| Revision as of 12:22, 15 August 2015 editMichael Glass (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,667 edits →Misrepresentation: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:10, 24 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section |
| (10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 67: |
Line 67: |
|
|}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> |
|
|}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
== Remember... == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,<br> |
|
Speccy, |
|
|
|
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692268845 --> |
|
See ] We might have sharp disagreements about units of measurement but I don't bear you ill-will (unless you are a sockpuppet). Go back to that link and note those who attacked you and those who did not. ] (]) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The recent disagreement is more about making facts verifiable than about units of measurement, although I can see that you do seem to have a serious problem accepting imperial units at face value and would prefer to derive them by converting metric units than to use references which support then directly. And I'm glad you don't bear me any ill-will, but what do you mean by "unless you are a sockpuppet"? ] (]) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll deal with your last comment first. |
|
|
* Your debating style reminds me of DeFacto and his many sockpuppets. If you turn out to be a sockpuppet then of course I would try to get you banned. If you are not, then I will try my best to get on with you. When I said that I bear you no ill-will, I meant it. In fact I have learnt one or two valuable things about coding because of my interactions with you. |
|
|
* I have no problem about accepting Imperial measures at face value, and if the best measure is Imperial I won't challenge it. Note this diff, which I did not challenge: However, when the citation is primarily or exclusively metric, I think it's only right to take the metric measure as primary. |
|
|
*In the case of the Cotswolds I have been prepared to stretch this to quote both figures to find some common ground between us. |
|
|
* While I might debate with you, others would like to see you banned. Please try to be less rigid in your negotiations and less like DeFacto. ] (]) 13:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'd never come across the use of the word "sockpuppet" or even the two words "sock puppet" in that context before, but after just looking up alternate meanings to the cheapskate nursery toy, I think I smell a dirty trick brewing here. Whoever this "DeFacto" is, I'm guessing you have "history" with them, and you are threatening to accuse me of being them if I don't let you make the changes you demand, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
::I will not be intimidated though, because as I understand it, we don't choose units based on what's used in any particular source. If we did, we could just find a source with our own favourite units mentioned in it, and use it to demand a wiki-code change. In fact, it seems now that that is exactly what you've tried to do here. ] (]) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hi Speccy, see ] for more information on what Michael is referring to. ] (]) 20:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Thanks for that ]. It's a very serious accusation to make about anyone, it appears you could get banned for it. Are you aware of any policies to do with preventing false accusations? ] (]) 20:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There are essays, such as ], which are just guidance and not "rules". In the end it comes down to the principle of assuming good faith - both the person making an accusation, and for the person being accused. The accused should assume that the accuser is acting in good faith and not maliciously. From what (little) I've seen of this conversation, Michael has said he is happy to work with you and you should take that at face value IMO. ] (]) 00:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Speccy, I've let you know where I stand. If you're genuine I'm happy to try to get along with you; if you turn out to be a sockpuppet then you should be banned. That's plain speaking, not an attempt to intimidate. The source referred to in the ] article appears to be the best available. It's not just any source. If, however, there is a better source, such as a direct reference to the latest Ordnance Survey map, let's use that instead. ] (]) 01:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::], your lack of good-faith is disgraceful. "If" I'm genuine? "If" I turn out to be a sockpuppet? Having read some of that sock puppetry page mentioned above, I find your attitude ''very'' intimidating. Please desist. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::And what distinguishes that source from all the many others from the last 100 or so years that could have been used to verify that the hill is 1083 feet high? In what way is it "the best available"? And why do you say "it's not just any source"? Why do you think that "a direct reference to the latest Ordnance Survey map" giving the height as 1083 feet would be better than, say, a highly regarded 30 year old book or a 50 year old OS map giving the same information? 1083 feet is 1083 feet, whichever reliable source is used to verify it. ] (]) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Speccy, I note your first paragraph above. I stand by my words. However, they are not intended as a threat. I have different ideas from you but I respect your energy, your intelligence and your resourcefulness. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::What distinguishes the latest OP map from all the many others from the last century or more is that it's the most up-to-date. Its reliability is confirmed in this case because there is no practical difference between 330 metres and 1,083 feet. That being said, one could expect that mapping would increase in accuracy over the last century. This certainly applies to the the period from 1900 to 1939 and developments in mapping have continued to improve . It is therefore sensible for Misplaced Pages to use the latest reliable information where this is available. This is not to say that the older information is inaccurate, but that it's still sensible to go for the latest information. To turn away from the latest map simply because it uses metres strikes me as quite bizarre. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I hope this answers your questions. ] (]) 03:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Do you not think you've shot your bolt on this a bit with ? Difficult for anyone to ] in the circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::(And does it really matter that much? Both figures are equally accurate and identical for all practical purposes, both can be independently sourced, and what the reader sees is identical either way.) '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Kahastok, it seems you just can't help yourself! Speccy asked me some questions and I answered him. Why did you have to butt in? If Speccy wants to continue the conversation he can answer for himself. ] (]) 02:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Toposcopes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just a quick note to thank you for your work in this area. ] (]) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How kind of you to say so. ] (]) 18:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A note on significant figures == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just for the record, the reasoning in cases such as is that it usually makes sense to round converted values to the appropriate number of significant figures. The convert template has some inbuilt ability to do this, but its default rounding is not always the most sensible. In the source given (the Birmingham Mail) the distance is given to one significant figure, so one would normally convert to one significant figure (q.v. MOSNUM on rounding). ] (]) 20:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:], how do you know the Birmingham Mail give it to one significant figure (ie it's somewhere 55.0 miles and 65.0 miles) and that it isn't 60 miles to the nearest whole mile (between 59.5 miles and 60.5 miles)? You are making a big assumption there. I'd take it at face value without evidence to the contrary, so 97 km would seem a perfect conversion, to the nearest whole kilometre, rather than the more precise 96.56 km. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, to help others understand you edits, please give more comprehensive edit summaries, especially to cover assumptions, such as the sigfig one you made for this, . ] (]) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::My point was that, in most contexts, when someone says "60 miles" they're making an approximation. It's unlikely (i.e. the default assumption, absent other evidence, would not be) that the trail was designed to be precisely 60 miles long. If a source says that Philadelphia is 100 miles from Baltimore, it doesn't make sense to convert that as {{convert|100|mi|km|sigfig=3}} for example, since it's likely not accurate to that degree of precision. |
|
|
|
|
|
::In this case, however, it seems that the trail is extremely close to 60 miles, looking at the . ] (]) 22:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::], contexts vary, and provide the clue. It is "about" or "approximately" 60 miles is one thing, but "the church is the starting point of the 60-mile walk" is, I would suggest, another. ] (]) 06:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misrepresentation == |
|
|
|
|
|
Speccy, when JorisvS wrote this: |
|
|
<blockquote>*'''Support''', and look for the best way to say it. Use the international units (first), unless there are good reasons not to. This comes down to non-scientific US-related articles and possibly UK-related article, though as pointed out above, SI units have been in use in the UK for quite some time now, which may actually be enough to warrant a SI-first-accompanied-by-non-metric system of unit presentation there. --] (]) 08:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
and I wrote that JorisvS supported |
|
|
|
|
|
you wrote this : |
|
|
<blockquote>That's a very misleading summary as JorisvS did not support the current proposed new wording, just the notion that the old wording could be improved. ] (]) 21:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
That is a serious misrepresentation. Describing JorisvS's statement as not supporting the current proposal is a half truth at best. JorisvS said: "'''Support''' and look for the best way to say it." This is clearly support for Archon's first proposal and support for the decision-making process that came up with the most recent proposal. Furthermore, by stating "Use the international units (first), unless there are good reasons not to." he makes it quite clear what he has in mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
So though the current wording had not been formulated when he wrote these words, he expressed confidence that suitable wording would be found. Have you heard the proverb, |
|
|
“A half-truth is a whole lie”? Have you heard the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"? That is what you have done to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
What is your response? ] (]) 12:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
