Talk to RCraig09 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC) on this page!
Talk to me!
Re Lisa Lavie article
Hi, Thank you for contacting me; I appreciate the courtesy. Sorry for the delay in responding-it has been a busy week.
Please give me another day or so. I will look at your article in the meantime and contact you again on the possibility of collaboration, replacement, etc. I must say that what I've seen of it so far is rather impressive.
Regards, Tonymartin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Addendum My email address is: antony.ivan.martin@gmail.com At least one article on Lisa Lavie had been posted previously and was taken down at administrator discretion, ultimately resulting in a prohibition on posting another article under that name. I was able to work with a Wikipedia administrator and have the prohibition lifted. I am disclosing this information in case you weren't aware.Tonymartin (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in awe of the comprehensive replacement pieces that you put together for two articles I initiated - Iman Crosson and Lisa Lavie. Exceptional. My hat is off to you.Tonymartin (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a current photo of Alexa Ray Joel I am her manager and you can find my email on her website and i will forward you a photo that will have no clearance problems.. you were nice enough to put up the first photo so if you would like to upload the the new image let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.121.13 (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed PFD template. Does not make sense to call article "web hosting" but I'm assuming good faith. I wrote reasons on article's discussion page. RCraig09 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have participated in an AfD, you just made a slight boo-boo. Concise paragraphs of three lines or less (usually less) are prefered. The format is:
Yes, it was my first submission concerning proposed deletion of an article. However, limiting reasoning to three lines is impractical. I am presuming additional reasoning should be presented at length on the article's Discussion/Talk Page... Is that the practical solution here? RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That will be okay but try to be dispassionate about it. You don't want to display WP:OWN. The best way to argue in an AfD debate is as if your Dad has you dead to rights and he doesn't take prisoners. That's the way I would do it too on a talkpage. Too long and people tune out and possibly blow you off.
Hey wait, what I am doing here? Oh yeah that's right, I'm showing you that I don't have a dog in this fight and it's not about I can't live if Wikipedia keeps this article. Either way, Wikipedia wins. --Morenooso (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most people or good editors would have thanked me for the education I gave you here. And, in an AfD, the greater ones would have mentioned where they learned how to vote. --Morenooso (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your knowledge, Morenooso. I had thought my words on the argument page itself would have been taken as an acknowledgment of your assistance, which has been of a much-appreciated constructive tone. I was frankly distracted by navigating the various article-talk pages and argument pages and user-talk pages. And I have been trying to see the argument from both sides. RCraig09 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was impossible to respond in one paragraph to each claim and insinuation by the nominator, so I have pasted them here instead. I did not realize at the time that lengthy arguments were not conventional on such pages. RCraig09 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(a)I strongly oppose deletion of We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition). Because some reasoning has been presented in support of this PfD (proposal for deletion), I am assuming good faith from the PfD submitter, but I think this article neither (1) violates articulated Wikipedia standards nor (2) even fits the demeaning characterization made by Morenooso (talk) in the first place. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(b) In effect, the PfD constitutes an attempt to fashion a new Wikipedia standard generically prohibiting articles covering viral videos or perhaps YouTube videos (unclear which). Thankfully, the bias against videos that have become viral, is a personal attitude, not a Wikipedia standard. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(c) The article is clearly not, as the PfD insinuates, an "indiscriminate collection of information." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information lists 1. Plot-only description of fictional works. 2. Lyrics databases. 3. Excessive listing of statistics. 4. News reports. 5. Who's who 6. FAQs. None of these listed items, except possibly #4 (News reports) apply to this article; and concerning #4: "News reports" are included as some of the references, but the article as a whole does not constitute or rely on "news reports." RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(d) Categorically, the subject of this article is not merely a viral video (though Wikipedia standards do not expressly or by implication prohibit viral video articles, in any event). No version of the article has ever contained a reference to it being a viral video.RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(e) To appreciate how the article is not merely about a viral video, before considering deletion, editors should first thoroughly familiarize themselves with the substantive content of the article that establishes its notability. It is not (as implied by the PfD) merely "hits" and "media