User talk:94.21.147.49
Why?
[edit]Szia! I see you have jumped Ip address again, so I want to ask you again: Why? You've been doing this for three years now and have been blocked repeatedly for it? Why do you care about precision so much? What is it that drives you again and again to edit measurements despite having been blocked? I'm not angry, just genuinely puzzled as to why you bother. You obviously could contribute much to the encyclopedia if you didn't obsess over measurements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Because multiple times, my edits have been reverted by default because of my past edits.
- That doesn't answer my question, why are you obsessed with measurements? Why do you feel that specific measurements are important, almost all your edits shortly before and since your blocking involve measurements, whether those be of buildings or prehistoric animals, why is this important to you? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for example I don't like how the Empire State Building article rounded 381 m (1250 ft) to 380 m in the introduction (the box has it correctly though, but still. Also, I think when an animal is estimated to be e.g. 10.64 m long, it should only be rounded to 10.6 m, and in the case of another building like the One World Trade Center should have 541.3 m in the introduction, not 541, since that ruins the chosen height for it (1776 ft) by a foot. 541.32 m would be too precise in this case, and 541.3 m is the least precise which is ~1776 ft tall instead of ~1775 ft. However, when there's a prize for finding a 30 ft long snake, since we're talking about a living animal, 30 ft should be converted to 9.14 m. In this case, only 9.144 m would be too precise.
- I suppose the better question is, why does measurement precision and rounding bother you so much? Almost every edit you have ever made with all of your alts is about size, length, weight or some other statistic. It's like Giraffedata and "Comprised of". Why don't you feel the need to write about anything else? Do you understand why you have been repeatedly blocked over the issue? I'm not trying to insult you but seem to have something like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder if you keep coming back to edit the same articles repeatedly over three years, only to get reverted again and again. I really think you should go and see a doctor, this just isn't healthy behaviour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Do you understand why you have been repeatedly blocked over the issue?" Looking back, I understand why I was reverted and blocked at first, but I don't really understand why am I being reverted and blocked since a year or so. Bad first impression I guess? On the Hungarian wikipedia, I make similar edits, and there they let me to edit until my edits become useful.
- For the hungarian wikipedia, it's because the userbase is so small so that no user will push back against the edits. The Pedant's veto is much less powerful on the english wikipedia. For why you're being blocked: It's because after being blocked as WelcomeToJurassicPark in 2017, Ip user edits following the same pattern are blocked under Wikipedia:Sock puppetry guidelines. Your sockpuppet investigations archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WelcometoJurassicPark/Archive, is one of the longest on wikipedia. Your modus operandi is so consistent between accounts and Ip addresses that it's always obvious that it's you, as you edit nothing else but size estimates. If you didn't solely edit size estimates your Ip address probably wouldn't be blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I can bring up various examples of edits I would consider useful, such as adding the Gregory S. Paul estimates of 5 m and 2 tonnes for Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai and P. perotorum, and 6 m and 3 tonnes for P. canadensis, which are obviously better estimates than 8 m from Holtz if you look at the skeletals of Scott Harman and Getawaytrike, Removing the over the curves (12.8 m) figure for Sue and using the along the centra one (12.3 m), adding a 2019 estimate of 9.1 tonnes for Sue, rounding the estimate of Scotty (8870 kg) correctly (8.9 tonnes instead of 8.8 tonnes), adding the skull length of Rugops (31.5 cm) from the original description and removing the size comparison in which it has a longer skull (I even attemted to reblace it with a correct, although not-so-good looking version (which could be made to look better though)), adding additional estimates from Gregory S. Paul and/or Larramendi, rewording to reflect the reference better, etc.
- If you were less combative about insisting on your changes, I'd be less inclined to revert you on sight. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, so what will happen now if I make some of these edits again, or at least the Pachyrhinosaurus one?
- These are all to do with measurements thought aren't they? Why are you solely interested in measurements? Bringing up a handful of edits out of the well over a thousand you have made is disingenuous. For the most part, you edits are pedantic and don't really contribute anything to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think caring about a 2-3 m difference is being pedantic. 8 m is Triceratops territory, and based on skeletals, Pachyrhinosaurus is clearly quite a bit smaller. Also, what does it matter if they're about measurements as long as they're useful?
