User talk:CaradhrasAiguo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Chengdu

I'm fine with your last edit, but regarding your comment, Chengdu's winter climate is desertly. Few other places outside deserts see such low monthly rainfall totals. It sees less rainfall and only a few more precip. days, in December than Palm Springs sees in most months of the year. In that sense it's even more misleading to qualify it as having "common" rainfall year-round. 93.142.101.16 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in that edit summary: "rainfall is possible" goes without saying most populated locations worldwide, unless 1) only frozen precipitation has ever been recorded in winter (e.g. Antarctic icecap); 2) a desert location where one or more months has literally _never_ recorded precip. So please use the "possible year-round" phrasing very sparingly. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

China Molybdenum

I have again updated China_Molybdenum and included a link to CMOC's English language webpage identifying Yuan Honglin as the Chairman. That management change was made in June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsj421 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t need a citation

I know I didn’t create a source, but I am an officer of the law confirming he is alive and living in Las Vegas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.0.85 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Jillaroo and Jackroo

There are several whole articles in Wikipedia that mention or are named "Jillaroo". Such as Jillaroo

However I have been told that you cannot use wikipedia itself as a source; you need an outside source(s).

Thus

• https://year13.com.au/articles/jackaroo (high school finishes at year 12)
• https://www.leconfield.com/ (a course for Jackaroos and Jillaroos)
• https://au.indeed.com/Jillaroo,-Station-Hand-jobs
• https://www.penguin.com.au/books/jillaroo-9780143004080 (book by Rachael Treasure - Penguin)

I will revert your revert tomorrow, if you do not mind. ----103.231.168.110 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Misfire...

Sorry. That rollback was a misfire on my part. Aasim 00:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yellow vests

Hello, I am a newbie wishing to learn. Could you explain why the material you removed about the revival of the yellow vests is unsourced? It appears in the Al Jazeera article that is cited, although it is word for word the same so I’m not sure if it needs to be rephrased somehow. Thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a resource on the attackers of 1968 Wash. DC riots?. Some sources led to misleading. I need like confirmation

Marozi

I do not understand your objection to and deletion of my edit to Marozi. The article already stated that there is a skin existing from a "marozi". The skin's existence is a fact stated explicitly in the article, with a photograph. Please explain how mentioning a fact which is already part of the article could possibly constitute "original research". If you think the skin is a hoax please edit the article to state that clearly, with sources for the skin and photograph being a hoax, rather than going after good faith editors who accept the facts stated in the article. I have done nothing wrong. The article as written (and as reverted by you) is blatantly and nonsensically self-contradictory, claiming a skin exists (with a photo) and then claiming it does not exist in the next section. At the very least, if you find something troubling about my edit you could at least discuss it before aggressively deleting everything I wrote. 2601:441:4400:1740:A93D:7AFA:2D6D:A52F (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool's talk

Probably best if both you and I lay off for a while. There are lots of people watching. —valereee (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war.

To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Take your complaint to talk page. Please discuss on talk page first.

Check the articles about other countries, those articles are not full of unnecessary information in the introduction. Your information sounds more like communist party propaganda than a real introduction about China. --JShark (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

JShark, in fairness, since it appears that you are the one who is introducing this major edit onto longstanding text, the onus is actually on you to secure consensus on the article talk page once that edit has been objected to — and, while the matter is being discussed, the status quo ante version is the version that ought to be displaying so long as the dispute remains unresolved. At any rate, I have fully protected the page for a few days, so hopefully, that will allow for a substantive discussion on the matter to materialize. If you find that you've reached an impasse on the article talk page, there are dispute resolution requests, like WP:RFC, which you may avail yourself of. Thanks for your attention. El_C 20:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you El C, the verbatim, unformatted copy-and-paste from the policy (or it may be guideline) page and Communist Party propaganda in their initial post is very un-promising start to any discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree that innuendo about propaganda and so on is generally unhelpful. Unrelated to that, CaradhrasAiguo, if you can, please remind me to indef semi the page again once the full protection expires — I just know I'm gonna forget. El_C 20:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Setting a Google Calendar reminder for that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You can scratch that. JShark has withdrawn from the dispute, so I have indef semi'd the page again. El_C 22:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dewpoint

Hey, noticed you had made some edits to climate boxes and added dewpoints. I wanted to say good work, however, that data is verifiably incorrect. I will take it upon me to change Raleighs to actual statistics!

