User talk:Jimbo Wales

service

Hi Mr jimbo, i'm proud that i'm talking with the maker of wikipedia. I'm asking you for help, in arabic wikipedia I'm koussayou003 I'm blocked because i try to entre with an admistator account two times -it's joke- then the admistrator avertiss me . i dosen't try to doing it after that and i said sorry but the admistrator chek me and blocked me for a mounth, It's a long time and really i'v got so much things to do i'v got a bot for creating , two article to traduction in my two sandbox and so much athoer things to do. I realy would to improve wikipedia but the others hate me because I'm different , I always do admistrator things I dosen't now how to traduct them in english . So can you please unblock me.thanks

Now I'm asking for unblocking me so the admistrator blocked me for three mouth, please i need your help

Correcting storm news as Hurricane Ophelia heads to Europe

As Hurricane Ophelia (2017) heads north-east across the Atlantic towards Europe, another aspect of misleading news could be the forecast times of the storm path, if the forward motion changes speed. With the prior Hurricane Nate (2017), a major issue of incorrect news was the expected landfall time as local "5 a.m." based on old speed data. Meanwhile, the forward motion of Nate had actually increased 50%, but the time calculation (distance ÷ speed) seemed to use the old, slower speed, to report a projected later landfall near dawn on Sunday (8 Oct 2017), while the faster rate put landfall near midnight in Mississippi. The projected landfall map was illustrated by computer-model video maps, but news reporters were likely unaware how the computer storm models were using the old, outdated speed data. The 50% speed increase had begun 2 days earlier, but news reports were still claiming a dawn landfall after the final day of last-minute preparations, as if people could drive cars safely across the coastline that evening or sleep until dawn, while the reality was howling winds, flying branches, and high waves flooding the shorelines all night long at the coastal region. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I find this very interesting. In your view, was there a reliable source closer to the primary source models that was more accurate than media reports that we could and should look at going forward so that we aren't repeating errors of general news media when better scientific sourcing is available?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps use sanity checks of NHC forecast map & motion rules: Typically, the U.S. NHC forecast map for Hurr. Ophelia: [1] (updated every few hours) could be checked to see if different from fancy animated computer-model videos, even when a hurricane is in other nations (outside U.S.). Also, some hurricane experts predict faster forward speed when turning northward at higher latitudes; see table of Atlantic average forward speed, in NOAA.gov page: "Subject: G16) What is the average forward speed of a hurricane?". By asking the news video-graphics department to run sanity checks against the U.S. NHC forecast map or average-speed table, then such landfall video-map errors could be reduced.

  One woman had a (weak) tree trunk fall into her house during Hurricane Nate (2017), when she should have been in an overnight shelter or such, but also Nate was bizarre as the fastest-moving Atlantic hurricane on record, zooming across Gulf of Mexico in like 2 days, rather than 4 days, as another reason why forecast landfall was 5 hours late, and why people couldn't get the typical "4-day warning" when actual 2-day rapid landfall. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Related [Nate was the fastest moving storm ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico], see also this fairly new article Tropical cyclones and climate change prokaryotes (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Faster movement on Saturday morning: With the expected landfall in Ireland less than 2 days away, the forward movement of Hurricane Ophelia (2017) has increased to ENE 24 mph (39 km/h), per NHC Advisory 21 (0900 UTC, current: [2]), which notes to consult Met Eireann or the UK Met Office. The NHC map of the forecast cone has shown an Ireland landfall before midday on Monday, 16 Oct 2017, but check the movement speed again on Sunday, to compare forecasts. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:40/12:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any reason why we couldn't use the most recent NHC forecast rather than media reports based on possibly outdated forecasts? Someone might argue that NHC is a primary source, but that seems a bit silly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S. weather news shows these whole-region, radar-in-motion forecasts, such as hurricane bands whirling ashore (across entire coastline), not just the "forecast cone" of the center, but the wide span of spinning rain bands, as a regional map of how landfall will occur. Such whole-region video models can become hours too late when forward motion doubles as expected with Hurricane Ophelia (2017) by 16 Oct 2017. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Really any reliable source that you consider to be accurate should do. Is it really the case that all the usual reliable sources are out-to-lunch? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A related issue has been some "weather-TV" channels which repeat regional forecasts on 1-hour repeat cycles for several hours, as one forecast segment says hurricane winds are now 180 km/h (110 mph), but nearby region forecast repeats old speed as 145 km/h (90 mph), as 2 alternate speeds repeated for hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Ophelia predicted 5x larger on 16 Oct 2017