coverage" (though a dozen exemplary worldwide references have been provided). The article is about an artistic creation whose contributors were called "Persons of the Week" by Diane Sawyer on a primetime national news program, which was featured multiple times on CNN, and which was the subject of a link from the official YouTube channel of the celebrity video (itself the subject of a Wikipedia article We Are the World 25 for Haiti). The subject article is about 57 people from around the world using the Internet to collaborate and create that work of art. It is about the power of non-celebrity individuals to use technology to create works that are reported as being "better than" the celebrity equivalent. The subject of the article happens to be in the format of a video, which, presumably because of its quality, became viral. Part of the notability of the article is that it could become so recognized even though it was "only" posted on YouTube. Read the article, read the references, to appreciate the subject of the article. Yes, that takes time. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(g) The PfD refers to "a myriad of videos like this one." (unclear if he's referring to Roker Face or the subject video). If he is referring to the subject video We Are the World 25 for Haiti, then I ask that he cite that "myriad" of videos that compare with the subject video, in substance, quality and notability (see part (d), above). If there are other videos "like this one" then I think they should be in Wikipedia. If a reader personally has a negative attitude toward such videos in general, then he does not have to read articles about them. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(h)Morenooso's previous reasoning for deletion (see article's discussion page) was that "Wikipedia is not a web host." Obviously, this article is not being used as a web host. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(i) The Google search result of Morenooso's own "find sources" link above yielded 259,000 results for "We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition)" -wikipedia." Having a quarter million Google hits--less than five weeks after the subject video was posted--show it to be more than a just another viral video. RCraig09 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RCraig09 - you removed all my uptades on the amber lee ettinger page. You said those lines were porn vandalism. All i said is true. I have all the sources (photos and videos). I don't know how to link them. Could you do it? I'm mad to see Ettinger lie about her past. I'm mad to see nobody know about that.Thank you for your time!-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Google820 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the outset, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia because you are "mad." If you know objective facts from reliable sources, then:
If your information and sources pass these requirements, then you can present objective encyclopedic information and cite inline sources per the guidance in Wikipedia:Citing sources
No one should use Wikipedia to "expose" someone. It's an encyclopedia.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Lisa Lavie, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Refactoring existing comments and altering, even in minor ways, statements to which others have responded, particularly to incorporate them into a later-created RFC is plainly appropriate. Please restore the original structure and content of the talk page and reframe the jerry-rigged RFC to reflect the actual sequence of user statements ASAP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, I have done a lot in the past. I think this was my first edit to the Yanni article in 2006. As you can see it needed a lot of help, and I was a newbie. And I concentrated more on creating his album articles and creating articles for his band/orchestra musicians. But I haven't been able to get back in the swing of things for a number of years now so I and I'm sure so many other fans appreciate the incredible improvements you have made. Many kudos! I would venture to say it is about ready for GA nom, hopefully FA in the future. I am a better copyeditor than writer, so I will be sure to help go through with fine tooth comb for grammar/spelling but it looks great and shouldn't need much. If you do go for a nom, please ping me either on my talk page or probably better yet through email on my talk page as I don't pop in as regularly as I used to. I would be happy to help. Cheers! ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything or Nothing 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First Clean-up: April 2013
The following sections are deleted, but viewable in full in this old version.
● File copyright problem with File:AlexaRayJoelsigning20090824.jpg
● TUSC token
● Disambiguation link notification for February 12
● Disambiguation link notification for March 8
● Disambiguation link notification for March 20
● Misha B article - consensus request
● Non-free rationale for File:WATWforAfrica1985.ogg
● Non-free rationale for File:WATW25forHaitiClip.ogg
● Website hatnote
● Yanni (added a reference... but didn't attach the ref to any of the text)
Update: These notifications are being removed 2016-08-06 and were last visible here:
BracketBot notifications •
File:EverythingOrNothing20090508.jpg •
File:TheHighlySensitivePersonBookCover.jpeg (orphaned non-free use image) •
Questions
Background: In my first year on Wikipedia (2009) I received constructive comments about "tone" of an article to which I had contributed, and as a result I tried to make the language more objective, not editorialize, and except for published reviews, to remove opinion statements or value judgments.
