User talk:CaradhrasAiguo

You may call me by my full screenname, "Caradhras" alone, or, rarely, "CA" and variants. Preferably not CA for obvious reasons, and definitely not "Aiguo". CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Babble

Fixing redirects

You should have checked my edits, before undoing them. I am fixing redirects. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. They are not uncontroversial fixes, and unnecessary per WP:DONOTFIXIT. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Nashville weatherbox

So, in other words, you'd prefer to never see updates or changes to weather boxes, am I reading this correctly? Literally every single field and figure used in my edit can be directly sourced. Weather data, of all data, should not remain stagnant, as can very easily be witnessed in how the numbers changed between the 1981-2010 and 1981-2019 sets. Don't know what you want, other than nothing at all. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Normals will be updated in mid-2021 to reflect the changes from 1981–2010 to 1991–2020, just as the current 30-year normals were released in mid-2011. And the notion that I, or anyone else, wants this data to remain stagnant is patently false: record temperatures are consistently updated; a recent prominent example being the slew of all-time record February daily maxima in 2017 and 2018 in Eastern U.S. locations such as Boston and New York's Central Park. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

But you're saying none of the changes I made are acceptable? The data cannot be updated except in 10-year increments? That's the way it certainly seems looking at this template. It shouldn't be too much to ask to properly show where each set of figures are sourced from...that was the original reason I started on that in the first place. As it stands, https://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=ohx is a dead link, and the two text documents are a mostly unreadable morass of codes that a normal reader would have no hope of interpreting. Fine for specialists, unusable by the general public. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

But you're saying none of the changes I made are acceptable? The addition of both the normal monthly mean temperatures and mean daylight hours has remained.

The monthly mean extreme maxima and minima can be calculated by navigating to "Monthly summarized data", copying the entire table, pasting it into an Excel spreadsheet, and using the mean extremes precise to 0.1 °F. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I did say changes, not additions. I understand the calculation, but you still seem to be saying that no data can be updated outside of these 10-year increments, so that's irrelevant. It just seems absurd. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The mean extreme maxima/minima can be recalculated, but using a "39-year" moving average seems arbitrary compared to a 30-year moving average. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith towards me.

When I was blocked, you posted this message: at my talk page. @Bb23 removed this saying not to post things like this. I'm informing you this just in case you didn't know. Also please note that you told me to sod off from your talk page using your edit summaries (in one of them you said I risked a block for what I thought was just editing on your talk page). This is a bad word in some variants of English and even though Wikipedia isn't censored I still would encourage you not to use it especially with me as I always edit in good faith as in I have a reason why each of my edits are constructive. By the way I don't need a reply from you or even anyone, so I won't restore this message if it gets removed either by the bot or you (in which case you can just undo this particular diff, using the default message or at least not telling me to get off your talk page - I promise I won't do it ). Speaking of permalinks, I know them as diffs, and what I wanted answered was already answered at a later date (I was asking you a question). Thanks.111.22.164.171 (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that you posted a perma-link / revision diff 10 hours before falsely claiming you do not understand them, it is hard to consider this anything but wilful disruption. And whether you were editing in good faith (you were not here) is irrelevant to your all-too-short block for edit warring and disruption in general. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(same person as the 111.220.164.171 IP) I didn't and still do not know permalinks and my blocks are not too short, partially because whatever exact pages I was disruptively editing I didn't disruptively edit after those blocks. You are probably glad that the number of articles I'm ever going to edit in a way you think is disruptive is no more than a few 10s of them, probably less, in comparison to the more than 5.8 million on this Wikipedia and any on the other wikis, of which I don't plan editing any of them at all. Besides, if I didn't know what a permalink was, I could not have lied about not knowing them, so I was correctly thinking I was editing in good faith. What do you want me to do from now on and for admins if you think those blocks are too short (sometimes I want an indef one but for an unrelated reason)? Also, I want to mention that I still don't know why visible framework on WCC match articles is undesirable, and finally I noticed you reported me to AIV, saying I vandalised past the 4th warning. You realise that the 4th warning could have been the one on my talk page before I made any other edits on that IP because I wanted to get blocked, going to the extent of lying to passing admins about how bad my edits were on that IP only?27.32.72.17 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Another filibustering answer deflecting from the fact you were lying at my talk page on 23 March , no ifs and buts. You posted said perma-link to Oshwah's talk at 02:59 UTC on 23 March, then plead ignorance of perma-links on my talk page at 13:11 UTC on 23 March. Given this brazen deception, the past disruption, and your past idiotic ignorance, you are no longer welcome on my page for ANY purpose. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you linked to the wrong page for the igonrance word, and I still do not understand permalinks and I should be welcome because I won't be insisting on restoring talk page messages on other users. You still haven't answered my question about what both me and admins should do now. Have you forgot about requesting semi protection on this page, Arbcom or filing a long term abuse report? 111.220.164.171 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. Let's just not talk about it anymore. It no longer matters to me whether you assume good, bad or no faith towards me. You can remove or archive this discussion at your will. Thank you.111.220.164.171 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You can remove or archive this discussion at your will This sentence encapsulates all one needs to know about you and your insolence and arrogance...I do not need your (or anyone's) permission to remove or archive comments from my own talk. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not giving you permission. I'm saying this discussion is no longer useful How is it rude to give some permission to do something when that permission is unnecessary.111.220.164.171 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Technically the rules are the ones that give you the permission. The only reason I said you can archive at own will is because I think this discussion isn't going anywhere and the best thing would be to somehow get it off the main talk page, archiving it or just removing the text for this discussion.111.220.164.171 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note I'm not here to disrupt or lie (I did read up on permalinks yesterday - only then, and lying only occurs when you're intentionally doing it but that was last month, not yesterday). As such, I was not lying about how I didn't understand permalinks (now I do, so it would have been a lie if the 2 events swapped times when the happened). If you're still unconvinced in assuming good faith towards me, I suggest you take at least 1 of, and up to 4 paths to address this behavior: ANI, request semi protection for this page for indefinite duration, ArbCom or filing an LTA report. You also need to take into consideration 2 things: 1. IPs change here every few months with the actual duration varying, in case you propose a block of many months (which will probably happen), if it's not possible to block any IPs used in the same location if they change. 2. I'm not interested in creating an account, for reasons I wish to not disclose. So yes I should be welcome on your talk page, especially if I want to award barnstars as I have done in the past to othe users (like when you reverted 17 edits made by an IP on a single article). Thanks.111.220.164.171 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

I reverted your edit on Coral Gables, Florida. The temps listed in the 'Climate' section are not the same of those given by the Weather Channel for either Miami or the Miami Airport. In addition, you also deleted the 'Surrounding areas' section below the Climate section. - Donald Albury 17:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

May I remind you of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You should have taken your concerns to the article's talk page rather than immediately re-reverting me. I try to avoid edit warring, and suggest you do the same. - Donald Albury 17:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The facts do not support your assertion of a difference. The record temperatures are the exact same (Coral Gables "table", Miami template) with the exception of the May maximum (the record was broken in 2017) and Oct minimum (probably a miss by the editor at Coral Gables). The normal temperatures are simply a rounded version of the Miami template. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)