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

Jacksonville weatherbox

What's incorrect about Jacksonville climate data? And why don't You remove the daily mean lines for other cities weatherboxes? What's so special about Jacksonville daily mean temperature data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperKontik38 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

About emailing me

I'm posting this on your talk page so as to not bother HEJ too much, which I worry is starting to be the case. I'm sorry, but for privacy reasons I have made the decision to not link my email to my account, and I am strict in keeping my Wikipedia interactions to only on the site itself. I'd be lying if I said that I understand why you won't present diffs publicly though. Surely admins would need to use the evidence if you were to file a report? That said, I don't belie your right to not bring up a case if you don't wish to do so. Sincerely, Darthkayak (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not want to mention the specific diff on HEJ's talk because I know that, short of (the credible threat of) sanctions, he will not alter course and it would do nothing but to "keep the hornet's momentum going" (a la the adage "stir the hornet's nest"). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Thanks for your response. If you have it I don't think you should keep it to yourself, but that's up to you. Best, Darthkayak (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: Without suggesting an infringement of your privacy, have you considered creating an email account to be used solely for Wikipedia where the display name is made anonymous (i.e. not the name used on your government documents)? Just an idea... CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response - I've had a fairly busy week. I've considered such an email account, but for now and the foreseeable future I prefer to keep my interactions entirely public. Thank you for the suggestion though. Darthkayak (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for you guide about the useful tool below.:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/use Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions alert

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.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Flag Icons

Hi there. I noticed you reverted several changes of mine but I accept your decision because you have mentioned one, which I failed to follow it. From now on, I will. Anyway, thanks for your advice. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have thanked your changes as well because of this following rule: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags. I have done a very big mistake and will not be repeated again. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To CaradhrasAiguo,

Hello,

I saw and edited the content about Sansha on Wiki because the text and images contains many wrong and fake information about the history of South China Sea area. Sansha is a city-level unilaterally declared by the PRC's government to make their claim on disputed South China Sea in reality. In fact, the legitimate issues of South China Sea water and its islands have not been resolved by the international law. Thus, publishing such a bias in a global platform of knowledge like Wikipedia is an inappropriate action and should be removed.

Reverted action without any discussion with the reader has violated the basic principle about freedom of speech.

I solemnly request you to delete this section or I will do it.

Best,

Kim Dang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiem Dang (talk • contribs) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan climate box

You have now reverted my unhiding of the climate box on Wuhan twice. The first reason you gave was extremely weak. The second reason you gave was arrogant and dismissive of ordinary users of wikipedia. I am unimpressed with the attitude you are displaying. I have opened a section on the talk page. I am asking you to respond there. Oska (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I see now you had just responded there when I was leaving the message above. I will continue the discussion there. I do not resile from the views expressed above that the edit note reasons you gave were problematic. Oska (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am unimpressed with your answer in that discussion and how you are wasting my time on this issue. But I have now responded, pointing out how you are misreading the style guide. I am also unimpressed with your recent mass revert on the Wuhan article that removed my edit but also edits by a number of other editors. It would appear that that edit was an underhand way to revert without doing an undo. Oska (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Letting you know that I have requested a WP:THIRDOPINION over our dispute on how MOS:DONTHIDE applies to this issue. Oska (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oska:, spare me the sanctimonious lecturing. The only person wasting anybody else's time is yourself, who has engaged in a WP:POINT crusade to remove perfectly legitimate changes that have stood in many cases since 2010; the parameter has been an option at {{Weather box}} since 2007. You not only embarked on this disruption, ignoring WP:BRD in the process (it's "Bold, [if] Reverted, Discuss", not "Bold, Reverted, continue to Revert while engaging in projection"), but also made your first edit on the page fumbling around, obviously without having read template documentation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your reply only confirms a behaviour that I have observed in you of arguing around a point and pointing to inconsequential things rather than addressing the main concern. As to my 'crusade', which is an offensive way to describe my edits, all I did was observe something that was wrong in an article and fix it. I described the reasons it was wrong on the talk page but, as I say above, you did not respond to the points I made and, when I referenced the style guide, seemingly chose to misinterpret it. I am sorry to say that I have found you a disruptive editor. You have wasted my time over what should have been, for me, a small edit of correcting something that went against Wikipedia's policy of accessible content that I found when I read an article.

