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)[reply]

Babble

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I totally agree with Oska. Daily mean is one of the most important data lines in weatherboxes, along with precipitation and relative humidity, since Köppen climate classification is using daily mean temperature to determine the climate zone. Moreover, daily mean data doesn't need the source, since the weatherbox has average highs and lows, which calculate it by summing it and dividing by 2. So please, I honestly ask you, don't remove daily mean lines in cities weatherboxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperKontik38 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

daily mean data doesn't need the source—How is the mean calculated when the digit after the decimal point of the sum of the monthly normal maximum and minimum is odd. This is in direct contravention of WP:NOR. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how does it contravene WP:NOR? Basic arithmetic is a routine calculation, which doesn't count as original research. E.g. I got 44.5°C as the sum of monthly average high and low temperatures. Dividing it by 2 equals 22.25°C, which, by the Half to even rounding method (Banker's method, which is easier to work with, as you always get an even number), is rounded to 22.2°C. Here's another example: I have 64.7°C, then divide by 2. It equals 32.35°C, and it's rounded to 32.4°C. And one more: 22.9°C /2 = 11.45°C -> 11.4°C. SuperKontik38 (talk) 13:25, 03 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basic arithmetic isn't WP:OR when no rounding method is not needed. The problem is, the Half-to-even rule isn't universally applied. At Washington, D.C.'s Reagan National Airport (KDCA), the 1981–2010 normal December daily mean temperature would be (46.8 + 32.5) / 2 = 39.65 → 39.6 (°F) under the Half-to-even rule, but it is sourced as 39.7 °F. This is in contrast to the other months at KDCA where rounding would be necessary: Mar, May, Jun, Jul, Sep, NovCaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what do You think? To add daily mean temperature line, we must have the source? Because recently I have noticed that daily mean data doesn't always equal the half of the sum of month averages, so my way of calculating seem to be absurdly wrong. I just hope, that all weatherbox templates will soon have confirmed mean temp data, because it's needed for determining the climate zone and compare with other places. I will try to add sources for every weatherbox I have changed. I noticed that Jacksonville was fixed and the contributor has added the source. Maybe you have some time to help us with it? New York, Chicago and Dallas weatherboxes, as I remember, don't seem to have sources too. SuperKontik38 23:09, 07 April, 2020 (UTC)

The presence of the mean temperatures on Wikipedia weatherboxes does not affect their presence in the sources. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try to make the weatherboxes better, featuring confirmed daily mean data. I will not bother you now. By the way, thanks for this great conversation. I think you have somehow changed my mind on this problem. Sincerely SuperKontik38 11:19, 07 April, 2020 (UTC)

Is there a big difference between 39.6 and 39.7 °F anyway? Isn't that kind of nitpicking, to decide that just because some decimals for just a few numbers are a little bit off, that all of the daily mean data has to be removed? Then you say "Incorrect" without explaining to users why it's incorrect. This is very valuable data for a weatherbox, especially because it determines the Köppen climate zone, so maybe instead of deleting all of it just because of a few tiny errors, you should probably fix it yourself, or, if you're uninterested, at least give a message to the user who contributed the marginally incorrect data why it's incorrect, and what the correct source is, so they can correct it. Do users permanently delete the population of a city from an infobox because it's just one person off? — EzekielT ^Talk 00:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see this, and there are many U.S. place articles with only a citation to the Köppen classification. The city population analogy is terrible because it isn't a statistic derived from simple arithmetic on published figures, which the daily means in the U.S. and Canada are. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo: Even so, why are you deleting all of the daily mean data instead of simply fixing it? — EzekielT ^Talk 01:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EzekielT and SuperKontik38: I just noticed this from a discussion below, but the mean is simply not the average of the average high and the average low. It may be close, particularly during the fall/spring and near the equator, but it can be wildly off depending on local conditions. The example given below is if it’s 0 degrees for 23 hours and 20 degrees for 1 hour, then the mean is the weighted average 20/24 ~0.83 degrees rather than 10 degrees. You need direct RS figures to report mean temperatures as many countries use hourly/bihourly measurements to calculate mean temperatures instead of half of the diurnal/monthly/annual temperature range (see discussion below). — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Yes, the daily mean figures have direct sources from the NOAA (specifically normals.txt: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/normals/1981-2010/products/station/, and NowData: https://sercc.com/nowdata.html), but CaradhrasAiguo decided to start a mass deletion of daily mean data anyway. — EzekielT ^Talk 21:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EzekielT: Wasn’t the above discussion about Wuhan? My point is that China and several other countries report daily means that are calculated from hourly/bihourly measurements, so one can’t just take half of the diurnal/monthly/annual temperature range and claim WP:CALC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China

