User talk:Alvarezyusi
| This user is a student editor in Florida_International_University/IDH3035_-_Digital_Fairytale_(Spring_2020) . |
Alvarezyusi, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Alvarezyusi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Alvarezyusi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic and climate change
[edit]Hi! I have some notes:
- This article falls within the COVID-19 sphere, so as such this would fall under sanctions. What this means is that the article will be more heavily viewed and edited than some other articles. As such, you need to make sure that this is written as neutrally as possible and uses the strongest possible sourcing. If any changes are made to the page or any of your content is changed or reverted from here on out, discuss any changes on the article's talk page.
- Do not use wording like "we" and "our" - Wikipedia uses the formal third person writing style. Using other formats can be seen as too casual and can even cause the content to be seen as more of a reflective essay. You also want to make sure that you're careful to check for spelling and grammatical errors.
- Be very, very careful when it comes to writing on Wikipedia - we want to make sure that we're writing neutrally and only summarizing what has been explicitly stated. It's important to avoid coming across like we're reacting to the topic area.
This is a general overview so far and I've done some tweaks to the page for style and flow. I've made sure that the coronavirus WikiProject (a group devoted to editing on coronavirus topics) is aware of the page so you may see an increase in people viewing and editing the page - it's vitally important that from here on out, that you discuss any major additions or changes on the article's talk page when these editors start working on the page. Also, you can absolutely reach out to me on my talk page or via email whenever you need. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add a bit of nuance to those recommendations. :) I think the first thing to do is to look at the "History" tab, and see if you can understand why editors have made the changes that they made. Everyone is supposed to use edit summaries to describe their changes, so that others can quickly decide which edits s/he wishes to check in more detail. You're welcome to (politely) put messages on the talk pages of editors who fail to do this, saying that you would better understand their edits if they gave edit summaries.
- Another point is that as long as you make a reasonable effort to learn - nobody will complain if you make some mistakes and learn from them. I would agree that major changes would be best proposed first on the talk page, but if you think you understand what is considered acceptable, then additions are less risky than changes. It's easier for other editors to add tags such as {{citation needed}} or {{clarify}} to new content than to untangle complicated changes. You might need to use {{re}} to attract the attention of particular editors if you don't understand (or disagree with) their changes.
- Another nuance is that Wikipedia does not aim at neutrality; we aim at a neutral point of view. As an extreme example to illustrate this, our articles on Hitler and Stalin are not at all neutral - we present them as utterly evil people. This is because the sources overwhelmingly consider them as utterly evil, so a balanced summary of the information in the sources is that those two people were utterly evil.
- And a key scientific point: global warming and pollution are mostly two different things. There is some overlap between them, especially in the overall cause (industrial civilisation and production), so probably others will accept to leave some material on pollution in the article, but they are mostly two different things. You'll also see that I added the worries that are quite widely stated by the global climate movement to the article (you should be able to find similar statements in online sources by Greta Thunberg if you search a little with duckduckgo or another search engine) - there are (at least) three reasons to think that the pandemic's long-term effects might be in the opposite direction to the short-term ones.