My nature and training make me thorough, comprehensive and detail oriented, more so than even most Wikipedians. As events occurred over four years, I added numerous details to articles based on my perception of what a reader of the article would find pertinent in a biography, supported by what I believe are references that were WP:RS#Context matters "reliable for the statement being made." Unfortunately, the accumulating details led to charges of "puffery/promotion," and the references supporting the details led to charges of WP:BOMBARDMENT.
Notability. Concerning threshold WP:notability needed to create an article ("sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time"), I'm wondering how someone could conclude the following is insufficiently significant: ● 2006: solo vocalist tracks on soundtracks of two major motion pictures, ● 2007-2008: several distinctions on the WP:OTHERCRAP-maligned YouTube website, ● five national television features (not passing mentions)--in 2007 (2x, for vocals) and 2010 (for vocals) and 2010 (2x, for coverage of viral video subject produced), ● Sept. 2010-present: lead vocalist on all tours with arguably the most notable New Age musician in history, and two duet tracks on his Billboard #1 New Age album and on his 2012 DVD. RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Triviality. Keeping in mind WP:N's "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article..." Assuming overall notability is established: are there any specific guidelines that distinguish which details are "trivial" and which can be included? Or is it simply up to individual editors eyeballing it? Examples: Is it trivial to be named among ABC News Persons of the Week for producing a viral charity video? Or trivial to chart #20 on iTunes? Or trivial to be finalist in a contest across all YouTube musicians? RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject Interviews. Cognizant of WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:ABOUTSELF issues, Is there actually a WP:RS problem including statements made by the subject to explain things such as: her own musical influences, the story "behind" songs in her album, her own reasons for going independent of major labels? (generally, things that have to originate with the subject herself anyway) RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube. Avoiding WP:OTHERCRAP-like reasoning: Is there really a WP:RS sourcing problem citing YouTube...
to WP:Verify what was said in an interview (esp. if not published by the person being interviewed), openly labeled as subject's words and not as a statement of fact? RCraig09 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not People (magazine). The main problem with several of the articles that you have been the main contributer is the style of the writing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. IIRC, in the Lavie article there was a section called Creating her own buzz. That just won't do. Articles should be written in a netural fashion; In other words they should not sound like it was written by a PR department. I'm not accusing you or anyone else to have a COI with the subjects at hand, though that has certainly been known to happen in the past. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you can imagine we deal with any number of issues like that ones you encountered on any given day. The best advice I can give you is this: The notability of a subject should be simple to establish, in the vast majority of cases. If you start with something like "Jane XYZ is an Merovingian singer known for her 1573 hit "O ye in the moat", which reached #2 in the Franconian charts", everything else beyond that is easy. But you have to establish notability before you do anything else, because that's what every article's merits for inclusion are evaluated upon. YouTube is not a problem, for example, as long as you don't try to use it as the primary backing source for notability. When we look at an article like the one that was brought to AFD and we see this absolute overload of sources and trivial information, it's not hard to tell immediately that what's going on there is a likely attempt at masking the lack of real notability. And once at AFD, there tends to be a much stricter interpretation of WP:N, and that's where things start to break down. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Lisa Lavie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edit to Prostate cancer because I found that its referencing was not compliant with WP:MEDRS. You might or might not be aware that medical articles have more strict sourcing requirements than other articles. I would be happy to discuss those with you myself, or please also feel free to ask for help at WT:MED. Thanks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄19:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the courtesy. I initially thought the popular source might be considered secondary & reliable but I see WP:MEDRS is tricky in that regard. It seems hard for a regular guy to run across review journals etc. in everyday reading! — RCraig09 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AR5
You asked "Will the IPCC Assessment be a RS when finalized?"
