User talk:Flugscham

Hello, Flugscham, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: 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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Hi
Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to make your life hard and I appreciate your interest in adding to our article Global warming. I've been here a long time and know the ropes. If you add your edits within the WP:Policies and guidelines they will probably survive. However, you're not doing that and I'm not here to make your life hard I'm here to help in the way we try to help good faith new editors. The advice page that I'm following as I reach out to you is WP:Don't bite the newcomers. Hopefully you will be willing to see I'm trying to give helpful advice, not fighting with you.

As I explained in the WP:Edit summary when I made this reversion, "...See WP:LEADSECTION... we write a summary in the lead. If it isn't in the body it can't be the lead summary"  OK, so you made a bold addition (thanks) and I reverted it. The next step is either (A) try again by changing the addition in a way that addresses the concern raised in the edit summary or (B) discuss the issue on the article talk page. D stands for "Discussion" in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

But you are not doing that. Instead you reposted the same text which has the same problem I complained about before. You "re-reverted" without discussion. That's the opening of an WP:Edit war, which does no one any good, certainly not editors like us who want to see a great article. So once again.... if it isn't in the body of the article, it can not be in the summary we provide in the lead. Unless I'm overlooking it, our article does not include any mention of pyrogenic biochar yet your text is adding the following to the lead anyway


 * It is also argued that already emitted greenhouse gases need to be removed, hereby using technologies like pyrogenic carbon capture and storage, which are increasingly discussed as a means to remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and, thus, evaluated as to whether this could help to reverse global warming

Besides the problem that pyrogenic CSS isn't in the body of the article, there is a WP:POV-like expression "increasingly". This sounds like advocacy or WP:Editorializing, and we are prohibited from doing either under our rules about WP:Neutrality. Another problem with this text is that "it is argued by" is just begging for an line cleanup tag such as Template:who?. There is room to talk about pyrogenic CSS (or negative emissions) and if you want to work on that, THANKS! But the result does have to pass muster with our Policies and guidelines. Please consider working on the idea of negative emessions and/or pyrogenic CSS in the body of the article before we ponder adding anything to the lead.

At the risk of charges that I am also edit warring, I will remove it one more time and then stop. Now that you have been made aware of the problems here, you will be expected to NOT simply put it back the same way. You can either add it in the body in a way that addresses some of the issues or you can start a thread on the article talk page where we can continue discussion the edits content. I'm posting here at your user talk page because I am mostly writing about behavior and trying to pass on helpful tips. We can use some more great climate editors, and this post is intended to help and welcome you, not to pick a fight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Journal ranking
Hi - I really like your addition to the Journal ranking article as it makes the article more balanced and accurate. However, your last two sentences read like an opinion (editorial) and are not supported by a reliable reference, so I removed those two sentences. "Instead of controlling academics by implementing a simple performance measurement system that is based on rankings, universities strive to hire top scholars and create an atmosphere of trust and support. An analysis of the behavior of professors in Germany, where traditionally no performance measurement systems based on journal rankings are in place but the hiring process is more rigorous than, for example, in North America, demonstrates that they are self-motivated also without journal rankings and partly work more hours." Although the statement makes sense intuitively, and I would agree with it personally, we need to support what we write with reliable sources. - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Copy and pasting
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0632-4


 * I can see why the software thinks this might be C&P. This is however, a citation. I will think about how to paraphrase better. Thanks... Flugscham (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)