Now we're back to the issue of a huge size increase of storm radius, as with Hurricane Maria at Puerto Rico but much wider, where the NHC Forecast/Advisory 24 (current: [3]) predicts the width of Hurricane Ophelia (2017) to span a 5x times larger hurricane-force area "SE 90" on Monday, 16 Oct 2017, widening 40–90 nmi (74–167 km; 46–104 mi) at south+east of eye. Why does this matter? Well, it could seem like fake news to predict landfall at just "western Ireland" but high storm tide would span the entire southern coast, and hurricane-force winds could reach to south-east 90 nautical miles (167 km; 104 mi), if the NHC prediction for huge storm size on Monday morning is correct. I guess this is an issue where viewers (or readers) want news to tell them the "big facts" in a timely manner, and Wikipedia articles should note hurricane storm area became "5x larger" (or such) on the day of landfall, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Science and math articles

Michael Byrne, a science writer at Motherboard has an article Wikipedia’s Science Articles Are Elitist, subtitled "Maybe Wikipedia readers shouldn’t need science degrees to digest articles about basic topics. Just an idea." I agree with much of what he says, though my experience is more with math/stats articles. Even though I really haven't kept up very well with the subject, I almost certainly have taken more math and stats courses (mostly stats) than 90% of the US population. But unless I specifically remember a topic from way back when, I can't even start understanding the 1st paragraph of 80% of our math and stats articles. Thus, I conclude that for a very large majority of our readers, most of our math articles might as well not even exist. Apparently it's the same for our science articles as well.

I'd love to see more academics writing and editing Wikipedia articles, but not if the articles are merely aimed for other academics. Any ideas how we fix this problem? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this 1,000%. Our math and statistics articles do a remarkable job of making the simplest concepts nearly impenetrable. And I make my living by solving nonlinear partial differential equations. I can't imagine what it must be like for the average reader. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's very hard to address blanket statements - part of the FA process is making articles as accessible as possible, which we try and do without sacrificing accuracy. Many experts aren't particularly good at this though some indeed are. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no suggestion to address this, but this gave me a chuckle, so to perhaps lighten your Wikipedia day, from the link: "I have no idea who the article exists for because I'm not sure that person actually exists: someone with enough knowledge to comprehend dense physics formulations that doesn't also already understand the electroweak interaction or that doesn't already have, like, access to a textbook about it." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I do have a suggestion, for the math articles at least: in these articles it is kind of habitual to cite little or no sources (per a WP:BLUE reasoning if I understand correctly). I'd have these sources nonetheless in these articles, and preferably sources that explain the concepts in a more generally understandable language, which would (hopefully) still be more or less understandable without a degree in mathematics when summarized. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Very good idea, and also often an issue with physics articles. prokaryotes (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Another suggestion: in the top right of an article we can have a sidebar, which is usually a navbox to articles on similar topics. For mathematics and similar high-tech articles, I'd propose another type of sidebar, one with "concepts used but not explained in this article", e.g. containing links to Boolean algebra and differential equation if that are concepts one needs to be acquainted with for a good understanding of the article you are reading; not too much detail: the "useful concepts" boxes on the articles referred to can in turn contain links to articles with the building blocs for that concept (e.g. "infinity (mathematics)" would be one that could figure in the box in the differential equation article).

This way one would always have a step down to something a bit more easily understandable, and a guide "where to start" if the article is too indigestible for the reader's level in math. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Martin Scorsese has drawn attention to the crappiness of this website as a determinant of anything whatsoever about a film. Wikipedia would be better served to cease treating this idiotic thumbs up/down metric as meaningful data, included in a virtually automatic way (because it's so easy) on almost all film pages. It is meaningless data that does not need free promotion on thousands of Wikipedia pages. Here's the Scorsese article: Scorsese on Rotten Tomatoes. This has been brought up before, responded to with ridicule by users who seemed to somehow assume it was sour grapes on the part of some film industry person: hardly. I write this as someone who cares both about Wikipedia and about culture in general, as should all Wikipedia users.