Useful links, notes, templates, etc.[edit]
Click at right to show/hide Useful links, notes, templates, etc.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
——— Re CLIMATE CHANGE
——— Library access
——— COLLAPSIBLE TEXT ((collapse top |title=Click at right to show/hide ___ )) ((collapse bottom)) ——— BASIC PATENT CITE: <ref name= __>((cite patent |country= |number=Patent ___ |title= |pubdate= |gdate= |inventor=__,__ |url=))</ref> ———COMPLETE PATENT CITE: <ref name= __>((cite patent |country= |number=Patent |status= |title= |pubdate= |gdate= |fdate= |pridate= |inventor=__,__ |invent1= |invent2= |assign1= |assign2= |class= |url=))</ref> ——— REFLIST for TALK PAGES ((reflist talk)) ——— MULTIPLE IMAGE template </nowiki> (( multiple image | align = right | direction = horizontal | total_width = | image1 = | width1 = | caption1 = | image2 = | width2 = | caption2 = | image3 = | width3 = | caption3 = ))
——— PROGRESSIVE WARNINGS TO OTHERS RE VANDALISM: ———— ((subst:Uw-vandalism1|article)) Information icon Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. ———— ((subst:Uw-vandalism2|article|additional text)) Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ———— ((subst:Uw-vandalism3|article)) Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ———— ((subst:Uw-vandalism4|article)) Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. ———— ((subst:Uw-vandalism4im|article)) This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ——— WIKITABLE
</nowiki>
——— SVG:
<switch> ——— Wikimedia graphics & video:
——— Wikipedia graphics:
——— MISC.
——— ———
|
Click at right to show/hide "Welcome" templates
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wikipedia key policies and guidelines (?) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Conduct (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Deletion (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Enforcement (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Editing (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Project content (?) |
| ||||||||||
| WMF (?) |
| ||||||||||
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
Excel .xlsx spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for .SVG graphics[edit]
Click at right to show/hide User:RCraig09/Excel to XML for SVG, etc
|
|---|
 Warming stripes (five examples compared) Warming stripes bar chart Bar chart (vertical) Pie chart Line charts Scatterplot I've uploaded .xlsx (Microsoft Excel) spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for charts in SVG format. You simply paste or enter your data into the spreadsheet, and specify image dimensions, number of grid lines, font sizes, etc. The spreadsheet instantly and automatically generates a column of XML code that you simply copy and paste into a text editor and save as an ".svg" file. The spreadsheets produce lean SVG code, avoiding the "extra stuff" that Inkscape inserts. They should save you time in creating SVG charts. Feedback and suggestions on my talk page are welcome. RCraig09 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Click HOW TO for detailed explanation.
Example SVG files: Category:SVG diagrams created with spreadsheet.
|
Sorry for trying to be helpful. Can you fill me in on why naming that particular musician is spam-like? I see zero other occurrences on the page. Your reference to the section title is only further mystifying, as if anything the current title is an argument in favor of providing clear attribution of the work. -- Andrew (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Andrew. All elements in
/* Inclusions in film, television and events */list only the name of the film, TV program, or event—and not the particular artist. The section has to do with inclusions of the song and not of the artists, the article being about the song. Listing artists would serve to clutter the section. My edit was not a personal attack or denigration of Downie. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)- Surely you could just communicate that editorial preference instead of cryptically accusing me of spamming? I look at the revisions to my contributions because I’m new and want to learn from them. What was I supposed to get from that? I’d been warned that the Wikipedia community is toxic and thus far it’s succeeding in living up to its reputation. -- Andrew (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrew Kvalheim: I wasn't accusing you, personally, of "spamming": my edit comment referred to what was in context a "spam-like recitation"—which you took personally. It was not a "cryptic" personal attack, and I hope you will see that most experienced editors talk about edits and not about editors. Separately: reducing clutter and conforming to existing formats and conventions within articles, are not my own "editorial preference" (I've yet to meet another editor who's been in favor of further clutter). "Toxic" editors usually don't stay for long. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Whilst "spam-like" might be a normal term-of-the-art for seasoned Wikipedians, it's hardly encouraging to the newbie who doesn't understand why their good-faith edit has been reverted. I will certainly keep this in mind when I revert edits in the future.
- Perhaps we could promote using edit descriptions with indicative terms like weak connection to article subject or (more pithily) atopical.
- Even better would be to have short links for common reversion reasons, such as WP:rr/focus or WP:rr/copyright. Does anything similar to this already exist, or if not, how would I go about promoting it and maybe getting it implemented?
- Martin Kealey (talk) Martin Kealey (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Martin Kealey: One can link to existing pages for policies and guidelines, like Wikipedia:Spam. I don't quite understand what you're asking about "promoting" in general, but a good place to ask for advice would be one of the message boards at Wikipedia:Village pump or Wikipedia:Teahouse. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrew Kvalheim: I wasn't accusing you, personally, of "spamming": my edit comment referred to what was in context a "spam-like recitation"—which you took personally. It was not a "cryptic" personal attack, and I hope you will see that most experienced editors talk about edits and not about editors. Separately: reducing clutter and conforming to existing formats and conventions within articles, are not my own "editorial preference" (I've yet to meet another editor who's been in favor of further clutter). "Toxic" editors usually don't stay for long. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Surely you could just communicate that editorial preference instead of cryptically accusing me of spamming? I look at the revisions to my contributions because I’m new and want to learn from them. What was I supposed to get from that? I’d been warned that the Wikipedia community is toxic and thus far it’s succeeding in living up to its reputation. -- Andrew (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The Atmospheric Transmission image caption[edit]
I just copied the diagram and caption from the greenhouse gas article, so you may want to update the caption there too. Efbrazil (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Bowling picture[edit]
I understand you think the picture doesn't add encyclopedic content to the "Bowling" page - though I do - but to mark it as vandalism is a bit extreme. FYI, there is no picture of 1) the actual pins, 2) their setup or 3) pin to ball size ratio in a regular court; that's the picture's "addition to encyclopedic" content. You don't agree, that's fine, this is not a hill worth dying on, I'll not revert it. But be a bit more cautious in the future with the "vandalism" label. Some of us fight hard against vandalism. Cheers. WikiUser70176 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, @WikiUser70176:, but I clicked on "undo" and not on anything related to vandalism. Further, pin-to-ball-size is already shown in File:20190107 Bowling balls and pins.png, in File:20181230 Bowling ball at board 17.5 with pins.png, in the two videos above where you inserted your red-ball picture, and also in the more specific Ten-pin bowling article. That is why I said the red-ball picture didn't add any encyclopedic content. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for he clarification. I appreciate your nice tone. The "vandalism" label appears to me when I click on the two versions. It's bold and red. Maybe it appears only to me? In any event, I'm ok with the picture not being on the page, the videos show what it needs to be shown. Have a good week!WikiUser70176 (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
May 2023[edit]
Your edit to Climate change denial has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've shortened and changed the wording per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. There should be no question of copyright infringement, especially in dealing with two sentences whose content can't readily be paraphrased in a way that's substantially different from the sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have had to remove it again. The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns and verbs; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. If you are unable to achieve that, you should not add the material. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: In 14 years on Wikipedia and decades as an intellectual property attorney, I've seen zero indication that content must be "completely re-written using your own words". Copyright protects particular expression—not ideas or their "order" or the "sentence structure" that you mention. Contrary to your claim, my first sentence summarizes the source's expression of a simple idea that can't be expressed much differently, and my second sentence constitutes a bare-bones list of three accusations made against meteorologists. If you persist, please adapt the content yourself rather than deleting it on the insinuation that one is "unable to achieve" this "complete re-write". Show me. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material (short properly attributed quotations are allowed, but cannot be used as a substitute for writing your own content). One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Summarize rather than paraphrase, and don't try to include every single detail. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. It also helps to have more than one source to draw from, but so far there only seems to be this one report. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. I have to go to work now, but I can try rewriting the content for you after work if you still need me to do so. — Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: In 14 years on Wikipedia and decades as an intellectual property attorney, I've seen zero indication that content must be "completely re-written using your own words". Copyright protects particular expression—not ideas or their "order" or the "sentence structure" that you mention. Contrary to your claim, my first sentence summarizes the source's expression of a simple idea that can't be expressed much differently, and my second sentence constitutes a bare-bones list of three accusations made against meteorologists. If you persist, please adapt the content yourself rather than deleting it on the insinuation that one is "unable to achieve" this "complete re-write". Show me. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have had to remove it again. The problem is that you are presenting the same ideas in the same order using the same sentence structure, while only substituting a few of the words. You can't just reword phrases and substitute different nouns and verbs; the content has to be completely re-written using your own words. If you are unable to achieve that, you should not add the material. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- "Any wording" does not mean "any words"; if people are being harassed it's okay to say so. I have had a good look at the source article and noticed that some of the content in the opening paragraphs doesn't match what's present in the remainder of the article. For example, "misplaced weather stations": what the body of the article actually says is that the detractors say the French meteorologists were overemphasising data from urban locations, which are typically warmer than rural locations. The statement about the far-right should be attributed to the person who made the claim. I would leave out his speculation about what the far-right people's motivations might be.
Reporters at Phys.org note that meteorologists have been accused of falsifying weather reports and overusing data from weather stations in warmer locations to promote the concept of climate change. In Spain, meteorologists have reported being harassed and threatened on the Internet and by telephone and email. Alexandre Lopez-Borrull, a lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia, notes a recent increase in climate change denial, particularly among supporters of the far right.
— Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that the content re right wing origins should be described as one person's perception; a point well made.
However, your text eviscerates the content and thwarts the intent of a reliable source in warning of misinformation. Specifically, you've ignored the reliable source's prominently placed "falsely accused..." language re three silly accusations against meteorologists in Spain, Australia and France—content that I succinctly included. Instead you place "Reporters at Phys.org" in context (reducing its credibility) and emphasize meteorologists are "accused of falsifying"—in a way that actually casts doubt in readers' minds on the meteorologists and not on the random public idiots whose claims were debunked toward the bottom of the article. Spanish meteorologists being harassed and threatened isn't the main point of my edit; misinformation is the point. My goal is not to summarize the entire phys.org article but to focus on its points exemplifying Climate change denial's recent history which are recited in a small fraction of the phys.org article. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi RCraig, while your expansion of Held v. Montana is appreciated, it had several close paraphrasing issues (now resolved in Template talk:Did you know nominations/Held v. Montana), so I just wanted to confirm that Diannaa's above points were taken to heart. There are some legal turns of phrase that are okay to quote or repeat sparingly in articles but the majority of the points mentioned in the DYK discussion did not meet that bar. Please take care to summarize sources in your own words, which helps us avoid time-intensive plagiarism cleanup and lets editors instead focus on other expansion efforts. czar 01:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Czar: From "did not meet that bar", I'm not quite understanding if you think there is still a problem at Held v. Montana after my recent changes in response to the DYK issues, or if you think more changes are needed. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The DYK issues were resolved (as I mentioned), so thank you for that. But since this is the second instance, if you might have made other edits in that style of close paraphrasing, it would be best to correct those now rather than have other editors attempt to correct it later (i.e., WP:CCI). czar 03:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
"In" vs. "by" in "Greenhouse effect" lead[edit]
In the Greenhouse effect lead, you originally wrote "...cause some of the heat radiated from the planet's surface to be trapped in the lower atmosphere." I changed "in" to "by" and you have now changed the word back to "in."
Let's talk this out.
Why do you prefer the word "in"? I believe "in" to be wrong and misleading.
There is no sense in which heat or thermal energy is being retained inside the air by greenhouse gases, which is what the word "in" suggests.
Instead, heat is being prevented from leaving the surface (or the rate at which heat can leave the surface is being reduced).
As an analogy, suppose you have a tank of water that is being drained by a drain pipe. You then add a liner to the drain pipe that narrows the diameter of the pipe, reducing the rate at which water drains. (Greenhouse gases are like that drain pipe liner.)
You wouldn't say that water is being trapped "in" the pipe (there is actually less water in the pipe after the liner is added); you'd say that water is being trapped in the tank "by" the narrowed pipe.
Thoughts? Rhwentworth (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Section, including my reply, is posted to Talk:Greenhouse effect. —RCraig09 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Held v. Montana[edit]
On 4 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Held v. Montana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 16 Montana youths are plaintiffs in the lawsuit Held v. Montana, the first constitutional climate change lawsuit to go to trial in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Held v. Montana. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Held v. Montana), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:RoySmith.
