User talk:CaradhrasAiguo/Archive 3

 

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.

El_C 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 

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.

 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)

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)

(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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Using an appeal to authority to highlight an editor that agrees with your position, and to discredit all of the other editors that have disagreed with you, is not in good form. Rather than blanking the section (or attempting to WP:CANVAS like you've done), which there is no consensus for, if you have a proposed rewrite I suggest you preview it on talk so everyone can comment on it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Symphony Regalia and CaradhrasAiguo: I haven’t looked at the relevant talk page sections and formed a view on the actual dispute, but a reminder that the onus is for inclusion, not exclusion, to have consensus. So if there is no clear consensus to include the section, then it should remain removed until consensus arises to include it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The section has community consensus. It's been in the article for months. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

How long material has been there isn’t relevant. It seems to be disputed and the current status of consensus is no consensus, right? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus through editing for inclusion. There is no consensus for removal. In fact, the talk page discussion didn't even discuss the prospect of removing the entire section. This is why I've asked Caradhras to follow WP:BRD and seek talk page input. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

SR, I was about to comment on your second unsupported accusation (in this case, of WP:CANVASSING), but...you have made me chuckle again. The time from 27 March thru 27 April isn't months plural. If you had read WP:CON, you would have known that WP:COMMUNITYCONSENSUS is a separate section (and thus separate matter) from that which you linked. An example of the former would be a WP:RfC or noticeboard (such as WP:RS/N) discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The supplied link does not support your claim about the time span. Additionally, WP:CON and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS are not mutually exclusive. It was mentioned because you seem to be under the impression that having a like-minded editor agree with you means that you are allowed to ignore broader consensus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The urns story was first reported by Caixin on 27 Mar, per the cited Bloomsberg link. It is now 30 Apr (UTC), hardly months in the plural, as you stated here; at best, this is being loose with numbers, at worst, making shite up. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Let’s maintain some civility here. The course of action is to open a discussion on this precise question at the article talk page while leaving the section out. If a consensus is reached to include the section, then include it at that point. These other arguments about tangential points aren’t very productive. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD works. The B in BRD also includes the removal of information. Since this was challenged it should go to talk so that compromise or new consensus can be reached. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is English Wikipedia policy requiring consensus for inclusion of material. WP:BRD is an optional method for reaching consensus and an explanatory supplement. In any case, the section inclusion is challenged so you’re right that both of you need to go to the article talk. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies to the inclusion of material that is not a part of the prior consensus. Not the removal of consensus material. Per WP:REMOVAL, "it is important to make sure there is clearly a consensus to remove the content." and "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus". Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to understand the different levels of practice here. WP:ONUS is a Wikipedia policy, which stands above guidelines and explanatory supplements as established standards by long-standing consensus. WP:REMOVAL is a Wikipedia essay, which has no standing whatsoever on practice and does not have acceptance by consensus.

WP:ONUS applies at all times, and inclusion is not the same thing as addition. It’s not somehow excluded for material that had a past assumed consensus that was not previously challenged; i.e. assumed consensus by silence which is only presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident. Consensus changes, and material is always assessed at the current state of consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I revised the statement of the the RfC at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#RfC on Chinese Foreign Ministry response to controversy regarding Africans in Guangzhou after you had !voted, due to it being inflexibly worded initially. You can change your !vote to reflect the new options if you'd like.

I also made a comment so that your original !vote's context is not totally disrupted though, if you choose not to. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw the change on the talk, but thank you. I have not thought of which option to choose specifically. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Chengde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shuangqiao District

Chinese New Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Teochew

Dingxi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anding District

Hohhot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Xincheng District

Nanjing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Xuanwu District

Ningbo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yinzhou District

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Chinese is a common term – one that the vast majority of readers arriving at this article will be familiar with – and as such does not warrant linking. The {{chinese}} template is therefore not needed. Regards, --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That is the default link of the |c parameter of {{zh}}, but the HTML tag is still needed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There were no other links to China itself in that article. Understand? TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a policy subsection of the manual of style called WP:OVERLINK. Understand? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Tell me, what part of that policy says I can't link to China on that article? TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"China" is a common term, just as is the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, or any other major nation. Now stop bolding entire sentences (as if you were low-key shouting). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I apologize for reverting twice. Have a nice day. TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Why you censoring material critical of China? Unsourced uncontroversial material should get cn first. --Pitcher curtis (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 

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 Falun Gong. 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have checked the diff more thoroughly, but your edit summary misled me. That was not a revert. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "National_People%27s_Congress_Decision_on_Hong_Kong_national_security_legislation".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Just in case you didn't see the template message, there is currently a dispute about the National_People%27s_Congress_Decision_on_Hong_Kong_national_security_legislation. There is no obligation to participate, but dispute resolution is a good way to come to a consensus about a disagreement. Thank you! – O-dog222 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@O-dog222: I had been checking the noticeboard, but reluctant to articulate a response, since I am pre-occupied with other matters in real life and I view the user P as WP:NOTHERE material in light of his sanctimonious attitude in the face of doubling down on their own personal attacks. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits to this page? Macao is a Special Administrative Region rather than a "provincial-level division of China", and Taiwan is a de facto independent country that is hardly ever viewed as a province of China; talking about both of these regions as if they were Chinese provinces doesn't seem all that neutral. Could you point me to a specific Wikipedia policy recommending that Taiwan and Special Administrative Regions are to be classified simply as "Chinese territory"? Thank you, Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Provinces of China rightly lists Macao as a province-level division (not a province) of the PRC, without italics. The hatnote explicitly lists Hong Kong (via the extension to West Kowloon station) as part of the article's scope, therefore per consistency there is no reason to not mention Macao as being not connected with China Railway High-Speed. As to Taiwan, I altered national network to CR's network in the footnote. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was conflating "province-level divisions" with "provinces" proper. Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

While you are perfectly at liberty to remove posts from your talk page they remain in your page history and removal means you have read and understand them. My template post about WP:CENSOR at Tibet Autonomous Region was prompted by your disruptive editing that another editor reverted before I got to it. My post on your talk page is not WP:NPA. If you want to go that route then you are going to make things more difficult for yourself. Just because you don't like editors making a post that from their point of view seems valid doesn't mean it's wrong. Please consider your next edit on Tibet Autonomous Region carefully and make your case for removal or changes to content on the talk page. Wikipedia is about discussion. Your edit was reverted follow WP:BRD. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually failure to explain how editing constitutes WP:CENSOR is by definition casting WP:ASPERSIONs (a Twinkle template does not suffice), which is by definition a personal attack. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Repeated feuding with Horse Eye Jack, including following each other to articles to revert the other, and near constant bickering and templating and insults and harrasment. Blocking both editors for 2 weeks to prevent further disruption of other editors' work.. 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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I accept that I did not internalize your advice at the beginning of April, however, I will not commit to anything specific while the latest non-dispute (given the acknowledgment of goodwill) and feuding mindset, as you put it, are still afresh. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you be interested in making an interaction ban with Horse Eye Jack official as a condition for unblock? To be honest, there's probably going to be a de facto interaction ban anyway, in the sense that if you guys go at it again, it will likely be so disruptive that it will result in a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(more) Since you're (wisely) taking a break, I'll offer you the same thing I offered HEJ. I'll unblock if you want, subject to an i-ban with HEJ until 9 July 2020, and a warning to be careful not to resume the feud after that. If I am not online when you see this, you can request an unblock using {{unblock}}, and any admin is welcome to unblock with this condition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Everybody seems to be placated at the latest "dispute" at Tibet Autonomous Region, and I agree to the principles you set here, with a formal interaction ban lasting thru the end of Sep (UTC). Enjoy your first full weekend of astronomical summer, and I hope you will not feel obliged to spend any more time on this matter, lest you or I are any stressed out over it. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've unblocked you based on this agreement. Note that the actual official interaction ban lasts only until 8 July, just for symmetry; I've already unblocked HEJ on those terms. Of course, I'd advise both of you to act as if it continues indefinitely, but for complicated historical reasons that seem crazy to me, I can't just change that unilaterally. You have a good weekend too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you did, but you mentioned my User Name as what you are reverting for Bangor, Maine. BUT, that is NOT my original edit that you are reverting! Check again! Asc85 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You can check the diff, I was reverting your edit, which was not a simple rewording, because the two concepts are not the same. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you were right and I was wrong. So good you're checking edits from February in July. Asc85 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

i think youre putting bad links in the weatherboxes. please check before you put more. thanks, —Soap— 20:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the links only work with https. I'll go back over my edit history, then. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Caradhras! I saw that you reverted some of my edits (on the pages about Tibet, ESSR, GSSR, MASSR, and Nicaragua), stating that the problem was that I did not cite a reliable source. But all of my edits come from a portal administrated by the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is a completely reliable international organization which does extensive research on totalitarian regimes. Can I please ask you what, exactly, is the problem? In any case, thank you for your feedback. Seemona97 (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edit at Tibet was prolematic on its own merits, regardless of the source quality: 1.2 million "violent or unnatural deaths" linked to the Chinese occupation have been registered has been debunked in Human rights in Tibet#Allegations of physical genocide, as both Patrick French, former director of the "Free Tibet" campaign in London, and respected Sinology academic Colin Mackerras are cited there as scoffing at the 1M+ claim. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Art of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:ANI#Interaction ban request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As a result of that thread, I'm issuing a mutual interaction ban between you and Horse Eye Jack, as spelled out at WP:IBAN. Note that this will be annoying to follow, because you're prolific editors in the same general topic area. You can edit articles the other person has edited, but you can't modify something they've added (WP:IBAN says you can't "undo" each other's edits, but consensus at this WP:AN discussion earlier this month is that this includes modifying each other's edits, which includes by it's very nature "undoing" a portion of the edit). If the other person's edit needs to be changed, someone else will notice and change it. Fixing things you think are wrong with the other's edits is now Someone Else's Problem. I'll log this at WP:EDRC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

When editing city articles, please don't move the equals nor add a space when you edit fields within a city article. I have to go back and clean up after your edits.

See Abilene, Kansas edit.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note, certain agency's information or political news cannot be used for Wikipedia facts. This time, we have converted the source to actual data in the wiki article. The source is deleted but the information you wrote is kept. There is a filed report regarding this issue pending for decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakewood233 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I received this message:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lintong District. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo

I have never edited a wikipage before, I have never seen that article before. What exactly did the edit supposedly say? --147.147.43.106 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The previous edit with a description "Taiwan as separate political entity" was a longstanding version prior to July. I don'y know why you insist to remove that description as it's definitely not NPOV by having no explanation over that pic. Shall Taiwan be considered a part of China which is still under controversy and you try to disregard that fact.220.135.36.159 (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Do you know where a "Buzhage county" [3] might be located, or what this may actually be referring to? Who would know more about this? I have initiated a translation request here: [4]. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This may be a township in Hotan County. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The closest match I can find in Hotan City or Hotan County is a mis-spelling (Buzhake Xiang, Hotan County) or locally, the Mandarin dialect spoken actually pronounces 克 as "ge". It would be a wholesale violation of NPOV to only mention the AFP reports of "graveyard destruction" while obscuring the claim that the remains were relocated to, in some cases, more soundly constructed, graves. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jiangwang Subdistrict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanjiang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

|native_name parameters has been shown in "| module = "--Huangdan2060 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Huangdan2060: Discuss your mass changes at WT:CHINA, then. It isn't much different without the inclusion of |module, such as at Changsha. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I wrote all these articles. Would I destroy them myself? --Huangdan2060 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, retaining |native_name while adding the |module parameter works, but the above rhetorical question is nonsense. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your attention is called to the addition of this display to the article on the Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s). Do you have any feelings, for or against? Discussion should take place on that article's Talk page. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Caradhras. You reverted this edit I made saying I removed text without giving "a valid reason" for doing so. I explained my action in the edit summary: the language I removed did not make sense. Here's the language I removed and you restored:

A german paper however noted that Adrian have used unconventional research methods to prove Chinese government's policies of repression on the Tibetans. The paper alleged that Adrian had analyzed job postings for security personnel in Tibet, compared them with data on self-immolation by Tibetans, and used that data to form his conclusions.

The "alleg[ation]" mentioned in the text has no apparent connection to the paragraph above summarizing Zenz's research, which doesn't mention repression of Tibetans, security personnel, or self-immolation. Nor is it clear even what is being alleged, as the text doesn't say how he analyzed anything, what comparisons he made, or what his conclusions were. The source is behind a paywall and the text in the Wikipedia article looks like a bad machine translation of the German in the first paragraph, but even in German the available section of the original doesn't clarify things. Could you explain why you think this section belongs in the article? 2601:18A:C680:1EB0:79A8:E11E:F8BD:C478 (talk)

The header is titled "Tibet", not "Education in Tibet" or "Languages of Tibet", and Herr Böge's article at FAZ.net is indeed on Zenz's Tibet research. There is no requirement that all paragraphs within a section have an immediate connection with one another. A tenet of WP:NPOV is to mention criticism from WP:RS, which the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, as a mainstream source in Germany, is. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but my point was that it doesn't make sense. I still have no idea what "Adrian had analyzed job postings for security personnel in Tibet, compared them with data on self-immolation by Tibetans, and used that data to form his conclusions" is supposed to mean. Do you? 2601:18A:C680:1EB0:79A8:E11E:F8BD:C478 (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask what you think of the examples on the Wiktionary page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/East_Turkestan ? The Uyghurs that manage to escape call it East Turkestan, and these detainees probably had similar thoughts seeing as they weren't sent back. It's important to provide all viewpoints on Wikipedia, and it's not fringe to mention this term which is widely used among Uyghur community, like World Uyghur Congress etc and is a historical term. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The page on Guantanamo detainees isn't discussing the geographic region, thus any nomenclature discussion (especially on fringe names) is irrelevant. And the idea this fringe name is "widely used" among non-diasporic Uyghurs, who form the overwhelming majority of the population, gets a big {{citation needed}}. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at the page? These detainees were involved in the Uyghur exile community. What would they be likely to want written there? I think East Turkestan in paraentheses one time in the article is Wikipedia neutral and just outright appropriate given the widespread usage of the term especially in the exile community. Non-diasporic people with East Turkestan flags and symbols are subject to persecution as mentioned in the Washington Post article (on the Wiktionary page) and on the Qira County page, so I wouldn't look for mentions of the term on Tianshannet. China is rated at 10/100 for freedom by Freedom House (political rights are at negative one [5]) and Tibet is even lower, so I don't think you can say "I never saw this term on Xinhua News articles" and wash our hands of the term. But in fact, China state media do bring up the term when they refer to terror organizations, and these detainees were detained on suspicion of terror related activities. That's why I think a brief mention is appropriate. I don't think my edit is extremely important, but I do think it would make sense and help inform the readers about the background of these detainees. If you don't like it in the lead section, maybe once somewhere in parentheses in the article proper? Again, not a critical edit. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to hound you here, but could East Turkestan be a 'see also' on the page? The concept of East Turkestan is perhaps related in no small way to the accusations against them. At minimum, I would think this is a topic readers interested in the detainees could also be interested in. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Not hounding by any means. That could be un-intrusive. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 

Hello, CaradhrasAiguo! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed talk! 01:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charlotte, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NWS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 

Hi CaradhrasAiguo. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Cabayi (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you point me to the WP:DRV for this template? The last discussion that I saw was this one and I have not seen any subsequent discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Same for Template:Baltimore weatherbox and the others in that discussion that you restored. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The justification was that even on a page on a city as major as Albuquerque, no one noticed this IP's unsourced changes for nearly four months; other pages have generally done well in reverting such tinkering. And I didn't restore {{Baltimore weatherbox}} (1 or {{Albany, New York weatherbox}} (2), btw. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:CaradhrasAiguo! I noticed your revert on China, which looked to me like it's targeted at the revision before mine based on your edit summary. Did you have a problem with the addition of a short description to the page, or with the specific short description I chose? If not, let me know and I'll readd a short description to the page! Just wanted to check, since China is a Vital article and could probably use some kind of short description. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Not an issue, I just thought the Wikimedia default is fine and doesn't require code maintenance here on :EN. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like the Wikidata defaults are going away at some time in the unspecified future. A bunch of people are hopping mad about it in various places on the village pump, e.g. this is a reasonable summary. So, it seems like we'll soon lose the ~4M pages with Wikidata SDs but no EnWiki SDs. Kind of a mess, as far as I can tell. If you don't object, I'll readd the description to China then. Suriname0 (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of the Village Pump discussion, do it as a pre-emptive measure then. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)