Yes, Santorini seems more important than most songs, if only because Yanni usually has opened his concerts with it (except, apparently, this past year). Maybe, Allmusic's description belongs in the "listen" template description, along with the sourced statement about it being included in primary schools in China. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I may have been overthinking (again). I think the article is fine, and this opinion from AMG is appropriate on the album article. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have something to discuss with you and wonder if you wouldn't mind emailing me privately via my user page? (click "email me" at the top) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✔ —RCraig09 (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RCraig09, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of

]

Nomination of

All In: How Our Work-First Culture Fails Dads, Families, and Businesses--And How We Can Fix It Together

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All In: How Our Work-First Culture Fails Dads, Families, and Businesses--And How We Can Fix It Together until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result was Keep. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On talk pages you can use {{reflist talk}} to prevent inline citations from pooling at the bottom of the page.

See:Wikipedia:Piped link--Petebutt (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Petebutt. Over the years I had seen comments/EditSummaries implying links to redirects were bad, and that avoiding them was good. I hadn't ever seen the WP recommendation: "It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page." —RCraig09 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Incidentally, there was some lag in WP software recognizing the existence of your redirect, so the link showed up as a redlink in the All American (aircraft) article! —RCraig09 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "melancholic" (while being unscientific per se) seems to be often used to refer HSP'ies (by those who know nothing about SPS) in everyday life. However, I don't insist on that edit, because it's really unsourced/unproven. Sasha1024 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. Because melancholy is not SPS, the link to "Melancholic in Four temperaments" is confusing to readers. Therefore, I deleted the link. Best wishes. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You did absolutely correctly by removing it. Best wishes too. Sasha1024 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In the future, as in the case of Marshall Kent that you recently made a disambiguation page, please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation page or hatnotes?. If only two articles exist or will exist, one should be the primary topic, and the other gets disambiguated. In this case, the actor should've stayed at Marshall Kent with a hatnote to the bowler. — Wyliepedia 14:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, User: CAWylie. I was basically aware of the "dap vs hatnote" and related principles you linked above. It's just that at this time there is no "primary topic". The previously existing article on the long-deceased actor was sourced solely with IMDB, and it's the young bowler's article that will likely grow in dominance, however slowly, over the years. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the bowler's information taken straight from his PBA profile? As for him to "likely grow", that's also borderline

crystal. What if he quits tomorrow? Point being, the dab page/move was unnecessary. A discussion could have been done somewhere beforehand. — Wyliepedia 16:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Though the young bowler is probably closer to a "primary topic" in the bowling world already, and PBA.com is not user-generated like IMDB, and the actor died thirty years ago, I see your point about whether the move/dab was actually necessary at this time. Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend! My big apologies for the delay in reply and the lack of edit summaries. You're right; I tend to get excited to make articles better and therefore skip that golden description text box. I'll do so going forward. Thank you for the monitoring! Peace, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted to your talk page. See also Talk:Yanni#Edits_by_LowSelfEstidle. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Talk:Message_in_a_bottle. — RCraig09 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image. There is a painting of Paula on the report produced by the Western Australian Museum pdf. Do you know how to extract images from pdfs? It would be nice to add one to the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots Hmmm... If nothing else, you can zoom in on the PDF's image & do a screenshot (Shift-Command-4 on Macs, and Shift-PrntScrn on Windows). If it's not working for you, you can post a link here and I'll give it a whirl (... half-price special! ;-) ) RCraig09 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search with the artist's name and that of the ship, and found a snagable image. File:Paula (1876 barque).jpg now uploaded to commons. Mjroots (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✔ Thank you for your service! RCraig09 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Eve Polastri!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The graph is good, but it would be more meaningful if it presented the rates, rather than the raw numbers, as population changes significantly affect the figures. Anastrophe (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anastrophe That's a perceptive idea, but I didn't run across "rate" data in all the searching I did. It was surprisingly difficult to find concise raw-number data as it was! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Part of the problem is the different reporting methods and sources - FBI/USDOJ Bureau of Justice statistics gets great data for homicides, no data for suicides, for the most part. CDC measures homicides, but uses different metrics than FBI. And rates tend to be imprecise because we only do a census every ten years - so they have to be against estimated values - so it's harder to find reliable sources willing to do the math, apparently. Anastrophe (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anastrophe Surprising, but true. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010 homicide suicide rates high-income countries.png, uploaded 1 Sept, has 2010 rates, compared to other countries. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate. Thanks Anastrophe (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regrets - I'm recommending removal of your chart on the list of countries by suicide rates, same argument as on list of countries by intentional homicide rates. Sorry, honestly, I'm not stalking you, your graphs are excellent, but I'm focused on keeping the content conformant to the article title and intent. I added a mention on the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Consensus will determine. Thanks for the courtesy. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To shorten page: I'm now deleting various administrative sections (