You reverted a change I had made to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle page without letting me know on my talk page or discussing it in the article's talk page. Please show me the courtesy of complying with WP policy when you make reversions in the future. You stated in your edit summary that WP should be cited to WP:Reliable source, but I think you failed to see that the material I added was to a properly cited BBC News article. The addition I made was in the "Civilian casualty" section, and it is a description of civilian casualties from the point of view of one of the civilians. I therefore added it back since it is properly cited RS material, relevant to the topic. Thank you. Jgui (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not generally required to discuss a reversion beforehand; discussion is the third step in the Bold-Revert-Discuss WP:BRD dispute resolution process (now, we're discussing). Critically: although the BBC may be a Reliable Source for quoting what the Yemenese mechanic/victim said, the mechanic/victim is not considered a reliable source for the facts he was portraying, especially since there is no BBC indication of independent corroboration. Reliability requires more than proper citation and relevance, and your edit summary's "POV of civilian" and the quote's drama and emotionality actually confirm unreliability in this context. This is part of why I suggested finding reliable source(s) with facts about civilian casualties in general as the rest of that section generally does, not just expressions of one family's tragedy. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to figure out a place to put this additional sourced commentary about "Santorini" in the article, and hopefully keep the sound file. Whatcha think?
“Santorini” epitomizes the musical balance, opening with several minutes of percussive string fanfare, then allowing Yanni to be simply expressive on the acoustic piano as the orchestra tones down and provides a caress of accompaniment", states Jonathan Widran of All Music Guide.[1]♫ Cricket02 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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. — Wyliepedia16:03, 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]
Yanni
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 File:YanniInspirato.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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).
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]
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.
This file with global data substitutes for the Azores one I wrote about on July 1.
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.
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?
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).
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).
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."
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]
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.
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.
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]
On 16 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Warming stripes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a British climate scientist invented a graphic(shown) depicting historical global temperatures using coloured stripes to portray 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.
To valereee: I think the interest was generated from the warming stripe image and the importance of the topic of 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]
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]
Orphaned non-free image File:20190627 Warming stripes for GLOBE - ShowYourStripes.info.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:20190627 Warming stripes for GLOBE - ShowYourStripes.info.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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).
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?
Liberty5651 (talk) 19:02, 20 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]
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 Wikipedia:Barnstars_2.0/Awards_by_WikiProject, see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Barn_Star_development. Besides diluting our efforts with redundancies, I can't help but notice you are a champion of the warming stripes approach to graphics, which features prominently in your design. The warming stripes approach is new and really hasn't caught on strongly. Sorry for saying, but your barnstar design seems a little bit like an effort to promote the graphic, when what we should be doing is 100% appreciating one another's efforts. I don't mean to suggest this was intentional, only that in your enthusiasm for warming stripes it looks like some unconscious promotion crept in, despite the best of intentions. Thanks for taking time to recognize Femke's amazing contributions to the topic! 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]
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. WP:ROPE, WP:BEANS, WP:BAIT, WP:BOOMERANGWP:DISRUPTSIGNS. If you decide to file and have the choice, WP:AE is far superior to WP:ANI. But first show WP:Dispute resolution was at least suggested. If you do formally complain, your own actions will be reviewed too, so try to keep "clean hands". Make sure everything you say is supported by a HELP:DIFF. To back away from drama before resorting to the drama boards, stop repeating and go research new sources to add to the mix to try to break the jam that way. So there you go! Drink lots of warm tea and soup and please pass the kleenex, I think I may need it too. 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]
Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! 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 WP:OTHERSOPINION please ... for pete's sake.... do so now. If the table as I wrote it was not to your liking, use the talk page or alternatively add to your comments in the main thread at Talk:Climate change. The table is my own space and is not open for general discussion. I hope you find my effort to repeat back what I heard as a useful tool, because that is the table's sole purpose. But to repeat, the table is what I HEARD... not what YOU SAID. So please, revert your changes to the table and either add to the main thread, or request changes on the table's talk page. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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]
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]
.jpg){kind=link}
#c-JJMC89-2019-04-20T04:11:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_File:YanniInspirato.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Climate_Lab_Book_(Ed_Hawkins).png){kind=link}
