User talk:Xanzzibar
|
Archives
|
|
Archive 1 |
Thank you for the fix to the NVD infobox!
Thanks a million times over for that fix. I'm kind of afraid to know how badly it broke any of the applicable pages before you fixed it....
Is there any automated way to set the label and data number for these infobox lines? I feel really badly that I broke it and I think it was partly because I was updating each data/label pair's number by hand. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have to imagine somebody has a tool for it, but I just did it by hand since it was only a few entries. As far as breakage, it just discarded the first of the duplicate parameters, so the extent of any problem was just a single missing entry from the infoboxes for a short time. Xanzzibar (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Five years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
.50 BMG
"but you can't math out more significant figures than the inputs have"
Que? I'm not "mathing out" anything, I'm making the exactness of the output match that of the input, which is what measurement conversions should do. A measurement given down to 1/1000 of an inch, as it always is when it comes to ammo, is four times more exact than the output you're reverting to, that is an output that is rounded to the nearest 1/10 of a millimeter, or to put it the other way around, the 13.0 millimeters you repeatedly revert to equals 0.5118 of an inch (instead of 0.510 of inch), that is almost 2/1000 of an inch off, and 2/1000 of an inch off is a very big difference when it comes to bullet diameter. So now it's up to you to prove that there is a consensus somewhere that says that it's OK to have converted measurements that are only rough approximations... Drachentöter001 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The normal mathematical rules on significant figures apply here. ".510" (the definitive measurement we're working from in this case) has three significant figures, and in multiplication, the resulting product cannot have more significant figures than the factors involved. In this case, this means that the product of .510 and 25.4, 12.954, is rounded to the third figure, i.e., 13.0. See MOS:CONVERSIONS, esp. point three, for more information, as well as its admonition on back-and-forth conversions. --Xanzzibar (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
"Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value"
(my emphasis), as stated in MOS/Unit conversions does not support your revert since 13.0 mm is very far from a "similar level of precision" compared to the source value, 0.510 inch, as can be seen in my post above. So I expect you to revert your revert. Drachentöter001 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)- At the risk of laboring the point, I think you should review the actual mathematical meanings of significant figures/precision. I already outlined above what level of precision is being used here and how it's maintained in mathematical conversions. You're advocating for false precision by taking a three-fig precision and increasing it to four-fig post-conversion. --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I get the impression you're trying to blur things here in an attempt to fool me into believing you're right, when you're not. The link you gave me has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here (Hint: there's no mention at all of "significant figures" in MOS:Conversions, only "level of precision", which is not the same thing as significant figures), what matters is "similar level of precision", meaning that the output should be as exact as the input, or as close to the input as reasonably possible, which is why I converted 0.510 inch to 12.95 millimeters, instead of the exact value, which would be 12.954 mm. So I still expect you to revert your revert. Drachentöter001 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- This has become unproductive. Between repeatedly demanding I revert while we're trying to discuss this; unwarranted condescension about what mathematical precision is; and worst, accusing me of malfeasance in claiming I'm trying to "blur" things and "fool" you, I don't see a point in continuing this thread. If you want to debate the point further, you're welcome to transclude this conversation to .50 BMG talk page to see if anybody else wants to weigh in, or follow the other dispute resolution venues, but talking about it on my talk page is done. --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unproductive? On the contrary, it has been very productive, and revealing. And also disappointing, because I expected you to give a good reason for repeatedly reverting my edit, but instead you've tried to patronise me, and have posted a link that has absolutely nothing to do with your reverts. You're wrong, period. And I know about WP:DRN and pretty much everything else here, so there's no point in you posting links to pages like that. I know a better place to go here to get this sorted. Drachentöter001 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- This has become unproductive. Between repeatedly demanding I revert while we're trying to discuss this; unwarranted condescension about what mathematical precision is; and worst, accusing me of malfeasance in claiming I'm trying to "blur" things and "fool" you, I don't see a point in continuing this thread. If you want to debate the point further, you're welcome to transclude this conversation to .50 BMG talk page to see if anybody else wants to weigh in, or follow the other dispute resolution venues, but talking about it on my talk page is done. --Xanzzibar (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I get the impression you're trying to blur things here in an attempt to fool me into believing you're right, when you're not. The link you gave me has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here (Hint: there's no mention at all of "significant figures" in MOS:Conversions, only "level of precision", which is not the same thing as significant figures), what matters is "similar level of precision", meaning that the output should be as exact as the input, or as close to the input as reasonably possible, which is why I converted 0.510 inch to 12.95 millimeters, instead of the exact value, which would be 12.954 mm. So I still expect you to revert your revert. Drachentöter001 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- At the risk of laboring the point, I think you should review the actual mathematical meanings of significant figures/precision. I already outlined above what level of precision is being used here and how it's maintained in mathematical conversions. You're advocating for false precision by taking a three-fig precision and increasing it to four-fig post-conversion. --Xanzzibar (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)