Hi, RCraig09! Please don't take offense to the high-sps page edit. When I deleted the part about "this is not a disorder", the reasoning is because that statement in itself implies to an uninformed reader that there are some relevant psychologists/scientists out there who DO have sound evidence to believe it is a disorder (of which there are none). Akin to someone saying, "blue eyes are not a shameful eye color.", this is not something that people are saying, but the statement itself implies that some people do say it. But I am absolutely open to hearing about your reasoning that: it is essential to state that high SPS is not a disorder! Please let me know your thoughts why, and/or if you see the point I am coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownroad2000 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unknownroad2000 The section entitled "Relation to Disorders" in Aron's 2006 article (at page 23) states that "This trait, found in twenty percent of humans and as an innate strategy in many or most other species, is hardly a disorder. Yet clinically it can be easily confused, especially with the autistic spectrum disorders, ...". Refuting the misunderstanding is a common theme in Aron's writings, and before she developed her theories she thought that her own sensitivity was something "wrong" with her. Plus, it's not just whether psychologists do or don't say it's a disorder; it's whether the public, including patients, think that it is a disorder (or similar word). For these reasons, I strongly think it's critical to refute a common misunderstanding. (P.S. I must fix that citation in the article; it isn't working correctly.) —RCraig09 (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Unknownroad2000 Plus, I've added a citation to this more recent article (Acevedo, B; Aron, E; Pospos, S; Jessen, D (April 2018). "The functional highly sensitive brain: a review of the brain circuits underlying sensory processing sensitivity and seemingly related disorders" (PDF). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 373: 20170161. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0161).

Thank you for your clarification and contributions, RCraig09! We are definitely on the same page, and I think we were just speaking to different audiences. I tend to think of Wiki as a quick resource for the lay person, and so I didn't want people confused that there was still some belief out there that HSPS was a disorder. But you are absolutely correct that from a clinical standpoint, high sensitivity to stimulus is a trait of some disorders.

The functional highly sensitive brain:a review of the brain circuits underlying sensory processing sensitivity and seemingly related disorders is a great source; thank you for including this! In fact, I believe including the a quote from the opening synopsis would go a long way towards explaining and summarizing the trait to the lay person and adding some much needed positivity about the trait to the page. I feel the vibe of the wiki page as it currently exists does a lot of "this is not a bad trait", "this is not a negative trait" , "this is not a bad trait", which are actually negative statements that can have the opposite effect of their intentions. Dr. Aron and others, as I am sure you are aware, have gone a great deal into the positive aspects of the trait that last few years instead of her earlier stance of simply trying to defends it as " not negative." If that makes sense?

Would you feel comfortable with following the line we were discussing about "HSPS is not a disorder" with this quote from the source that you linked to, which I feel offers a really fantastic summary of how HSPS is currently viewed?