Anyway, the third opinion that I requested has now been posted on the talk page. It confirms that the weatherbox should clearly not default to collapsed. It adds that where this has been done on other city pages it is also an error and should be rectified. I will go back and also fix the Boston and New York articles. You were silly to revert my fixes on those pages too and much sillier to threaten with reporting me to AN/I when you did so, on no reasonable basis. Oska (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

From the poster: The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. You ignore this while attempting to castigate others for mis-interpreting MOS, and are beneath contempt. In light of this, you are hereby asked to bugger off my talk page in perpetuity. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ythlev (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Two tips

Hello CaradhrasAiguo, thanks for your anti-vandalism work. I would like to give two tips:

1. Users and IPs are allowed to remove messages from their talk page, even if they don't archive them. Please do not restore them.
2. This removal was uncalled for. NOTVOTE does not prohibit people from sharing their opinion on RFPP, it only says that the ultimate decision is not based on a count of votes.

I hope this helps. Best, MrClog (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The effect of allowing any discussion on RFPP is to cuddle scummy IPs who, in typical fashion, can only resort to the obnoxioux "But but it will tilt the balance towards registered users" whine. As if semi-protection doesn't prevent them from simply creating an account. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you agree with the argument brought forth by an IP user, removing and/or changing their posts is in most cases unacceptable, unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions. --MrClog (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There can be no dispute that their posts fall under Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure how the post you removed ("Oppose. This user has reverted the sourced info five times and semi-protection will be the big advantage for him in the dispute where he is absolutely wrong.") would constitute any of these things? Even if they have engaged in any of these activities outside RfPP, that does not justify removing this specific comment. --MrClog (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

They claim others are "wrong" in a dispute while being completely absent from the talk page. Given they were able to skulk their way onto more than one noticeboard (despite there being no notification for pinging IPs), there is no way they cannot find the talk page. They are purposefully avoiding it. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding talk pages is not grounds for having your comments removed from noticeboards. --MrClog (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning was intended to illustrate that their actions show that they are only here to troll, and that anything they post on a noticeboard shall be regarded as trolling. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If it helps get the message across any clearer, removing posts at AIV or RFPP can get people swiftly blocked - I don't even normally warn people who do that - and if I see anything like this or this again I'll not be impressed. In the future just make your case, say your piece, and let the admins deal with it. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't try intimidating other editors with warning templates like you did here! Favonian (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.235.125 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Concerning this edit. Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CaradhrasAiguo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The dispute at Candidates Tournament 2020 which led to the conflict with the AN/I reporter has already dissipated with the page in question being semi-protected, and constructive discussion occurring at the talk page. Given the last article interaction between myself and the IP occurred at 15:35 UTC today, and the timing of the two edit summaries raised in the complaint (15:45 UTC and 15:23 UTC), it was unlikely that any further personal snipes would occur; see my criticisms of the IP's conduct above at #Two tips in which no personal attacks were made. I would accept a topic ban on any Administrators' noticeboard and a local block at Candidates Tournament 2020, where the flare-ups occurred, in lieu of what is objectively not a preventative block. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Saying "it was unlikely that any further personal snipes would occur" is not sufficient, especially not when you were continuing making personal attacks in a report about your personal attacks. I think we would need to see an active commitment from you to cease your personal attacks, in all situations and on all pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Boing! said Zebedee: Can you demonstrate within that thread, which criticisms I made about other users were personal attacks and not merely criticism of their conduct? If I am missing something here (everybody can improve in terms of self-awareness), I ought to know. The only remark I could find is [1], but I had made the only purpose addition as an add-on and, I will admit, it did not alter the facts of the edit warring situation, and can in the slightest be construed as a WP:NOTHERE accusation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)