Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Speccy4Eyes (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 12 August 2015 (→A note on significant figures: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Speccy4Eyes! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JMHamo (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Remember...

Speccy,

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. Michael Glass (talk) 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"? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Speccy, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet for more information on what Michael is referring to. Mattlore (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mattlore. 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? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There are essays, such as Misplaced Pages:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, 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. Mattlore (talk) 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 Cotswolds 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. Michael Glass (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, 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. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 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. Michael Glass (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you not think you've shot your bolt on this a bit with this? Difficult for anyone to WP:AAGF 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.) Kahastok talk 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. Michael Glass (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Toposcopes

Just a quick note to thank you for your work in this area. Michael Glass (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

How kind of you to say so. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A note on significant figures

Just for the record, the reasoning in cases such as this 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). Archon 2488 (talk) 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, . Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)