- Oh, and I wanna edit the box office here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_(2014_film) as well, since the Box Office Mojo figure ($524,976,069) is 525 million dollars when rounded, not 524. Or maybe one of you could edit it so it will remain 525 more safely.
- Are they though? on your edit on Sarcosuchus, you changed the upper limit to 133, which is the base of the Hauterivian, while fossilworks states that the deposit is late hauterivian in age, meaning the upper limit shouldn't be 133. An Algerian specimen is early Berriasian, though given the reference is from 1966 I'm not inclined to trust it. The problem is at some point with measurements it's like the Coastline paradox, there's no precise answer. Ultimately, your ideas about how precise measurements on wikipedia should be are an opinion, not an objective statement of fact. On wikipedia we try to reach WP:Concensus on subjective issues like this. If as Lythronax said, you were less aggressive with doing these changes, and brought them up on talk pages instead of engaging in reverting and edit warring maybe you'd be treated with a warmer reception, and not be blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think caring about a 2-3 m difference is being pedantic. 8 m is Triceratops territory, and based on skeletals, Pachyrhinosaurus is clearly quite a bit smaller. Also, what does it matter if they're about measurements as long as they're useful?
- If you were less combative about insisting on your changes, I'd be less inclined to revert you on sight. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I can bring up various examples of edits I would consider useful, such as adding the Gregory S. Paul estimates of 5 m and 2 tonnes for Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai and P. perotorum, and 6 m and 3 tonnes for P. canadensis, which are obviously better estimates than 8 m from Holtz if you look at the skeletals of Scott Harman and Getawaytrike, Removing the over the curves (12.8 m) figure for Sue and using the along the centra one (12.3 m), adding a 2019 estimate of 9.1 tonnes for Sue, rounding the estimate of Scotty (8870 kg) correctly (8.9 tonnes instead of 8.8 tonnes), adding the skull length of Rugops (31.5 cm) from the original description and removing the size comparison in which it has a longer skull (I even attemted to reblace it with a correct, although not-so-good looking version (which could be made to look better though)), adding additional estimates from Gregory S. Paul and/or Larramendi, rewording to reflect the reference better, etc.
- For the hungarian wikipedia, it's because the userbase is so small so that no user will push back against the edits. The Pedant's veto is much less powerful on the english wikipedia. For why you're being blocked: It's because after being blocked as WelcomeToJurassicPark in 2017, Ip user edits following the same pattern are blocked under Wikipedia:Sock puppetry guidelines. Your sockpuppet investigations archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WelcometoJurassicPark/Archive, is one of the longest on wikipedia. Your modus operandi is so consistent between accounts and Ip addresses that it's always obvious that it's you, as you edit nothing else but size estimates. If you didn't solely edit size estimates your Ip address probably wouldn't be blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Do you understand why you have been repeatedly blocked over the issue?" Looking back, I understand why I was reverted and blocked at first, but I don't really understand why am I being reverted and blocked since a year or so. Bad first impression I guess? On the Hungarian wikipedia, I make similar edits, and there they let me to edit until my edits become useful.
- I suppose the better question is, why does measurement precision and rounding bother you so much? Almost every edit you have ever made with all of your alts is about size, length, weight or some other statistic. It's like Giraffedata and "Comprised of". Why don't you feel the need to write about anything else? Do you understand why you have been repeatedly blocked over the issue? I'm not trying to insult you but seem to have something like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder if you keep coming back to edit the same articles repeatedly over three years, only to get reverted again and again. I really think you should go and see a doctor, this just isn't healthy behaviour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for example I don't like how the Empire State Building article rounded 381 m (1250 ft) to 380 m in the introduction (the box has it correctly though, but still. Also, I think when an animal is estimated to be e.g. 10.64 m long, it should only be rounded to 10.6 m, and in the case of another building like the One World Trade Center should have 541.3 m in the introduction, not 541, since that ruins the chosen height for it (1776 ft) by a foot. 541.32 m would be too precise in this case, and 541.3 m is the least precise which is ~1776 ft tall instead of ~1775 ft. However, when there's a prize for finding a 30 ft long snake, since we're talking about a living animal, 30 ft should be converted to 9.14 m. In this case, only 9.144 m would be too precise.
- That doesn't answer my question, why are you obsessed with measurements? Why do you feel that specific measurements are important, almost all your edits shortly before and since your blocking involve measurements, whether those be of buildings or prehistoric animals, why is this important to you? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |