User:NewsAndEventsGuy/sandbox

searching
This will find references to those pages on other sites as well, you'd be better off with: site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:"wiki/*%s" site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:%s (assuming your string isn't present in "en.wikipedia.org/wiki")

User talk:The Transhumanist/SearchSuite.js

more

 * 111
 * |Dog Pageview stats
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility
 * 3rr report tool
 * WP:WikiProject Inline Templates for section and article level tags see WP:CLEANUPTAG
 * Miscellany for deletion
 * Opposed due to unwavering lack of explanation how it would improve the article or what RSs it is based upon.~
 * Example of setting up archiving
 * for userspace that should not be indexed to the web
 * cc ~ but note that old system notifications are valid thru 5-3-15
 * ap ~ Principles in the ARBs' US politics case
 * blp ~
 * Force loading of the DS alert warning box, to aide research into alerts issued in prior 12 months
 * Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation
 * Manually look up user's DS Alert log..... talk page, version history, in tag field add discretionary sanctions alert
 * For red text Red text
 * DAB link bot [[User:DPL_bot}}
 * Wikipedia:Mass_message_senders
 * example video linking A Year In The Life Of Earth's CO2 11719-1920-MASTER.webm
 * Sample page view graph
 * To leave an invisible comment,
 * deleting user subpages
 * Whatsup
 * Template:The Multiple Barnstar (for group effort)
 * To refer to a template on talk page, type undefined Also, from, } it's tl (L for Llama), not t1.... There are lots of related templates in the documentation for undefined, of which the ones I use most often are  and  for adding parameters to the example, and (mostly in my cheatsheet)  to demonstrate what a template does
 * date formatting discussion
 * a bunch more
 * a bunch more


 * colons and asterisks

please suggest some draft text, with wikipedia style citations to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. @@ without suggesting any specific improvements amounts to a general discussion and this is not a forum for general topic discussion

For speedy deletion of linkfarm talk pages

Sample set up archiving

TODO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quiddity&diff=640128313&oldid=640119055

WP:RFO


 * For new editors... although the poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Wikipedia treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints.  It is not a majority rule voting process.  As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting.  Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."

Not helpful. I've respectfully acknowledged you see substantive value that I don't see, and a WP:VAGUEWAVE at policy isn't really increasing our mutual understanding of the WP:OTHERSOPINION.~

Do not edit war
Once you have been reverted, you are expected to discuss the matter at the article talk page. One of the reverting editors has already started a thread for that purpose. Please click this link and discuss the improvements you think need to be made, instead of repeatedly editing the article, because that looks a lot like edit warring, which can lead to sanctions.

Great, now learn how to use a talk page
Thanks for replying at article talk. Next, please learn how to discuss at those talk (or this) talk page. Three things
 * Sign your posts by typing 4 tildes at the end. Like this ~
 * Learn to indent to show who you are replying to, using colons Like this : or :::: etc
 * Read the talk page guidelines

How not to edit war
Before any more editing, please review about what to do when you are reverted. The next step is to DISCUSS at the article talk page, where we have certain guidelines to follow. If you are unhappy with the discussion, don't keep restoring the reverted text or variations of it. Instead, rely on dispute resolution ~

Appropriate criticism

 * I like criticism that follows our rules about being
 * civil,
 * assuming good faith, and
 * are based on what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source.
 * If you are intersted in making constructive critique without causing disruption, then please study and abide by the talk page guidelines and WP:ARBCC. We try not to WP:BITE newcomers, but there's a low tolerance for studious disdain of our basic standards once they're called to your attention.

"The magnitude of climate change and the severity of its impacts will depend on the actions that human societies take to respond to these risks." pg 2 America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (Report in Brief) Matson, et al US National Research Council 2010 http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

List defined references
''For a time I thought I found a bug in the code. I prepped a report for Pump/Technical, and when I posted the report I discovered a difference in behavior depending on where you are messing with this feature. This first paragraph sums up the end result, but I'm saving the earlier work for future reference and a reminder if what I learned as I experimented''


 * BOTTOM LINE  When using List-Defined references in article or wikipedia space, when publishing changes an unused ref produces an error message.   In talk pages and my user sandbox it does not.  Instead unused references simply are not visible in the rendered notes.  But in those spaces when editing and looking at changes in PREVIEW mode, unused references are visible in the list of notes.  Since notes are numbered in order of first occurrence, they appear at the bottom of the list and the carom symbol is not hyperlinked.

Earlier work as a experimented..................

-- Is RefList broken with respect to list-defined references --

I think the code for reflist might be broken.

At Help:Footnotes it says
 * All references in reference list must be referenced in the content, otherwise an error message will be shown.

Similarly, at the detailed sub-page in section Help:List-defined_references it says (bold in original) it says
 * Additionally, any unused references will generate an error. All list-defined references must be used in the body...

This error-reporting for unused references is no longer working. If it is fixed, it would be nice if the error message asked people to move unused citations to article talk so it can be easily used again.

You can stop here.... That's all I really needed to say. But in case that succinct summary isn't clear, here are some detailed examples I fumbled around with while studying the concept of list-defined references. These examples demonstrate what I am talking about. The full citation used in the following examples are simply
 * Ugly, Ugly Ugly
 * Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier
 * Voila!

Being ugly, the first two references are fully cited within the reflist template, but the simple cite for Voila! is allowed to remain in the text. So here we go....

In example 2,
 * Contrary to the help documentation, the unused reference does not produce an error when publishing
 * As expected, the unused reference does not appear on the published version of the article but
 * Weird and undocumented behavior.... the unused references does appear in preview mode. Since the references are numbered in order of first use, the unused reference (formerly reference 2) is bubbled down to the bottom of the list and its little carom symbol is not hyperlinked.  I only happened to discover this by accident.  It would be nice if the error feature were repaired, coded to be educational, and supplemented with a message asking for unused references to maybe be moved to article talk for easy future use.

Thanks for reading NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

pics with transparent background
I finally figured out (in 2013 publisher) to just select the image(s) and use "save as picture" instead of saving the whole thing (file-Export-changefiletype).

Sandbox misc
Once consensus on selection criteria is achieved, it should be documented in two places. First, it should be clearly described in the list's introductory material. Second, it should be added to the list article's talk page, using Template:List criteria, including a link to document where the consensus was established. If list criteria include acceptable self-references to Wikipedia (see "common selection criteria" below), it should be formatted in the article using Template:Self-reference link.

In contrast, list articles lacking sufficient statements of list criteria should be tagged with Template:List missing criteria.