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

Spam on your talk page

Hi. I used to own 211.27.126.189. From that IP I posted a message on your talk page which you thought was spam (see and as that section is now archived - these links in this message aren't spam themselves). There's no spam. I don't get how there's spam. Thank you.211.27.115.246 (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Uyghurs, Taiwan edits - removing relevant references

Dear Sir, please stop removing relevant references from articles such as:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghurs&diff=prev&oldid=876747398 - there is a mountain of evidence from reliable sources that conducted their own investigations (BBC, the New York times, the UN report)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&type=revision&diff=876537544&oldid=876494707 - threats of military force from China's president & General Secretary of the party, Mr. Xi are a significant degradation of relations and a throwback to the 1998-2008 policy of hostile non-contact;

I would also suggest that you use the standard signature in comments, instead of isolating yourself from feedback.

Thank you - CultureArchitect (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The UN report has been scanty on the evidence, and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to an exile Uyghur organization based in Istanbul (use Google Translate). The original Reuters report on the matter only cites members of UN panel; there has never been an official UN policy statement. For more on the problematic aspects of reporting on this alleged mass internment, see This source.

Until major reversals in links such as nonstop Cross-strait commercial flights, Xi's statements merely accentuate the Anti-Secession Law, which has never been repealed since passage in 2005. The user who added the references has a history of adding tangentially relevant, WP:UNDUE material.

I would also suggest that you stop patronizing someone who is clearly more well-informed on matters pertaining to this area of the world. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies. The references that were added to the article provided independent reports from additional reliable sources i.e. BBC, the New York times, the UN report. To remove these references because you believe the "UN report has been scanty on the evidence and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to ..." is bad editing. CultureArchitect (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I repeat, nowhere in the Reuters article was the suggestion made that the statements of the UN panel members represented official UN opinion, let alone a so-called "UN report", which has not yet to be produced on the matter. Before smugly lecturing others, properly read articles beyond their headlines to conduct your own critical thinking; otherwise, bugger off my talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you can find the official UN ICERD country report for China here: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?Lang=en&SessionID=1196. This is in agreement with press articles quoted. Have a good read! CultureArchitect (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

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)