Your removal was not clearly explained. Please make sure you explain all of your changes clearly and cogently. El_C 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General 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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 El_C 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning templates

Hi CaradhrasAiguo. I'm sorry to intrude, but I feel as though this is getting somewhat ridiculous - I cannot fathom how you can say this edit [1] constitutes removal of content without adequate explanation or how it introduces over-citation. Please, understand that by over using inappropriate warning templates regardless of any intent to intimidate (though I'm not saying you are trying to intimidate), it creates an environment in which overlapping editors cannot feel comfortable working together. Do you plan on apologizing? Is there something I'm missing in all this? To me it seems that this sort of thing is precisely what you were just banned for. Darthkayak (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, HEJ was removing a near-quotation of a calculation done by Bloomberg that didn't appear anywhere in the Washington Post piece. That, by definition is removal of (sourced) content. Yes, I did not need to use a Level 4 / Imminent template, but I was irritated by seeing a revert notification by HEJ and then opening the notification to find he had apparently reverted an edit for the mere sake of doing so (and I still do not trust his judgment on sources given the AN/I incident which no admin gave their input at), and he and I have since conducted ourselves in reasonable terms.

I apologized privately to MrClog for templating him because there was no substance there. And, sorry, that last sentence does not demonstrate any understanding of WP:BAN. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I overstepped my boundaries. HEJ can work things out with you them self. I’m just frustrated I guess. Lastly, my apologies, I meant block; I incorrectly used the two interchangeably. Best, Darthkayak (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring Talk Page Material "Irrelevant"

You shouldn't unilaterally use collapse templates to deem talk page dialogue "irrelevant". Especially when the dialogue within includes critiques of your edit behavior. -- Veggies (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section revolves around evaluations of the behavior of myself or Jaedglass, not the content of edits. This isn't a user talk page, WP:DR or an admin noticeboard, where that sort of discussion belongs. Nothing to do with article improvements, and a meaningless waste of time given this post on the content that led to the prior dispute.

Without any taunting / snark, I suggest you do as HEJ did, when he collapsed a section that devolved into a back-and-forth. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You collapsed that section [2], I merely moved the line because you appeared to want to give yourself the last word twice. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HEJ, sorry, I meant that you did not contest the collapsing despite being a contributor to the tangent. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the restate, its definitely true that we had gotten off track. I would use the collapse tool sparingly though, most people are less tolerant of it than I am (I like it because it allows editors who want to skim rather than dig into the nitty gritty that chance). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the source mismatch

1. Thanks for pointing out the source mismatch and taking the time to explain on my talk page, you were right.

The correct sources should have been from Bloomberg and FT for that particular fact (90% of....) Billybostickson (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. "I also reverted the edit because the comics have already been covered by another source, and concur with this assessment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)" Not sure what you mean exactly when you said the above on my talk page as my particular contribution did not mention the comic, but rather used the Shanghaiist source to confirm the fact that foreigners are now banned from entering China whether they have visas and residence permits or not. Billybostickson (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two confusing infoboxes in the Oceania article

Talk:Oceania

Someone is trying to insert "Two infoboxes" into the Oceania article with the second infobox stating that Oceania consists of 21 countries, not 14 countries. Your input will be highly appreciated! 2001:8003:9008:1301:ED94:8653:DE31:73A1 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dingxi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anding District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack & Involvement

Please read this section I wrote and get back to me here regarding its accuracy with {{ping|Augend}}. Thank you. Augend (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China

It's accurate to say that China is an authoritarian one-party dictatorship run by a president for life. They have thousands of Muslims in camps for the crime of preferring the wrong religion. They killed thousands of student protesters in Tiananmen Square and sent tanks into democratic Hong Kong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailing californium (talk • contribs)

@Sailing californium:, I suggest you not, at best, conflate with Shenzhen in the mainland with Hong Kong, and at worst, just make shite up on the fly, before commenting on anything relating to Chinese topics, China or East Asia. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaradhrasAiguo. You have new messages at NavjotSR's talk page.
Message added by 108.48.162.191 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic curfews

Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic curfews has been nominated for merging with Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic lockdowns. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. MB-one (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jinghong Climate Box

