User talk:Klinfran

Hello again Klinfran. I thought you might be interested that I added an introduction to my paper: http://aforrester.bol.ucla.edu/educate/Articles/Derive_GravitoEM.pdf Zeroparallax (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry, I never ever saw that answer. It's been 14 years, oh my god, I'm really sorry. Could you provide a new link please? I would be very pleased to look at it. Klinfran (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to The Line, Saudi Arabia, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How stating the obvious can be qualified as original research while employing the future tense "will" is not some original research or promotion?. It's like saying "apples fall from trees" there is no original research in stating that using millions of gas powered bulldozers and extracting metals for the panels or the concrete will generate massive amount of CO2. Wikipedia is not Saudi's kingdom. There is no possibility to tell whether it WILL or WON'T be powered by renewable sources, so maybe a "it is planned to be powered by renewable sources", or "promoted" would be a better formulation, but will certainly is NOT. Klinfran (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The original research concerns were regarding these additions:

The city is claimed to be powered entirely by renewable energy when achieved, although its construction will emit a massive amount of greenhouse gases. [...] Notably, there will be region facing the irradiation from 2 suns in one of the already hottest place in the world.

WP:SYNTH is the relevant policy when deciding whether to use common sense to write a sentence as "city is renewable, but construction emits massive amounts of carbon" or "although construction emits carbon, city will be massively renewable". Better to quote a source that's taken a view on how these two factors balance.

The two-suns irradiation sentence lacked a source and I'm not sure what it was trying to say.

I fully agreed with you that the renewable energy should be framed as a plan rather than a prophecy, and I left that change in place at the time, with some minor rewording. It's still in place in the text a year later. Belbury (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]