- The hook for this court case is now in the Did You Know... section of Wikipedia's splash page. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The way to move that discussion forward more seriously would be to add merge tags. I'm starting to think it might be necessary to have that discussion as a precursor to the short description one. WP:BROADCONCEPT would be the guidance argument for merging, but it's probably best for you or someone else who supports to launch it (I'd need to read through the articles more first). ((u|Sdkb)) talk 20:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I agree in principle with merging, but I'm not the best one to dive into the various definitions of each, their overlap, and their distinctions. (It's more pedantic than substantive.) Also, there are bound to be disagreements re naming, though Sustainable and renewable energy is probably a starting point. I'd support a motion to merge, and would think some might find my March 14 post useful if a merge discussion were started. (Is there such a thing as a formal merge discussion?) —RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP:Merging has the instructions for nominating pages to be merged, and Twinkle makes the process fairly easy by including the merge option under the tags menu. The process is known for often being slow, but in this case they're high-profile enough pages that it'd hopefully get more attention. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 05:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Plain English and brain fog[edit]
Hi there! Could I ask you a favour? I've been struggling quite a bit with long covid brain fog recently, and have needed to reread your comments multiple times. Would you be willing to try to type in more plain English? For instance, I don't really understand "threshold intensional Definitional characteristic". Thanks in advance :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you User:Femke are suffering long covid. By "threshold intensional Definitional characteristic", I was referring to my (05:49, 2 Aug) post about intensional definitions. Intensional definitions have (1) a genus (~category) and (2) differentia (~distinguishing characteristic(s)). I added "threshold" because replenishability is a minimum requirement for being sustainable. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pandemic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waves.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary[edit]
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank, Gerda Arendt! —RCraig09 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For all you've done for about a decade and a half. Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 17:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC) |
- Thank you, User talk:Volten001. Sometimes I'm not tireless. I get tired fairly regularly... —RCraig09 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Lines are not visible in SVGs generated from spreadhseet[edit]
Hi RCraig,
Thanks for your SVG spreadsheets: their great and I still cannot figure out how you've created something so complex exclusively with excel.
Is there a way to have values that are between years, e.g. every month in a year? When I try this in the line chart it doesn't seem to work because the values are DD/MM/YYYY instead of just years.
The dataset I'm using is here.
Many thanks – Isochrone (T) 19:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Isochrone: As a practical matter, I limited the number of gridlines to be ~20, and my "Line charts" spreadsheet recognizes only numbers in the leftmost column. You have some options, though.
- You could change the DD/MM/YYYY complex into a simple number sequence, possibly in your own separate spreadsheet, and the paste that number sequence into my spreadsheet. For example, represent January 2023 as 2023.000, February 2023 as 2023.083, etc. The number and placement of vertical gridlines is determined by your minimum and maximum values for the horizontal (x) axis, and your chosen number of gridlines (~20 max). (The spreadsheet inserts one number beneath each vertical gridline.) Happily, the number of gridlines isn't affected by how you represent dates; it doesn't know or care that your numbers represent dates.
- Second, the .SVG file is fairly easy for techy-inclined humans to decipher, and if you're a little ambitious, you can use a text editor to adapt the .SVG file—after you're satisfied the spreadsheet has taken you as far as it can. (I've made minor changes to practically every SVG file I've uploaded.) Just know that SVG interprets the upper left corner of the image as (0,0), with x pixels to the right, and y pixels doing downward (different from many mathematical standards).
- I hope this helps. Thanks for your interest and feedback. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
(In)famous[edit]
Congratulations, your edit was worthy of inclusion in a reliable source!
I saw this article recently posted on a user talk page. I recognized your username from our work on Climate Change related articles, and I thought you might find this interesting, if you haven't seen it already:
More specifically :
- "Viewing Native science and environmental stewardship as outside “acceptable” science was common practice by the U.S. Forest Service for centuries—and is now reflected on climate change pages on Wikipedia, as well."
Just to be clear, I understand where you are coming from. To me it appears you were calling out a clear case of OR/Synth.
What I found that made this a little more interesting is that I recently encountered a user who's account had the appearances of a sockpuppet tied to the editor you responded to; upon questioning, they promptly "retired".
Crescent77 (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Slate takes my post wildly out of context, my post about WP:NEUTRAL editing on Wikipedia being linked after a complaint about the Forest Service's discounting of Indigenous stewardship of the environment! I did notice that editor somehow erased his User Page, except saying he was stopping editing... before continuing to edit. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
climate change: economic impact[edit]
I dont know why, but please stop censoring global economic impacts out of the article on climate change like you did on the 11th October 2023 WikiYeti (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WikiYeti: I was not "censoring". I was following long-established consensus on the type of content that should be included in high-level articles such as Climate change. Your posts were unduly long, and of too-narrow scope for inclusion there. Read my edit comments here: if your posts were shortened to be more concise, some of that content might warrant inclusion in subsidiary articles, or within the proper section of Climate change. If you disagree, you can post your thoughts at Talk:Climate change. More generally, see WP:BRD —RCraig09 (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)