I don't understand your reasoning for constant reverting of my CORRECT calculations of the mean temperatures. For instance, the average high temperature for January is 25.5 and the average low is 11.6. The mean temperature is therefore 18.5. It is not 16.5 as currently stated in the climate box. This is a simple calculation. Take a calculator and do it yourself and you will get the same result. Please stop reverting my correct calculations. It is extremely annoying, and more importantly, it is factually incorrect. It seems you have a history of doing this, based on the Wuhan climate box section of your talk page. Aoa8212 (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Aoa8212: The mean temperature is not the average of the average high temperature and the average low temperature. For example, suppose that it is 0 degrees for 23 hours but 20 degrees for 1 hour, every day: the average high is 20 degrees and the average low is 0 degrees, but the mean temperature is 20/24 ~ 0.83 degrees rather than 10 degrees. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: That's not the standard on Wikipedia and we have no way of knowing that level of detail, hence why we calculate mean temperatures as the arithmetic average between the highest and lowest temperature in a 24-hour period. Source: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/data-snapshots/data-source-30-yr-averages-month-mean-temp Aoa8212 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the average of the average high and average low is an imprecise method suitable for a data snapshot and maps, like the one you linked, but is not the global meteorological standard. That’s why you’ll find reported mean temperatures to be different from the average of the high & low across WP articles and meteorological sources. Weighted averages based on hourly measurements are used in many places in the world. See this article which describes how different countries use different systems, and the International Meteorological Organization definition. You can’t assume that China, for instance, uses the non-true mean that you calculated.

Unless there’s past consensus somewhere here on WP to always use half of the diurnal/monthly/annual temperature range for the diurnal/monthly/annual mean temperature? — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Every climate box I've seen on Wikipedia uses the mean of average high/low per month/year. I'm quite surprised by this revert of my correct calculations and your contesting it as well. As I said before as an example, the mean between the numbers given for January of 25.5 high and 11.6 low is 18.5, not 16.5 as stated, due to the revert. The revert is incorrect and he has a history of doing this and being blocked and I anticipate him being blocked again for crap like this. Aoa8212 (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mean between the high and low is 18.5, sure, but the cited source for Jinghong literally says 16.5 for mean temperature. There are plenty of articles that use the national reported mean temperatures based on hourly/bihourly/trihourly measurements, e.g. Wuhan, Shanghai, Tianjin, Tokyo, Sapporo. In this case, there was nothing wrong with CA’s revert – use what’s in the sources per WP:V. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material

Hi there. Can you explain why you suddenly attempted remove an entire section of sourced material without adequate explanation? Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. You did not read the accompanying edit summary I gave, nor the discussion I linked to. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed read your edit summary and have reviewed both of the discussions, with the most recent one being here. There was never a consensus for the removal of that section. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those who were engaging substantively and not resorting to tropes explicitly rejected covering the urns story, including the admin whose comment I linked to. Given the large number of {{cn}} tags, WP:ONUS is on you to justify your re-insertion, contrary to your misleading claim. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, according to the archive there was never consensus for the removal of that section. Highlighting a single comment that agrees with your position, and rejecting everyone else as "following tropes" does not seem to be a productive way to have the discussion. Please seek consensus before removing that section. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you linked to the incorrect section (section 29, where CRGreathouse didn't post at all), as opposed to the first section in the archive. Consensus isn't determined by strict numbers, but rather the strength of arguments; the initial users' posts were a combination of "U.S. government said this and that", "China (intentionally) covered up", compared to the numeric arguments advanced by others, including myself. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second archive represents the most current discussion of it, and it's quite clear that consensus wasn't reached in either of them. Indeed it is not a vote, but other editors are not in agreement on the strength of said argument, which is why there's no consensus to remove it currently. You are essentially making the argument that consensus doesn't apply to you. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, selectively quoting discussions again (but color me wholly unsurprised). The second discussion on Archive 28 was about politics, and made no mention of the urns non-story (which is what I removed) whatsoever, and was simply more polemic. Best of all, Doc James, himself well-published in the medicinal field, dismissed all the sources that the OP in the second discussion raised. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou Metro Population Revision? Reference?

You recently reverted a change I made to the metro population update made April 26 2020. For most of recent memory the metro population was listed as 25 million, which is referenced in the current superscript link on the page (OECD Urban Policy Review etc. - under City and Population (millions): 25.0). However, the current box reads as 56,118,357, which is a number not supported by any references. Can you please point out to me where this very specific population number is being derived from in the referenced OECD study link that is being referenced? Radoria2 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are correct, as a user had altered the metro figure to 56M+ on 7 Jan, without altering the source. But, in general, it is best to explain such changes in edit summaries. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]