making it purely factual. Write cold hard facts, and cite each fact. I don't mean cite population numbers. I mean cite them insofar as the reference cites their change because of climate alterations. If the land space will contract, for example, and this is proposed to be likely to be attributable to climate change ''and' hat is citable, cite that. But do not juxtapose two facts and synthesise a third from them. That's journalism.

Writing for an encyclopaedia is hard. You have to be unbiased and to record cited facts, not opinions. We can cite other people's opinions. Look at the articles surrounding the 9/11 conspiracy theories. We record the nut jobs and the reasonable theorists but only because mainstream sources are references. We, Wikipedia, do not have an opinion.

Because it's so hard to do that explains why it is 25% of your credit. Articles that do not make the grade get deleted, and 25% credit vanishes. The course tutor doesn't even have to mark them.

Again, if I can help with advice, I will. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Avewiki/Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean


Hello, Avewiki. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean".

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 and remove the, , or  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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)