Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 10:18, 19 January 2025

Replacement of graph

Replacing a png with a jpg file as you did at Younger Dryas is the main reason for the reversion. Graphs certainly are a matter of perception and labelling x axis in years before 1950 as done in both cases, i.e. BP, is problematical for a general audience.ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I simply used an image I found on wikimedia. I just don't see why it needed to be altered when the original, unaltered graph on the USGS website makes perfect sense as is.

Why am I always expected to prove a negative on wikipedia? Shouldn't it be up to the person who made the change from the source material to argue for that change? "It's less confusing" is a poor argument, because it should be countered by "no, it's actually more confusing" as I have done.

Why didn't the editor who made the change say specifically what it is that is confusing about the graph from USGS.gov? People over there (professional science communicators) thought the graph was good as-is. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the original editor not explaining actions that are a matter of guidance you were unaware of, including in this case consistency within individual articles to minimise confusion, which I had not brought up specifically although did so indirectly. All 4 images on the page had the same y axis convention before your edit as to which side of the graph was the present, and your addition of the jpg version destroyed this common convention in nontechnical time graphs. Only the y axis of the File:Dryas Stadials.png is as they should really be labelled some would argue.

There is nothing wrong with being bold as you were, as I certainty over the years have learnt from my many editing mistakes on this and other wikis, sometimes because of wikipedia specific conventions I was ignorant of. I would not have been aware of the ambiguous y axis labelling issue of the 4 graphs without your intervention, so thanks. I can not prioritise changing the image to svg format or editing the png file to correct the issue as it is far more important that all time graphs on a page have general consistency, but this issue may be addressed in the future as there are few timescales to wikipedia improvements to articles. ChaseKiwi (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If it is a matter of consistency, that is fine.

Is it OK to edit the x-axis label and make the numbers negatibve? The unit would be ka (kiloanni) which is the unit commonly used/recommended by NIST and ISO, according to this https://www.sedgeochem.uni-bremen.de/kiloyears.html

Then the numbers left of 0 would be negative, but everything else would stay the same. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course. The process may be a bit confusing given your journey of discovery to date. You could have to upload your version separately to Wikimedia in many cases rather than over the top as licence terms vary. A possible scenario is you upload your improved picture, link to it in article but then ask the editor owner of the picture to upload over the top, if someone like me does not come along and revert because they do not like your improvement. This has worked for me several times, but of course you run the risk of no reply or a straight "my version is better" view and complete reversion by the other editor. Whatever other editors if they do not like your edited picture can pick and chose in the individual wikipedia's. Many wikipedia readers do not understand SI units like ka but this is fine if defined somewhere in article. All these images could be converted to svg using InkScape say and if any one does this the png versions become redundant as svg wins as long as conversion is done well (which can be time consuming). Seasons greetings. ChaseKiwi (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I will have a crack at it (probably in the new year) as I do think clarity in communicating scientific theories and findings is important. Many may not understand SI units, but I think there is a case to be made for standardisation (just like there is for consistency in visual graphs on an article page), especially since both ISO and NIST recommend/use ka for units for thousands of years. Besides, I think it is only US and two other countries that don't use SI units as standard in everyday life, representing some 6,25% of the world's population.

A simple footnote on the graph that says ka (kiloanni) = thousands of years, should suffice as an explanation and be immediately understandable to anyone with a passing familiarity with km or kg. The negative numbers would denote years in the past with 0 being the current/present year (present at the time of collection of data). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages bless it is head-quartered in California and its guideline is a minimal of SI and American Imperial unless technical. Few English speakers understand the term kiloanni so it is convention to use {t|abbr}} in line as ka in wikitext. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

"Few English speakers understand the term kiloanni so it is convention to use {{abbr}} in line as ka in wikitext."

I am saying the x-axis should be "ka", right now it is kybp (thousands years before present). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are saying "ka". The axis of graph is labelled without abbreviation in capitals without using abbreviation BP which has a specific often misused meaning. That perhaps means that it is not years before 1950 by C14 dating. The other graphs on the page have X axis labels of "kilo years before present" with negative signs, "age(ka) BP" with no negative signs and "years ago" with no negative signs. All a bit of a mess so if you relabel one you perhaps should do all. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the plan. I agree with you that the graphs should be consistent. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeon

You need to read wp:bludgeon, also wp:dropthestick. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. When was the last time there was an RfC on the inclusion of more than Belarus into the infobox? DPRK.

WP:NPOV. I am simply trying to provide another perspective other than the Anglo-American one, as per WP:CSB.

