User talk:RCraig09/Archive 2 (2020)

Useful links, notes, templates, etc.
——— COLLAPSIBLE TEXT

——— BASIC PATENT CITE:

———COMPLETE PATENT CITE:

——— REFLIST for TALK PAGES

——— MULTIPLE IMAGE template

——— PROGRESSIVE WARNINGS TO OTHERS RE VANDALISM:

———— 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.

———— article

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.

———— article

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

———— article

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

———— article

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

——— WIKITABLE


 * {| class="wikitable"
 * ! style="background: green; color: white" | Strong support
 * ! style="background: #a2cca2; color: black" | Mild support
 * ! style="background: pink; color: black" | Mild oppose
 * ! style="background: red; color: white" | Strong oppose
 * | a || b || c || d
 * | e || f || g || h
 * |}
 * | e || f || g || h
 * |}
 * |}

——— SVG:
 * Wikimedia Commons / Help / SVG Fonts
 * SVG help
 * Commons Template:Created with Inkscape
 * Commons:SVG marker templates
 * Wikimedia Commons Help:Inkscape
 * meta Wikimedia SVG fonts lists all installed fonts on Wikimedia servers available to SVG rendering
 * TEST: wmf tools SVG test
 * CHECKER: Commons SVG Checker
 * WMFoundationo SVG Workaround Bot
 * Graphics Lab/Resources/PDF conversion to SVG

——— Wikimedia graphics & video:
 * Wikikimedia Commons Graphics Lab
 * en.Wikipedia Graphics Lab
 * Video-to-Commons video converter
 * Help:Creation and usage of media files ...  parameter for videos, etc.
 * Template:Color ...  Hello, world

——— Wikipedia graphics:
 * Template:Graph:Chart

——— MISC.
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia
 * Extended image syntax
 * Reliable sources/Perennial sources
 * List of web archives on Wikipedia
 * Help:Footnotes
 * Help:Table
 * Template:Citation
 * Template:Harvard citation
 * Template:Sfn
 * User Agent Breakdowns — Wikimedia Foundation





———

———

———

Five pillars:
 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * 2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
 * 3) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
 * 4) Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
 * 5) Wikipedia has no firm rules


 * }

Excel .xlsx spreadsheets that automatically generate XML code for .SVG graphics
(Transcluded:)

Third opinion
I'm new to the third opinion thingie, so I've just finished rereading the page. First of all, thanks for responding! I wonder whether we've had too much prior interaction for the opinion to be neutral. WP:3O states If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute., which you might not have been aware of. If you have and believe you are completely neutral towards the both of us, could you remove the request from WP:3O? To prevent other editors from delving into the material, you're advised to remove the request before you start answering the request. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed I was not aware of the requirement that you quote. In any event, the opinion I offered related to definitions (volitional versus non-volitional), certainly not to favor one editor over another editor. I don't think I have edited that article (yet). I did not cancel the request for third opinion and I presume others will contribute. I do not plan to add to that specific discussion, and I hope others will help resolve it. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump
As much as I know it's Trump himself that's calling these sources out as partisan, opinion pages on the WP, the NYT, and even a few mainstream television networks clearly show partisanship. I think this complies with WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL; the first one because even though voices of certain editors are their own opinions, when there's a line of best fit there definitely will be bias, and b); even independent sources <--- like shown there have callouts to partisanship. I request that I can revert this; pls reply asap. SamRathbone (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to end of Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for page numbers
Hello! You recently made this figure about causes, effects and feedbacks of climate change. I noticed you didn't provide page numbers, and you referred to a SPM of 2016. I believe you wanted to refer to the SPM of SROCC in 2019, right? Would you mind adding the page numbers to the GW article? I'm going to add it to WP:PEER REVIEW as soon as my climate sensitivity article is finally assessed on the GA criteria. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the caption for File:20200101 Global warming - climate change - causes effects feedback.png I have re-inserted the source that was deleted in this diff. I also linked to the PDF report itself, which has page numbers, rather than the html page which has no "page numbers". I'm finding Talk:Global warming/Citation standards to be complicated, abstruse and bewildering, the various categories to be confusing (NASA listed under "Non-technical sources"?) and the sfn and harv template choices to be a challenge—all a substantial barrier to entry to those who want to add sourced content to the GW article. I hope I'm complying with the citation standards at this point. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted that source because I though it was the same as the one directly below, but with the correct year. Is that not the case? I understand that citations standards are suboptimal and regret agreeing to them and burdening other editors with them. I'm going to put effort into helping others only as long as we're working to get the article on the front page, and will accept deterioration afterwards. We wanted to make a distinction between proper scientific sources and sci-com sources, hence NASA's website as sci-com (under title non-technical sources). Open to other suggestions for that section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes: 2019 is proper for the PDF document, and I've removed my duplicate cite that listed "2016" based on wording in the html page. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Tracking IDs, utm, and archive links
Re those archive links don't work (try it). However they can be made to work, by removing the tracking ID, like this. Do you know how tracking IDs got added to the archive links? That is unusual since they don't exist in the original url and I don't see in the history where/how they were added. -- Green  C  17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, It's my intent and habit to delete any extraneous suffixes after the "?" before archiving. I don't remember how they were introduced. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. The reason I asked have been seeing a bunch of these of late, specific to the WaPo, across multiple articles. Thought it might be the work of one user or script. It's oddly specific and scattered. --  Green  C  00:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

DS alert: AP
Here's your friendly DS alert for the AP2 topic area. You're supposed to receive this annually as long as you're editing in the AP2 area, and it appears you have never received one. Enjoy! ― Mandruss  &#9742;  23:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Economic Impacts of GW/CC
I was reluctant to start a new category on the talk page, so I thought I would make a comment here. Do you know why there is no specific discussion on the economics of climate change in the main article? The Effects of GW page has a paragraph on it (which I think could use a little more development), but I don't see anything in the main article.Dtetta (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, greetings, kind sir. I notice that there are 15 instances of the text string "econom" in the body of Global warming, but they are very dispersed. I am no expert on the history of content in Global warming and if you still think a topic is under-covered, I think it's perfectly acceptable to raise the issue at Talk:Global warming. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I noticed those same brief references to economic aspects, but nothing that dealt with any kind of comprehensive estimates. I will make a suggestion on the talk page.Dtetta (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits in Global warming peer review page
Greetings. I’ve made a number of proposed edits to the four lead paragraphs and put them in the peer review article. I would really appreciate your thoughts as to whether they make sense or are too bold. Thanks!

A few were made to the second and third paragraph to make it more consistent with the infographic you developed.Dtetta (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've read through your proposed changes—which I agree are rather extensive—but I can see the wisdom behind your proposals. I wouldn't worry so much about "matching" text to images (some might even argue it's repetitive to do so). More important, I think that in this high-level article, each sentence in the lede should be specifically sourced—which can be a challenge given the citation standards under which that article operates. Definitely, minimize word count where possible. I think the best approach in this situation is to make changes incrementally and include meaningful edit comments, so that others can gauge your intentions. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Great suggestions, thanks!Dtetta (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH21talk 04:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, kind sir. It is a pleasurable challenge to discuss with reasonable, intelligent and civil editors, even if backgrounds and perceptions and goals and approaches differ. Bottomline, I think we've generated one of the most concise-yet-comprehensive GW diagrams anywhere. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, User:Sdkb. I saw a definite need in an important family of articles. Then it became a matter of putting in the "99% perspiration" to manually generate 49 unique frames for the GIFs. I thank you and others for suggestions that have improved the presentation of those graphics. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just about to award you the same barnstar, but please accept my grateful thanks in its place. I was especially impressed by your responsiveness to feedback on the original version. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks go out to you, RexxS, for your constructive comments and suggestions. It has truly been a group effort. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
+1 Thanks for removing the stick man and switching the colors to red and green. A significant improvement IMO. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * De nada. The process involved improvements spurred by many editors' constructive comments and suggestions. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thank you for creating the image for File:20200401 Trump coronavirus quote timelines - Washington Post.svg. In this era of misinformation and totalitarianism, we need the truth to be visible and explained clearly. You've accomplished that with your image (and evidently several others!) Stay like the goat - be loud, and ram your head to get your point across!

♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 
 * Thank you, ♫ ♫ ♪ ♬ ♩User:Hurricanehink ♫ ♫ ♪ ♬, for bestowing this goat award (my first!). Best wishes to you. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, no Sir, thank you! I was gonna give you a barnstar, but thought this felt more appropriate given the severity of the moment. Best wishes to you as well :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

WaPo ref
I assume you added archive to this ref because the page is dynamic. Each time the Post updates that page, they also publish a static article with the same tally and effective date, and we have used that static article in this ref in the prose. Is there any reason not to use the static article for your purposes as well? ― Mandruss  &#9742;  05:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If I understand your question correctly: I've populated the Wikimedia file description page with historical cites to the Post's data page as well as the roughly-contemporaneous articles, but in article(s) I think I favor the data page for data verification purposes rather than the "18,000..." headline statistic. More generally, I try to archive all references, especially if the source puts pages behind a paywall as The Washington Post sometimes does. My citations include both the direct link, and the archive link if it can be archived. Though I'm not understanding your concern, I have no objection to your changing the particular citation if there is some overriding standard in the DT or Veracity... articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Item 25 at Talk:Donald Trump says not to use archive for live links. This is primarily because of the multiple significant adverse effects if a lot of refs do that; I doubt anyone would object to the rare exception if there is a cogent reason. I was mostly thinking, why use two refs when you can reuse one. Then each WaPo update only requires one ref to be updated. And I prefer citing static pages to citing dynamic ones. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well, commander. Make it so. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Join the WikiProject on Climate Change
Hey! I have been noticing that you have been giving a lot of feedback to the Climate change article. You should join the WikiProject as well,Sadads (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Joined! Thanks to Sadads. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Codename Villanelle
Hi; regarding this edit - the ref is not behind a paywall and is secure as is a ref from a newspaper from 1920 when cited properly. The "does not belong under the premise section" seems reasonable, but I think you are incorrect regarding the ref. What if The Independent stops being a news broadcaster and its website is taken down? (Yes, I know there is always the Wayback Machine, but that is not consistent either). The Independent has already scaled back its print edition. Genuine regards though, and happy editing. The joy of all things (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:The joy of all things, my apologies, I must have been thinking of The Times reference, which is behind a paywall, in this version of the Villanelle (character) article which I edited about the same time as the Codename Villanelle that you are writing about. In any event, for Verifiability purposes it's highly recommended to provide a direct link to the source rather than just listing "ISSN 0140-0460". As a Yank, I wasn't aware of the apparent difference between these two publications or their predicted future; they both turned up high on the Google search results. Thanks for stopping by. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't say you verified content when you did nothing of the sort
In this edit, you restored material and added a source that did not support the date of birth you restored. Worse, you said you verified it. You should know much better than that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I verified the source said that Louise Platt grew up in Annapolis, Maryland, which was my concern in the article on Annapolis, Maryland. Regrets, I didn't verify her exact date of birth as well, though the reported age at time of death is consistent with that in the article. Thanks for the scolding! —RCraig09 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Map edit request
In the past days, I have requested for a image edit, but it is not yet done.

Have you see my request?

Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop

Thanks!!!

--2001:B07:6442:8903:94A0:3027:61A:BAF2 (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Relationship of Eve Polastri and Villanelle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relationship of Eve Polastri and Villanelle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Relationship of Eve Polastri and Villanelle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stephen 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Killing Eve completed here ~22 July 2020. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The GAN of Helena, Montana
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that yesterday I decided to nominate Helena, Montana for Good Article Status. As you are the other most significant contributor, I decided to just let you know. If you do not think it should be nominated just yet, we either talk about the article or I can retract the article. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC).


 * Only a small fraction of articles ever achieve Good Article status, about 1 out of 175 (34,000 out of >6,000,000) according to the chart in Wikipedia Statistics. See Good article criteria for what is involved in achieving that status.
 * As a minimum threshold to begin consideration as a Good Article (it's currently C-class!), as I've written repeatedly, citations should conform to Wikipedia standards. See WP:CITEHOW. In this article I still see sixty-four (64) instances of the text string "retrieved July" (presumably your edits)—few if any of which contain the actual publication date.
 * I have not spent the time needed to verify article content is in fact supported by the references (and personally don't intend to), but the citations in their current state will almost certainly give reviewers an extremely negative first impression, before they even decide to consider a substantive review.
 * Though I appreciate enthusiasm for adding to Wikipedia, if you proceed with a GA nomination at this point, I think the result will not be pretty. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

