User talk:CaradhrasAiguo

You may call me by my full screenname, "Caradhras" alone, or, rarely, "CA" and variants. Preferably not CA for obvious reasons, and definitely not "Aiguo". CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Babble

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for you guide about the useful tool below.:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/use Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS discretionary 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.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. 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.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Flag Icons

Hi there. I noticed you reverted several changes of mine but I accept your decision because you have mentioned one, which I failed to follow it. From now on, I will. Anyway, thanks for your advice. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have thanked your changes as well because of this following rule: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags. I have done a very big mistake and will not be repeated again. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To CaradhrasAiguo,

Hello,

I saw and edited the content about Sansha on Wiki because the text and images contains many wrong and fake information about the history of South China Sea area. Sansha is a city-level unilaterally declared by the PRC's government to make their claim on disputed South China Sea in reality. In fact, the legitimate issues of South China Sea water and its islands have not been resolved by the international law. Thus, publishing such a bias in a global platform of knowledge like Wikipedia is an inappropriate action and should be removed.

Reverted action without any discussion with the reader has violated the basic principle about freedom of speech.

I solemnly request you to delete this section or I will do it.

Best,

Kim Dang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiem Dang (talk • contribs) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ythlev (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Two tips

Hello CaradhrasAiguo, thanks for your anti-vandalism work. I would like to give two tips:

1. Users and IPs are allowed to remove messages from their talk page, even if they don't archive them. Please do not restore them.
2. This removal was uncalled for. NOTVOTE does not prohibit people from sharing their opinion on RFPP, it only says that the ultimate decision is not based on a count of votes.

I hope this helps. Best, MrClog (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The effect of allowing any discussion on RFPP is to cuddle scummy IPs who, in typical fashion, can only resort to the obnoxioux "But but it will tilt the balance towards registered users" whine. As if semi-protection doesn't prevent them from simply creating an account. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you agree with the argument brought forth by an IP user, removing and/or changing their posts is in most cases unacceptable, unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions. --MrClog (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There can be no dispute that their posts fall under Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure how the post you removed ("Oppose. This user has reverted the sourced info five times and semi-protection will be the big advantage for him in the dispute where he is absolutely wrong.") would constitute any of these things? Even if they have engaged in any of these activities outside RfPP, that does not justify removing this specific comment. --MrClog (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

They claim others are "wrong" in a dispute while being completely absent from the talk page. Given they were able to skulk their way onto more than one noticeboard (despite there being no notification for pinging IPs), there is no way they cannot find the talk page. They are purposefully avoiding it. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding talk pages is not grounds for having your comments removed from noticeboards. --MrClog (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning was intended to illustrate that their actions show that they are only here to troll, and that anything they post on a noticeboard shall be regarded as trolling. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If it helps get the message across any clearer, removing posts at AIV or RFPP can get people swiftly blocked - I don't even normally warn people who do that - and if I see anything like this or this again I'll not be impressed. In the future just make your case, say your piece, and let the admins deal with it. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't try intimidating other editors with warning templates like you did here! Favonian (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.235.125 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Concerning this edit. Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CaradhrasAiguo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The dispute at Candidates Tournament 2020 which led to the conflict with the AN/I reporter has already dissipated with the page in question being semi-protected, and constructive discussion occurring at the talk page. Given the last article interaction between myself and the IP occurred at 15:35 UTC today, and the timing of the two edit summaries raised in the complaint (15:45 UTC and 15:23 UTC), it was unlikely that any further personal snipes would occur; see my criticisms of the IP's conduct above at #Two tips in which no personal attacks were made. I would accept a topic ban on any Administrators' noticeboard and a local block at Candidates Tournament 2020, where the flare-ups occurred, in lieu of what is objectively not a preventative block. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Saying "it was unlikely that any further personal snipes would occur" is not sufficient, especially not when you were continuing making personal attacks in a report about your personal attacks. I think we would need to see an active commitment from you to cease your personal attacks, in all situations and on all pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I do take note of the recommendation at the end, though I would rather you not make posts from afar like this. I made a self-criticism here which may have gone wholly unnoticed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I just sent you one, short (1 paragraph, ≤ 60 words) email. If you would rather not have any email correspondence about this matter, I will respect that and desist. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your email was no problem, but I have no more advice to offer you than to make a new unblock request in which you make an active commitment to cease your personal attacks, in all situations and on all pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's better. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a block you'll want to sit out and not appeal. Not even saying the comments were egregious enough for them but the tone of that discussion was the preferability of an indef. Sometimes withdrawing to come back another day is best. Been there done that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

From your log, I don't doubt your sincerity, and the 4+ year time since the last entry (9+ years if discounting the interaction ban and self-request) is evidence enough. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That means quite a bit. I had a rough entrance and a few spats that were just not needed. I will let you be I've saged off enough, but really thanks for the comments about the actions and my block log. Some editors might be sensitive to that and in the right context I still am but I hope/d that eventually it would pay off in terms of some image rehabilitation. I've thought about a clean start before but I figure one of the best ways I can contribute is not hide the freckles and hopefully people will see more then just block log entries when I started with a crash and burn. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: if it wasn’t apparent, it’s a bit inappropriate to call other editors neo-fascist and partisans, or to assert that other editor’s concerns are revolving around tone-policing rather than substance. Recognize that these are personal attacks as clearly described in WP:WIAPA. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was drafting an unblock request which had intended to list political epithets (to include partisanship) as the first problem pointer, so it was already apparent before your notice, and I thank you for attempting to point to an in-thread example. HiaB, this was a constructive attempt by MarkH21, so the poking the bear remark is not needed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hell in a Bucket: It’s intended as helpful advice in response to

Can you demonstrate within that thread, which criticisms I made about other users were personal attacks and not merely criticism of their conduct? If I am missing something here (everybody can improve in terms of self-awareness), I ought to know.

from here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I recommend you sit out the block for what is a very deserved block after addressing editors as "neo-fascists", a lot of admins would have blocked you for much less. I like that you asked for feedback but your unblock request does not show any understanding of why the block was placed. --qedk (t 心 c) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your email

You can file a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement when you're unblocked, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding as promptly as you did and pointing to an appropriate venue. The user in question is currently attending to other matters, i.e. not being disruptive in the area in which they were notified of DS, as far as I can tell), which could explain why it appears to not (be) a big deal. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are you working directly for the Chinese State?

After reviewing your very aggressive editing history and repeated deletions of any referenced information that sheds light on China's many faults, I have to ask... Are you working directly for the Chinese State? It's pretty obvious at this point. Gizapink (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)