Abuhesh (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is the replacement reliable source though? The additions are from the dataset that NOAA submitted to the WMO. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hammersmith Apollo

Hello, the article states the name of this venue (concert and entertainment complex) changed on September 17, 2013, kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.165.79 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

new message

I'm kinda confused as to how the messaging on here works, but I did include a source about Confetti/Holiday; it was a tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.26.20 (talk • contribs)

Kinmen edits

I wrote a detailed justification for my edits on the Kinmen article here. The island's role in the Cold War is easily the most notable thing about it. The current lead focuses on subjects that strike me as less relevant. 5440orSleep (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about Template:London weatherbox

You requested protection for London weatherbox. Seeing that it is a highly visible template, I gave it indefinite template protection. But looking again at your request, I see that you only requested semi-protection, due to recent vandalism. Was it overkill to give it template protection? Will that prevent people from keeping it updated? I will reduce it to semi-protection if you prefer. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you for acting on the request, my impression of Template protection is that its intent is for very widely transcluded (by transclusion count), such as {{Weather box}}, or {{Convert}}, where any errors (by less experienced / qualified editors) would be catastrophic, so yes, Semi it is. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:11th Panchen Lama. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. [[1]] —valereee (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Caradhras, tone it down. I understand your frustration, but let's not go around calling other editors' behavior despicable, even when they've made personal attacks themselves. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorting

Regarding your edit here, I suggest that we not sort by installment date, because that information is not viewable to the reader, so the reader might wonder why the sorting is acting that way. What do you think? —GoldRingChip 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: Maintaining the default (allowing the column to be sorted without specifying a sort-value) isn't correct as, for instance, in 2010, Kirk (MA) was appointed to replace Ted Kennedy, months after Gillibrand (NY), who was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton, but since the NY special election was in Nov 2010, after MA (Jan 2010), the default sort ascend behavior, upon first opening the table, is to place New York second-to-last behind West Virginia. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. While it's true that Kirk's service began before Gillibrand's, I don't think it's necessary in this column of this table to differentiate between them, as this is merely a table of the subsequent elections. BUT even if we want to maintain it like that, my point stands that a reader won't understand why the sort is sorting Burris first and Goodwin last by Electoral History since the cell only reads, "2009 (Appointed)" for all of them. And I think it would be compounding the problem if the full dates were added — "September 24, 2009 (Appointed)." This column is most minor column in the table. Furthermore, you may find that going back before 1913 and even earlier in the early 19th century, dates became more scattered and/or indeterminate. That's why this column has to be left as simple. —GoldRingChip 17:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Yita Incident

Hello, CaradhrasAiguo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yita Incident".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorting senate races

As you go back in time to earlier U.S. senate races, you'll find it will get to get harder to sort the races by their intent (ran/unknown/retired/resigned/died) and their result (gain/hold/re-elected). Earlier races are more complicated: there are multiple races for the same seat, vacancies left unfilled, post-term-beginning appointments made, etc. Too many times an editor would have to make a judgement call as to which would come first and a reader couldn't understand why it was sorted that way. I used to sort them all by their intent & result until I found it too difficult. So I began changing them to alphabetical. It's nice to have the "actively changed" (i.e. gain) seats near the middle, but it becomes a confusing muddle eventually. That's why I recommend just using an alphabetical sort, leaving the A-states on the outside and progressing to the W-states in the middle. What do you think? —GoldRingChip 13:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I opted for the Pickups to be numerically higher within the caucus since in wave elections such as 1946 or 1948, it is only of the major parties that is having multiple pickups, so comparing the Before and After of a caucus would make it clear what the extent of the gains, e.g. GOP seats 42–53 are all newly GOP, and seats 1–41 remain the same as before. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that's what you were doing. That's what I had done in earlier edits, but I later regretted that choice and shifted to alphabetical states within a caucus for the reasons stated above. The standard I'm trying to apply is clarity for the readers and a reasonable consistency. —GoldRingChip 16:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As to the Special election held concurrently for the same seat as the Regularly-scheduled one, under this scheme (lower-numbered seats are retentions), it seems only once in a blue moon does the opposing party (the non-incumbent / one having not held the seat as of the election) only win one but not both of the concurrently-held contests. If there is no party change from Oct (before the election) to the beginning of the new Congress in Jan or Mar, it is fair to classify it as a "Hold" or "Elected"? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This, as you've noticed, is tricky. Let's start with 1946 as an example:

• In California, a Republican appointee was elected both to the special and the regular. Elected.{{Efn|Appointee elected}}
• In Connecticut, a Republican appointee retired and was replaced by a Republican in both to the special and the regular. Hold.
• In Ohio, a Democratic appointee retired and was replaced by a Republican in the special and a different Republican in the regular. Gain.

Now let's look at 1912 and 1913:

• In Maine, the Democratic interim appointee was elected in the 1912 special, but lost to the Republican in the 1913 regular. Very complicated. For this one, I put a cute little box around it in the Results grid.

I think these solutions work well. They're reasonably consistent, a reader can mostly understand them, and an {{efn}} note can be added if/when needed. —GoldRingChip 16:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I split out the results summary classifications for MN and WV in the Nov 1942 elections as a hopefully sensible solution for those split decisions and to avoid double-counting.

I would be willing for an RfC (talk of WP:POLITICS/US) to be held on the "Result of the elections" Composition tables. The point is, either way, there should be an additional visual (besides squinting at the word "Gain") that there was a change of party: either icons, a text formatting change, or the rearrangement I had been doing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I had to undo your good edit

I had to undo this edit because your edit caused the page to exceed Wikipedia's WP:PEIS limit, which caused templates near the bottom of the page to not work any more, including the template that showed the references.

It was a good idea, unfortunately, it "broke the wiki." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I had redone the sorting by surname with manual line breaks (<br/>). Bluntly put, I think all the differing refs for each of the candidates is absurd, e.g. having 12 different references for the Ohio table when just a handful of sources (primarily the Clerk of the U.S. House and state Boards of Election / Secretaries of State) would do. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

DisamAssist

Thanks for the message about dab links on 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. This has popped up on the list of Articles with the most Dablinks for the last couple of days. To install "DisamAssist" go to User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist and follow the instruction (ie clcik on the link to your common.js page & add the template. (You may need to refresh your browser after that). When you open a page with it, any dab links will show up in red & you can click on it to see the list of options for that term/name etc.— Rod ^talk 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that, I was deluded by the Vector layout screenshot (still had only the "Move" action in the drop-down). I will try disabling the "Orange dab links" feature in the Preferences. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured out that it needs to be run from the DAB page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'd posit that In wkpd falls under the definition of "RGW". Nathan Rich is not a reliable source. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

anti-chinese sentiment

you say "incorrect information" you must show the evidence. wikipedia is not a chinese propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.144.92.198 (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

State's congressional districts

This edit may help you in the future articles. —GoldRingChip 20:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I had written my script / code to automatically add the date key. Otherwise, each state's table would have been too tedious! CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Unclear

Regarding your 3RR report. It's unclear if there is really an edit war, and it would be tedious to step through 100 edits to find out. (I don't know who is disagreeing with what). The stuff about damage to the lander was hard to understand, but it appears to be sourced. The most I can discern is that the person you reported made some incorrect charges of vandalism in their edit summaries, and that they made not have received a timely 3RR warning. Is there anything more you could do to clarify your report? EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You put it correctly. The two "vandalism" reverts in the 06:00 hour (UTC) and the latter two partial reverts are perhaps pot shots. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

So we can't do much beyond a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

common name

I see you have been changing China to People's Republic of China, which goes againt WP:COMMONNAME. MB 17:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably because "China" is ambiguous in certain cases. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)