"We propose that SPS is a stable trait that is characterized by greater empathy, awareness, responsivity and depth of processing to salient stimuli. We conclude that SPS is distinct from ASD, SZ and PTSD in that in response to social and emotional stimuli, SPS differentially engages brain regions involved in reward processing, memory, physiological homeostasis, self-other processing, empathy and awareness. We suggest that this serves species survival via deep integration and memory for environmental and social information that may subserve well-being and cooperation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownroad2000 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Please pardon my above formatting; I don't use these pages often.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownroad2000 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unknownroad2000: Good points, though I think the tone of the article accurately represents the fact that knowledgeable researchers are realizing SPS is a blessing and a curse (my words). Accordingly, I plan to add at least part of that quote to the footnote to the Acevedo 2018 reference and not in the body of the article. You are probably not aware: in 2016 there was fairly bloody disagreement concerning this article, with some people "new" to the topic being suspicious of anything Aron (co-)wrote since she sells books and puts on workshops. Accordingly, largely against my better judgment, other(s) and I did reduce the emphasis on Aron's writings and added content sourced by those not connected to Aron. Though I still question the wisdom of that consensus, it's still a consensus, and adding extended Aron-co-authored quotes to the body of the article might bring attention from drive-by editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, I read somewhere and vaguely recall the disagreement you are referring to. It seems to me that if we were to disregard Aron's work simply because she has sold books and held educational workshops based on her own research, that enormous swathes of Wikipedia articles must also be deleted. Nearly every major scientific theory--by no means limited to psychology or psychiatry--has provided profit to their proponents by one means or another, and very commonly by published books. Considering that there is wide acceptance of her work by the scientific community, hundreds of references to her work (by researchers who are far more stringent about their sources than your average Wikipedia editor), and that there are a now huge number of books by other authors about HSPs/High-SPS based on her work, it would seem to me those who in the past that have pooh-poohed her work don't have a great deal of weight to support their argument. I would be very interested in supporting adding more of her work--the main source of knowledge about this trait--to the page, as it is a disservice to anyone who is interested in the topic and to the world to ignore her simply because she has done what innumerable other influential people in the scientific community have done. Please let me know how I can support you in accomplishing this, and if, perhaps, moderation from another party is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownroad2000 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent at least 150-200 hours... reading 50-100 journal articles or abstracts, reading her first book, working on this article and related argumentation, etc. This wiki article covers all the salient points about SPS that I could find, and in particular it well expresses the understanding that SPS has both advantages and disadvantages. The Arons' work isn't being "ignored" here (she (co-)authors about seven footnotes by my count). And "moderation" by another party would almost certainly involve someone who knows much less about the topic than you or me—the problem I had in 2016! In short: if you can find something that's both substantial and new in the literature (use scholar.google.com) and that hopefully complies with something as stringent as

WP:MEDREF (that is, not reporting each and every experiment or observation or opinion, etc.), then it can be added—concisely. But at this point, a concerted effort to expand material will probably backfire. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:YanniInspirato.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answering to "Why re-uploading Yanni cover?"

I'm sorry if this thing disturb you and the other administrator. I'm doing this because i think .png format is the best image format, so i decided to replace the original .jpg cover with .png version. Once again, I want to say sorry if this thing bothered you and other administrator. I promise i won't do this again next time. Thanks for the input. —CyberFatal01 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Warming stripes

Have you thought about nominating this for DYK? --valereee (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Valereee: I had not considered the DYK route, mainly because I'm unfamiliar with the process or requirements, and also because as the main editor I fear I don't have as much objectivity as you do. I do think that the warming stripe concept is modestly brilliant (and am surprised it has taken a year for a standalone article to be born), and I would support its becoming a DYK entry. Thanks for the thought. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You have seven days after creating the article to nominate it. There's actually a pretty cool new tool that automates the process which I've been wanting to try out. Would you like me to nominate it? It would require one or both of us to respond to the review (basically, addressing changes suggested by the reviewer), which may not happen for several weeks. It's always easier if the creator is involved as you're more familiar with the sourcing, but I'm happy to help with the process.