Furthermore, I have provided by now some 15-20 WP:RS that say NATO is on the side of Ukraine against Russia and that NATO countries have provided unique aid that goes above and beyond "just providing weapons".

This is a case of you and other editors pushing an agenda and refusing to consider any other perspective than the Anglo-American one.

Remember how long it took for wikipedia to write that Russia took Bakhmut? You seem to be of the impression that the wikipedia infobox can change the outcome of the war, when it can't. I am arguing for WP:NPOV regardless of what it is. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

All irrelevant, you have had you say, there is no point it saying it over and over again. If people reject what you say, accept that do not try and bludgeon the process to get your way. Also not dropping it, when you are (in fact) not even allowed to comment in any RFC can be seen as WP:GAMING. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll drop it (for now).

"when you are (in fact) not even allowed to comment in any RFC"

I thought that was for the Israeli Invasion of Syria discussion. Now I'm not allowed to comment on the Ukraine war talk page, either? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You can comment, just not in RFC's. WP:RUSUKR, which has already been explained to you, so you are either feigning ignorance or didn't read it. Either way it means wp:cir is also an issue here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"You can comment, just not in RFC's."

And have I? Why are you telling me not to do something I haven't done? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna urge you to listen to what you're being told about dropping the stick, and not bludgeoning a conversation once people have rejected your input. You're doing this now in two separate contentious topic areas. You're not off to a good start. Listen more, argue less, especially when you're not familiar with procedure or policy. ⇒SWATJester 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven is talking about the discussion on the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Why are you disrupting the discussion with something unrelated? Stop it. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I give up, what happened next is up to you. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not made a comment on the Aeticle's talk page since you asked me not to. What are you talking about? Why the threats? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You and SWATJester seemed to have ganged up on me... and for what? Please stop harrassing me. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

Your additions in this edit here, have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission.)

To see the possible source of the copyrighted text, look in the edit summary which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. There should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

While we appreciate your contributions to Misplaced Pages, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation, set off using the blockquote template. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Misplaced Pages article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. My mistake. I often forget about copyright. I will paraphrase and use limited quotations. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits to "Circumcision" article

Hi TurboSuperA+! I noticed your recent edit to the "Circumcision" article where you added percentages for the reduction in HPV and HIV. I reviewed the three references already provided (Chikutsa & Maharaj, Bell, and Merson & Inrig), but I wasn't able to locate the specific values listed. As a result, I removed the percentages for now. If the information is located within those sources, please update the references to specify the page number or location where the data can be found. If you can find a different source supporting these claims, especially one meeting the WP:MEDRS criteria for biomedical information, feel free to re-add the information with the appropriate sourcing. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's really weird, the percentages were there. Now the cited source doesn't mention HPV at all, either. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I just didn't like the word "significantly" because the word doesn't say anything. Significant for some can be 80% and for some 20%. I have added "by up to 60%" and cited the source that supports that figure. The source does have a number of 51-60% for Uganda, so perhaps the 31-38% for HPV was in a localised study. In any case, the literature supports "for up to 60%" for HIV and since my issue was with the word "significantly", I am happy to leave it as it is now. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Jan 25

Do not bludgeon the RFC you launched, allow people to have thier say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This sort of behaviour can get you a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop threatening me. I have made 4 comments on the RFC, while @Slatersteven has made 6. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my count was wrong. 4 is right but I’d normally count their last two sequential edit as one. Bit I don’t see “ if x then y” as a threat but a prediction. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topics alerts (January 2025)

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 Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Please note that your edits to date also span the following contentious topics:

• Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed (WP:CT/AP)
• All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Misplaced Pages articles (WP:CT/BLP)
• Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed (WP:CT/EE)

— Newslinger talk 05:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas belligerents

Hi,

I saw your post on the war talk page, sadly I’m unable to edit there myself. Since you brought up the topic of adding the US to the infobox/the fact they’re already in there with specific troops numbers, I wanted to add something.

Seems odd that the US is added with 100 troops, while they are operating a longer range anti-air launcher(anti-ballistic missiles), against missiles Hamas doesn’t really have. The AA is specifically intended to counter Iran. If defence against Iran is counted as participant, should Iran not also be added to the infobox?

or perhaps it would make more sense to both add Iran and US as supporters/belligerents instead of specific numbers. Nickolashed (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If the US is in Israel to counter Iran, then why are US troop numbers included in the Israel-Hamas War infobox?

Is Iran a participant in the Israel-Hamas War? If so, then they should be added to the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)