User:NewsAndEventsGuy/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of NewsAndEventsGuy. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

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

*For grey box with text...

111
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
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
{{Reflist-talk}}
'''Opposed''' due to [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS|unwavering lack of explanation]] how it would improve the article or what RSs it is based upon.~~~~
Example of setting up archiving
{{noindex}} for userspace that should not be indexed to the web
{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~ but note that old system notifications are valid thru 5-3-15
{{subst:alert|ap}} ~~~~ [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Principles|Principles in the ARBs' US politics case]]
{{subst:alert|blp}} ~~~~
Force loading of the DS alert warning box, to aide research into alerts issued in prior 12 months </nowiki>
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 <span style="color:red">Red text</span>
DAB link bot [[User:DPL_bot}}
Wikipedia:Mass_message_senders
example video linking [[File:A Year In The Life Of Earth's CO2 11719-1920-MASTER.webm|thumb|center|600px|A Year In The Life Of Earth's CO2 Jan. 1, 2006 - Dec. 31, 2006]]
Sample page view graph
To leave an invisible comment,
deleting user subpages {{db-user}}
Whatsup
Template:The Multiple Barnstar (for group effort)
To refer to a template on talk page, type {{tl| }} Also, from Mortee, } it's tl (L for Llama), not t1.... There are lots of related templates in the documentation for {{tl}}, of which the ones I use most often are {{tlp}} and {{tlx}} for adding parameters to the example, and (mostly in my cheatsheet) {{tbullet}} to demonstrate what a template does''
date formatting discussion

a bunch more

colons and asterisks

please suggest some draft text, with [[WP:CITE|wikipedia style citations]] to what [[WP:RS|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 {{db-g5|Arthur Rubin/IP list}}

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 [[WP:BRD|what to do when you are reverted]]. The next step is to DISCUSS at the article talk page, where we have [[WP:TPG|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 [[WP:DR|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#Principles. 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

table formatting

Header text	Header text	Header text
R1C1	R1C2	R1C3
R1C1	R2C2	R2C3
R3C1	R3C2	R3C3

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#List-defined_references 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#Guidelines 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....

Example 1 - All references used
Wikicode	This reference is really ugly<ref name=a/> but not as ugly as this one,<ref name=b/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref> '''-- Refences for Example 1 --''' {{reflist-talk\| refs= <ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref> <ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref> }}
Renders as	This reference is really ugly^[1] but not as ugly as this one,^[2] especially compared to this simple one.^[3] -- Refences for Example 1 -- References ^ Ugly, Ugly Ugly ^ Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier ^ Voila!

Example 2 - Even Uglier is not cited
Wikicode	This reference is really ugly,<ref name=a/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref> '''-- Refences for Example 2 --''' {{reflist-talk\| refs= <ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref> <ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref> }}
Renders as	This reference is really ugly,^[1] especially compared to this simple one.^[2] -- Refences for Example 2 -- References ^ Ugly, Ugly Ugly ^ Voila! Cite error: A list-defined reference named "b" is not used in the content (see the help page).

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).

workspace for GW

Draft ver 2)

Under the Paris Agreement, nations are making climate pledges to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but those promises - assuming nations follow through - would still allow global warming to reach 2.8 °C (5.0 °F) by 2100.^[1] To limit warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), human-caused carbon dioxide emissions would need to decrease to zero by 2050.^[2] At the current emission rate, the carbon budget for staying below 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would be exhausted by 2028.^[3]

New sources:

Rogelj, Joeri; Meinshausen, Malte; Schaeffer, Michiel; Knutti, Reto; Riahi, Keywan (2015). "Impact of short-lived non-CO2 mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 10 (7): 1–10. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/075001.

break

Countries work together on climate change under the umbrella of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which has near-universal membership. The goal of the convention is to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". Acting on the scientific recommendations of the IPCC, which told policy makers there is much greater risk to human and natural systems if warming goes above 1.5 °C (2.7 °F),^[4] UNFCCC members are making climate pledges to reduce global warming, primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting low carbon power for energy and transporation, and improving earth's natural carbon sinks by improving agricultural soils and reforestation. As of December 2019 those promises - assuming nations follow through - would still allow average surface temperatures to climb about 2.8 °C (5.0 °F) by 2100,^[5] and at current rates of greenhouse gas emissions the carbon budget for staying below 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would be exhausted by 2028.^[6]

........ break .............

The IPCC says the more we can prevent additional global warming, the easier it will be to adapt to unavoidable impacts, but it is still recommended that we invest in improved coastline protection and moving people and development inland, building better disaster management systems, and ensuring food security. Finally, some favor intentional intervention with the climate system, through theoretical and controversial proposals collectively known as "climate engineering".

References

^ Climate Action Tracker 2019, p. 1: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C.; United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 27.
^ IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 95: In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range); Rogelj et al. 2015.
^ Mercator Institute 2020; IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 96: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 GtCO₂ for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 GtCO₂ for an even chance (medium confidence).
^ Cite error: The named reference SR15 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Climate Action Tracker 2019, p. 1: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C.; United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 27
^ Mercator Institute 2020; IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 96: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 GtCO₂ for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 GtCO₂ for an even chance (medium confidence).

More

Caption text
Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

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.

[a-1] Ugly, Ugly Ugly

[b-2] Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier

[3] Voila!

[a-4] Ugly, Ugly Ugly

[5] Voila!

[7] Climate Action Tracker 2019, p. 1: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C.; United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 27.

[8] IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 95: In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range); Rogelj et al. 2015.

[9] Mercator Institute 2020; IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 96: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 GtCO₂ for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 GtCO₂ for an even chance (medium confidence).

[SR15-10] Cite error: The named reference SR15 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[11] Climate Action Tracker 2019, p. 1: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C.; United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 27

[12] Mercator Institute 2020; IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 96: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 GtCO₂ for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 GtCO₂ for an even chance (medium confidence).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]