  I do think for this particular DYK, an image is crucial, and this one's not free use. I'll dm Hawkins on twitter and ask him to upload an image.

  --valereee (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee: Seven days? How odd. I would prefer you nominate it, if you'd be so kind. I'd be happy (I think!) to respond to suggestions during the review process in upcoming weeks. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee: The image at right is free use. It's not Ed Hawkins' image, but it does qualify as a warming stripe diagram. I suspect Hawkins is a bit busy these days and can't respond to every request. In my experience, being a WP editor doesn't command much respect on the outside! —RCraig09 (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RCraig! In order to be used on the DYK, the pic has to be used in the article. Do you think you could fit it in in a way that isn't shoehorning it in there? Then we need to come up with a hook, so if you have a suggestion, let me know. I'm kind of in the middle of something right now but I'll try to keep checking back in to get this submitted by the 4th.

Re: Hawkins, yeah, no response yet, lol. :)

Val valereee (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee: Shoe-horning complete! ✔ Unfortunately, the free-use image for the Azores may have been chosen by a climate change skeptic as one that does not show the warming trend as clearly as the fair use image of global temps at the top of the article, so I would plan to replace the Azores image with a more representative graphic when one is developed. I, also, tried to contact Ed Hawkins on June 21, with no result. :-\

Suggested Hook (~184 characters of visible text): Did you know ...that to portray

global warming to non-scientists, a British climate scientist invented a "warming stripes

" graphic showing historical global temperatures—using only colored stripes?

Thank you for your service. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So finally I need to know:

1. Which sentence/sentences in the article clearly support the points of that hook?

2. Which source/sources clearly support that sentence/sentences in the article?

3. Which sentence/sentences in those sources are the ones that provide that support?

DYK requires that the hook be clearly supported by an article sentence, with the source cited at that sentence. Providing #2 and #3 within the DYK nom just makes life easier for reviewers/promoters, which makes the nom more likely to be picked up faster. (That's the last of it; normally I'm much more familiar with an article and its sources because I'm nominating something I either created or did major work on! I hope I didn't drag you into a process you weren't up for!) --valereee (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Article sentence: From the lead: "Warming stripes were conceived to use color alone, without technical distractions, to intuitively convey

global warming

trends to non-scientists.[cite]" Also, the quote box includes Hawkins' quote from this same cited article (below).

2. Source: Kahn, Brian (May 25, 2018). "This Climate Visualization Belongs in a Damn Museum". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on June 19, 2019. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

3. Source sentence(s): "Ed Hawkins, the climate scientist who made the viral temperature spirals, is back at it again with another striking view of our warming planet. His latest visualization strips out all unnecessary information save color to communicate how we’re changing the temperature of the Earth." Also, the article quotes Hawkins: "I wanted to communicate temperature changes in a way that was simple and intuitive, removing all the distractions of standard climate graphics so that the long-term trends and variations in temperature are crystal clear."

AND

1. Article sentence: From the lead: "Warming stripes were conceived to use color alone, without technical distractions, to intuitively convey

global warming

trends to non-scientists.[cite]" Also, the quote box includes Hawkins' quote from this same cited article (below).

2. Source: Staff, Science AF (May 25, 2018). "This Has Got to Be One of The Most Beautiful And Powerful Climate Change Visuals We've Ever Seen". Science Alert. Archived from the original on June 28, 2019. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

3. Source sentence(s): "For the average person, climate change is an abstract concept, an intangible truth, based on complex scientific data that is notoriously difficult to visualize. Climate scientist Ed Hawkins ... has been developing unique ways to make climate change easier for the general public to imagine. ... The arresting image removes all the scientific accessories, leaving only a color scale to represent an overall change of 1.35 degrees Celsius." Also, the article quotes Hawkins: "I wanted to communicate temperature changes in a way that was simple and intuitive, removing all the distractions of standard climate graphics so that the long-term trends and variations in temperature are crystal clear."

