Jimmy0511

Welcome!

Hello, Jimmy0511, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  McSly (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: United States Air Force Fire Protection has been accepted

United States Air Force Fire Protection, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Jimmy0511. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page USAF, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. ''
Note: this includes all articles related to the U.S. Air Force. - wolf 21:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Climate change. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I like that people keep throwing around this 'neutrality' clause on Wikipedia articles that are obviously worded to mislead. There are scientific communities that disagree with climate change, which the articles implicates as untrue. You're not correcting them. The source cited for that specific incident doesn't even support that claim. Again, you're not enforcing a 'neutrality' clause in that instance. There is clearly a left leaning bias in this article, expressly in the statement made in reference to groups attempting to argue that climate change is false. Don't sell me this neutrality garbage when it is clearly a one-sided issue. I'll change it every time you correct it.Jimmy0511 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You'll get blocked soon if you do that. Science isn't leftwing and we don't pay attention to media portraying nonexperts as 'scientists' just because they've got a semi-related degree. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Science isn't leftist, obviously. But there are scientists who argue against climate change, and this article says there are none that disagree on the validity of climate change. Even so, the source cited refers to scientists agreeing that the average temperature has increased. This is misleading because the average temperature has only climbed 1.2 degrees Celsius in the last 140 years, and that is according to the graph on the page. If Wikipedia wants a neutral stance on these issues, they are doing a piss poor at moderating. This article is very against any legitimate science that disclaims climate change and you all are not as aggressive at correcting that bias. Why not?

There are virtually no climate scientists arguing about human's impact on climate change anymore. We tend to use high-quality sourcing on Wikipedia (review papers, NASA, assessment reports), which are at odds with the impression some media tries of the existence disagreement with fake 'climate experts' that have expertise only in other fields like geography or meteorology. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 00:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see the neutrality policy adhered to on the climate change page, as opposed to an alarmist left bias, while not overtly leaning to a liberal viewpoint that climate change is a dominant threat, it certainly uses phraseology that indicates that all of the scientific community is on board with the liberal agenda, when there are legitimate scientist who would argue that the "threat" argued by the political left is nonexistent. While a climate change is real, it constantly fluxuates. That is science. All of the other BS posted on this site is political, not scientificate. Jimmy0511 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And continue to argue your case in the way you have is unacceptable, particularly when you disguise edits with false edit summaries. You'll either be topic banned or blocked if you continue your past actions. Discretionary sanctions apply to all pages in Wikipedia, talk, article, etc. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Alarmist left bias" in this context is a generalization and false justification, to deny that expert climatologists already know that the climate is also subject to natural variations, but that anthropogenic climate change is still understood to be real and important. Since denialists can't provide good science that would falsify the best current hypotheses, the strategy is to promote ideas that it's only ideological and to foment public controversies not based on legitimate data, but on misrepresentations and public shows presenting a false balance. Since Wikipedia talk pages are not forums, the "let's pretend there's a legitimate controversy by constantly flooding with doubt" strategy is irrelevant. Unless the preponderance of reliable sources on the topic report that anthropogenic climate change is not a concern, Wikipedia cannot, since it must reflect reliable sources. If the next claim is that those reliable sources are not, WP:RSN and its archives exist. If that still doesn't work you're back at "sources are leftist and alarmist" which then becomes a baseless conspiracy theory that is still not constructive to edit the encyclopedia. —PaleoNeonate – 21:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A request

Hi @Jimmy0511. I hope you're well. My name is Marco Silva and I'm a senior journalist with BBC News in London. I noticed you tried make a couple of edits on climate change pages - and read the exchanges you had here on your "Talk" page. Could you spare a moment for a chat? I'm working on a story about Climate Change Wikipedia. My email is: marco.silva@bbc.co.uk. Many thanks. MarcoSilvaUK (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)