User talk:Kratanuva66

Welcome & about Global warming
Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You linked a non-existent file as the first image of Global warming, and added the text "(on the old chart, until I updated it to 2007 to show that global warming is a scam)" to the article. You need to use reliable sources when editing articles. You must have a reliable source, not some raw data, that explicitly states that global warming is a scam in order to say so on an article page. Additionally, the graph you replaced with a non-existant file did have data from 2007. Please avoid partisan or biased language and approaches when writing this encyclopedia. - Enuja (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Global warming
Hi Kratanuva66. It sounds like you need to read not just Global warming but also Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report, Global_warming_controversy and many of the sources cited in those articles before you start to edit these articles. Global warming is the top-level article; it's a summary of lots of different ideas. There is a strong consensus on what topics should be covered in this summary. If you'd like to change that, you need to first convince people at Talk:Global warming that different emphasis or sections should appear on the top-level global warming article. I'm replying here, so please continue this conversation here. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). - Enuja (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a warning, please cite sources before adding information to an article like you did on Global Warming or you will be blocked. Continuing to add material once it is reverted is called edit waring and you can be blocked for violating the Three Revert Rule  Any questions please contact me, please read Citing Sources.  Darth  Griz98  23:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for contributors who are willing to help me with a Criticism section on the Global Warming page. We need to first do a plethora of research to gather together reputable and qualified scientists who take issue with some (or all) of the tenets of global warming. This article is one of the only pages that doesn't have a criticism section and it is sorely lacking in that regard. I have already gathered a great deal of reference material, and a good friend of mine is an atmospheric physicist willing to help. Please let me know on my talk page if you are willing to help.Supertheman (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding Criticism sections
Wikipedia tries to avoid bias and instead write with a "neutral point of view" (NPOV). The policy on avoiding bias is Neutral point of view. One of the ways to avoid bias is to avoid partitioning different points of view into different articles or sections. This part of the policy is described in this subsection of that policy page. Of course, global warming is a big topic, so the top-level article just has summaries of the details of the subject, which are covered in different articles, which fits with the summary style guidelines.

In other words, "criticism" sections are actually a bad thing. Global warming avoids having a criticism section not to avoid criticism, but to avoid pigeon-holing criticism into one section. The way the article, and the set of articles about global warming, is organized is to separate the science from the policy, so the page on the scientific evaluations about global warming is different from the page on social and political debate (linked above). It probably isn't constructive to try to bring back a criticism section in a article that's well organized without one. - Enuja (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)