Let's light this candle! —RCraig09 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination process:

• Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Warming_stripes 3 July 2019
• Template talk:Did you know (July 4 archive)
• Template talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

—RCraig09 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Did you know/Queue —RCraig09 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee The DYK process is impacting the images I'd like to insert into the article. (1) Do you know how long an article takes to be approved? (It seems that June 27 has been passed, but the "reviewed" field is altogether confusing: "Template:Did you know nominations/Phytobia betulae"???). (1) And how long is the approved article featured on DYK? Thx. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The date is just for submission purposes -- DYK requires the article to have been created, received a 5X expansion, or have achieved Good Article status in the week prior to the submission. This is purely a rule to prevent DYK from being overwhelmed with submissions.

It can take anywhere from a few weeks to a couple months for a submission to appear on the front page. But you can just ignore the fact it's at DYK and keep working on it however you like. How is the process affecting the images? It shouldn't have to at all! If you're thinking you don't want to use the image we submitted to DYK at all in the article, that's fine. We'd just have to change the one listed at DYK, no biggie at all, that's not uncommon. You can change the images in the article any way you like; eventually we just have to make sure that whichever image is going to be used at DYK is somewhere in the article. DYK is intended to be for articles that may be still undergoing even major changes. Literally the whole reason I take an article to DYK is to get fresh eyes on it so that other editors will help improve it. Just keep working and forget all about DYK; you don't need to do anything until it gets picked up for review, and even then I'll likely be able to answer most questions.

The article is featured for 24 hours on the front page, normally. You can see how that affects an article's visibility by looking at the page views for a particular article. Here's one that ran a few days ago: Tito's Tacos. It was averaging 10 page views a day, and the day it ran, it got 16,000.

The Reviewed field is for what DYK calls the QPQ -- a nominator gets 5 "free" DYK submissions, but after that a DYK review must be done for each submission. This is your first DYK, but I've made many submissions, so the reviewer would expect to see a review by one of us of another submission. I provided one, for Phytobia betulae. --valereee (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my issue is the choice of images to include or not include (a bit complicated). I'll proceed per your suggestion. Thanks for your guidance. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, RCraig! Since a reviewer has started on the DYK for warming stripes, now's the time to choose which image we'd like to go with. It has to be freely licensed and used in the article. --valereee (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee: Merci, gracias, danke & grazie. The free-use "File:20190704 Warming stripes - HadCRUT.4.6.0.0 - world.png" image (pictured above) is the one to use. It's on the template page already. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Just wanted to make sure you weren't still considering removing that image! --valereee (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed within a few hours with the Result: "Wrong venue. Take this to the article talk page, please." —RCraig09 (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert - Climate change

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

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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

Just sending this FYI to everyone recently in the topic area who doesn't have one in the last 12 months. And before I posted here, I sent one to myself too.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey! I got your "thanks" notification.... I soooooo appreciate that someone understands these are FYI no fault things, thanks!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"Stripe diagram" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Stripe diagram. Since you had some involvement with the Stripe diagram redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Warming stripes

On

global warming to non-scientists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Warming stripes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Warming stripes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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

.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Displayed 00:00 through 11:59 UTC Friday 16 August 2019. Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190816102231/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page —RCraig09 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and it made the stats! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, over 9500 views during a period of two sets a day! That's a ton of interest! Very nice work! --valereee (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To

global warming. I had been worried that the attention would bring a truckload of drive-by editors who would hack up a semi-technical article, but I was relieved to see there was only once incident of vandalism, one that was corrected within three minutes. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• I added it to the stats. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt: In the words of The King, "Thank you. Thankyouverymuch." —RCraig09 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

warming images of Montana

Thank you for quality articles such as

Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail in 2012, for polishing and updating articles, for uploading vivid images of nature, concerts and sports, among others, for superb edit summaries and a creative barnstar, - Craig, you are an awesome Wikipedian

!

You are recipient no.

QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

To Gerda Arendt: In the words of The King, "Thank you. Thankyouverymuch." —RCraig09 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, you are very welcome. Did you see someone smiling at you on my talk, who received the first Global warming and climate change barnstar? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Gerda Arendt, I couldn't find the smiling you wrote about. Maybe you were referring to the talk page of User:Valereee at User talk:Valereee? —RCraig09 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the one quoted on my talk having said "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this" which often helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:20190627 Warming stripes for GLOBE - ShowYourStripes.info.png

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects. As I noted on the file's page, I subsequently found a free-use equivalent so it's OK to speedy-delete the now-orphaned fair-use file now. Thank you for your service. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion to the Bowling Ball page.

Well RCraig09, you beat me to it by seconds. A ball is a sphere, certainly, not a cylinder. The edit probably wasn't intentional vandalism, but a confusion. Did you know that a bowling ball and a volleyball are the same size?

talk) 19:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Liberty5651 . . . 🤔 As Johnny Carson would say, "I did not know that." —RCraig09 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WikiProject

Please accept this talk) 19:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

. You might be particularly interested in the figures tab.

edit sums

Hi, thanks for your interest in global warming. FYI, edit summaries are really helpful but if you need more than 10-12 words please consider using the talk page instead.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Italics in cites

Re your editing to remove italics - I'm not here to criticise that - you may not be aware of the discussion at

WP:AN re a recent change to CS1|2 which is causing problems (and may be causing this issue). Your time might be better spent elsewhere while the issue is dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on talk) 07:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Femke Nijsse Bedankt! It is rare to find someone on Wikipedia who is intelligent, knowledgeable and genuinely interested in collaborating (rather than arguing!). P.S. You may also be interested in the Climate spiral, an earlier (2016+) graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

GW barnstar

Hi, with respect to the barnstar you created, awarding them is a nice thing to do. However, a prior "Global Warming and Climate Change Barnstar" has already been vetted and accepted at

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your concern,

NewsAndEventsGuy (and thanks for the links to the existing barnstar of which I was unaware) but: after another editor proposed the Warming stripes article for WP:Did you know in June 2019, I searched WikiMedia for a suitable barnstar and found none, which led me to make this barnstar. My goal is non-techy yet accurate science communication, for which warming stripes were initially designed—intuitively communicating with non-scientists, which describes almost all Wikipedia readers. It's true, historically, warming stripes are "new" and "different", so maybe it's understandable they're meeting with some resistance, but reaching the public is a critical goal in climate science communication. However, I'm not "championing" warming stripes any more than the previously existing barnstar is championing a flame. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

While I agree that we shouldn't add it to too many articles, I think it's nice and innocent here :). I like both barnstars.

talk) 18:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Late to the party but I think the barnstar looks excellent. It's not promotional of anything and there's no harm in using it as well as the other one. — Bilorv (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki version of Vitamin C when ill winds blow

Greetings, The action at talk:climate crisis really makes editing fun, doesn't it? I've been around a long time and am familiar with drama. I'd like to pass along reading material to help you build your immune system.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks,

NewsAndEventsGuy. I've seldom been involved in formal dispute resolution procedures, and I doubt I'll be initiating one here since it's doubtful the guy would be convinced by that result anyway. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I also think the DR ship has sailed. Next step, in my view, is "prevention not punishmnet" via admin intervention at AE.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI

pls check email

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Received and read with gratitude,

NewsAndEventsGuy. I was aiming for something "WikimediaCommons-able", but I'll cogitate thereon nevertheless. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Summary table for Renaming Climate change article

Hi, in my

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

FOLLOWUP.... FYI, you are editing my own notes about what I understand about what you said in the main thread. I will (eventually) revert your tweaks to my notes... because, after all, they are my notes about what I understand. If you have not yet clicked and read

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies, I had overlooked your initial request to use the Talk Page. I have reverted my changes to the userspace page. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what a nice thing to say!

