User:Kilmer-san/Sandbox

Vandalism warning {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Article|Additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you"

“

In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.

I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)

”

--Jimbo [1]

WikiProject article importance scheme
v
t
e
Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Kindergarten
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Factory Acts
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	0.999...
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.	G cell

{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] }}}Please stop. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:PageName|, as you did to [[:PageName]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}} What does this look like.

What does this look like.

What does this look like.

$Whatdoesthislooklike.$

What does this look like.

--Fireproeng 14:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)What does this look like.

REDIRECT What does this look like.

~~What does this look like.~~

W
hat does this look like.

popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable. {{Not verified}},

{{Articleissues - | POV = July 2007 - | disputed = July 2007 - | weasel = July 2007 - | unreferenced = July 2007 - | tone = July 2007 - | rewrite = July 2007 - }}

{| class="messagebox" style="max-width: 45em; background: #FFF0D9; text-align: center;" - | [[Image:Circle-question.svg|40px|?]] - | '''This {{{part|{{{1|article or section}}}}}} may contain [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] or [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|unverified claims]].'''<br /><div style="font-size:8pt;">Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]] for details.</small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br><small>This article has been tagged since {{{date}}}.</div>}}<includeonly></includeonly> - |}<noinclude>

Usage

The default words "article or section" are replaceable: {{Original research|table}} produces: {{Original research|table}} A date parameter can also be used to inform other editors of the time the tag has been in place: {{Original research|article|date=May 2024}} produces:

{{Original research|article|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} This template will categorize articles into Category:Articles that may contain original research.

{{Cite}} (deprecated) <nowiki>{{Clarifyme}}, requesting clarification of a hard-to-understand phrase. <nowiki>{{Citequote}}, tagging a request for citation, used for quotations that needs citations to make it complete, but not for seemingly doubtful or false texts. <nowiki>{{Request quote}}, tagging a request for quoting inaccessible source, used for requesting a direct quote from the cited source for verification. <nowiki>{{Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.

{{Verify credibility}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.

{{Citecheck}}, popping up a box saying an article or section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations. {{Unreferenced}} and {{Unreferenced section}} , popping up a box saying an article or section has no citation or reference for its information.

{{or}}, to label a passage of text that may be based upon original research.

{{POV-statement}}, to label a passage of text whose neutrality is disputed.

{{page number}}, to request a missing page number to an existing reference.

{{list_fact}}, to request supporting material for including a member in a list - Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fact"

NFPA NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems 2006 Edition / Annex A

A.8.3.1 The choice of a fire performance objective requires an understanding of the levels of water mist performance and an analysis of the protection needs of the hazard.

For some hazards, fire control will be sufficient. With fire control, growth of the fire is limited or stopped upon activation of the water mist system, but manual intervention will be required to complete extinguishment. The heat and products of combustion released during the time prior to extinguishment must be considered, along with the effect they will have on exposed equipment and stock. Fire control will limit the ceiling gas temperature so that structural damage is prevented.

If the potential for nonstructural damage is too great for the fire control option, fire suppression might be an acceptable performance objective. Fire suppression results in a sharp reduction in the heat released from the fire and prevention of its regrowth. Fire suppression also requires manual fire fighting to achieve extinguishment. Because the fire is less intense, the difficulty of manually extinguishing the fire is reduced, and is accomplished in less time, as opposed to a fire control performance objective. The results are less damage directly associated with the manual fire-fighting effort and less overall damage, due to the reduced intensity of the fire.

The highest level of water mist performance is obtained with a fire extinguishment performance objective. Fire extinguishment will completely and automatically suppress a fire until there are no burning combustibles. Fire extinguishment does not require manual fire fighting and results in the lowest potential for damage.

Some factors to consider when analyzing fire loss potential and selecting the most beneficial water mist performance objective are as follows:

(1) Life safety. What effect could this fire have on the occupants? The means of egress must be maintained to allow all occupants safe travel. Also consider the effect that loss of use of fire damaged equipment could have, such as with marine applications or public transportation exposures. A higher performance objective may be needed if life safety is an issue.

(2) Time required to achieve extinguishment. This time frame can vary from seconds, if the system is designed for extinguishment, to many minutes, if the system depends on the response of public fire-fighting personnel.

(3) Susceptibility of equipment and contents to the effects of the fire. Sensitive equipment, such as electronics, and susceptible products, such as pharmaceuticals, will benefit from reduced exposure to heat and products of combustion. Consideration should be given to the effect of radiant heat on nearby equipment. Fire suppression and fire extinguishment will result in a low potential for radiant heat damage, due to the reduced rate of heat release, compared to a fire control performance objective.

(4) Business interruption. The potential effect of a fire on equipment or stock should be analyzed from a business interruption standpoint. The potential effect on the overall business due to loss of use of a critical piece of equipment or hard-to-replace stock is a major factor in selecting the most appropriate water mist performance objective. A vital piece of production equipment will generally demand a higher level of protection than a similarly valued piece of equipment that is not critical to continued production. Consideration should also be given to the effect the fire could have on dependent locations and customers.

What does this look like.

Usage

See also