White background
Hiya. Could you make the background of white again? Then we'd have a single style of the global warming page. Thanks :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Femke Nijsse, I can change it. I want to be sure you mean white (not "transparent"). —RCraig09 (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , good point. What is the standard? I assume transparent is better? Just wanna make sure everything looks nice together in our article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I investigated other images in the GW article, and now I remember: In Google Chrome, when an SVG images is rendered as a PNG, the "transparent" areas appear as **black** -- which is not desirable since the black text would appear invisible. Therefore, I have changed the background on this image to be opaque white. −RCraig09 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , am I looking wrong, or did the colour change not come through? If I look at the file history, only the first version has a white background. Thanks for your work! Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The background (border) of Version 6 is white. I don't understand it, but many times I am forced to clear my browser cache to see the most recent version. (Example: In Chrome 84.0 for iMac: "Clear cached images and files"). —RCraig09 (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Bowling glossary
Would you be interested in expanding the Glossary of bowling with terms from User:Utfor/Glossary of bowling? Utfor (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your list has many non-standard terms, plus many terms I've never heard of after reading/seeing thousands of bowling articles+videos, slang names of spares/splits, other trivia, and some terms that are already in the official glossary article. There may be a few items worthy of adding to the official glossary, but as we already discussed (mainly with reference to slang names of spares/splits), Wikipedia glossaries should not be a list of trivia or arcane distractions.
 * I did a major overhaul of the article a couple of years ago and have since had my antennae up for new terms, and extremely few "new" terms have popped up since.
 * Bottom line: I think one should start with tiny number of the most commonly used, notable, mainstream, conceptually important terms — rather than starting with a huge list of trivia. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've copied this discussion to Talk:Glossary of bowling. Continue any discussion there. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Gerda Arendt. Best wishes! —RCraig09 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the good article and featured article topicons. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Copy that. RCraig09 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Meadows. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review
I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guy Barnett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Journalist request
moved by Femke

Hello, I'm Laura, I work as a reporter at Agência Pública de Jornalismo Investigativo, a vehiculo of investigative journalism here in Brazil. I cover politics, social media and disinformation. You can find some of our publications in english here: https://apublica.org/category/english/ We are now investigating the different narratives on climate change and how they are shared. I got to know your work as an editor on the Wiki Project Climate Change and would like to talk to you. Would you be available? We could talk on December 17th or 18th, or on the second week of January. If you can, please answer me on laura@apublica.org Thank you. Best, Lauradsc (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 in climate change moved to draftspace
Please don't put such placeholder articles into mainspace. The single factoid of Biden's commitment is arguably not even appropriate here, since he stated it in 2020 and nothing (obviously) has happened yet in 2021. Move to mainspace when there is actual material to populate the article... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a licensed picture of actresses/ famous people?
I really wish that the pages had pictures of the women. Is there any way to get a licensed picture of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaitlynneLimberg (talk • contribs) 08:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You simply have to find images, from somewhere, that are either in the public domain or under a suitable Creative Commons license. There is no "one place" you can find such pictures. Sometimes flickr.com users publish pictures with an adequate CC license. Follow the copyright links at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents to learn more. To upload non-free-use images can be a violation of federal copyright law, which Wikipedia and Wikimedia of course want to avoid. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Help on Wikiproject Climate change project
Hi,

any chance you want to help out on increasing coverage and info on this ? Carbon sink upscaling additional info on carbon sink upscaling (missing info) --Genetics4good (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

All American
Hey, I noticed that you reverted my edit on All American (aircraft). There seems to be a conflict between different sources on whether the name is "Boyd" or "Engel." I'm inclined to believe this one because its source for the name is more than just a guess at bad handwriting. Additionally, this source addresses the misidentification of the co-pilot as "Boyd." LeBron4 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I took the safe route, and reported both sides by saying the co-pilot's name is "disputed". I hope this is agreeable. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. A 2016 version of the Disciples of Flight reference doesn't have the disputes that are in the 2020 version that I archived in the citation. The source evolved over those four years and I'm not sure how that affects reliability in this field which doesn't have heavyweight newspapers doing the research. So, I think it's safest to keep both sides of the story in our Wikipedia article. I'm copying this discussion to Talk:All American (aircraft) — RCraig09 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 in climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)