Hey I only just noticed your comment in the Talk:Climate change RM thread.... in ten years of editing I've never seen more willingness to fairly and openly discuss options, than on this and related Talk Pages. That's a really nice thing to say about our fairly nice group of debaters. Thanks for being one them!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

NewsAndEventsGuy I was just presentin' th' facts az I seen 'em, though I see us as collaborators rather than debaters. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess I see us as both. The best articles result when friends challenge each other to do awesome things! Remember what Dumbledore said about Neville Longbottom at the end of first year, when awarding the House Cup!

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Trump

Re this - Assuming I'm one of the two, I do not specifically cite

WP:SS, I just say the graphs are too much detail for that article. That kind of editorial judgment is routine at that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies, @Mandruss: I must have confused Scjessey's post(s) with yours. I have changed my post at Talk:DT. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a graphic

J. Johnson referred me to you. I would like to post a graphic to Wikipedia for inclusion in the global warming article . It would essentially duplicate The information contained in either the bar of (Figure 5, page 18) or the map (Figure 6) of a 2015/2016 FAO report at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e026/3e7189cbc7dc9598cf473fc77add52c15965.pdf which is already cited in the global out warming article. I was thinking of asking a student at a local university graphics department to volunteer to create one of these graphics, and I wondered if you had any thoughts or suggestions as to the best way to do this in order to comply with WP standards. I have read the Wikipedia:Uploading images article, but it did not seem to directly address this issue. Thanks for any help you can provide.Dtetta (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtetta: First, I assume you know that mere copying of most graphs/charts would be prohibited under copyright law, with some exceptions: (1) content that is already licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, license (example: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/), or (2) content that is generated by employees of the U.S. government in the course of their employment (easier than generating the chart yourself!). For guidance, you can "click through" similar graphs/charts to arrive at their pages on commons.wikimedia.org, or just look through Political maps of the world category on Wikimedia Commons. Good luck. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I should’ve been more specific. For Figure 6 from the FAO report, it’s essentially 12 data points. Regional area has four values, and time period has three. So we’re talking about how to graphically depict a 4 x 3 table, with the value in each cell being the net change in forest area. FAO did it with a bar chart, but I could see taking the same data points and doing for pie charts with the overall size of the circle being the total amount of force loss and inside each circle a division of three for each time period depicted. Or I could just create a 4 x 3 table, but that seems pretty dull.

I noticed on the global warming page that you had developed a figure in part from a NOAA graphic at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/12/1880-2019 I thought it was a great chart you made, so I just wondered based on your experience in doing that kind of thing, what I need to keep in mind when depicting those 12 data points I mentioned in an alternative graphical format.

The FAO copyright policy appears to be slightly less restrictive than the IPCC policy, but it still does mention that it’s copyrighted material. So there’s clearly a distinction between my taking data from there, and what you did with the NOAA data. I guess the related question is does the level of copyright restriction for the FAO data prevent me from developing a graphic for any FAO information in general, at least one that WP would allow in an article. I realize that I would need to be citing the FAO properly for anything I created.Dtetta (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtetta: It's my understanding that data per se is not generally subject to copyright protection, and I suspect that graphing a set of a mere 12 data points will not run afoul of copyright law. Copyright protects expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves, so it's conceivable that someone could claim that their graph is a (protectable) expression even if the data is an (unprotectable) idea. It's safer to take the raw data and graph it yourself (rather than uploading even a simple graph done by the original source). Any content that you upload to Wikimedia Commons must have a suitable Creative Commons ("CC") license (it's an option during the upload process), and it is the copyright owner of any graph (I'm thinking of the "volunteer" you mention above) who has to grant the CC license.

Separately, keep in mind that the

Global warming article is already bloated, and the WP community may disfavor anything but the most critical and essential additions. (A couple of my own graphics were removed by consensus.) —RCraig09 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Very helpful....thank you!Dtetta (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De nada, amigo. Good luck! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]