This is CaradhrasAiguo's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 31 days

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)[reply]
Messages I left on your talk page ought to be continued there, not transferred here.
If here because of an edit I reverted via Huggle (HG), it would behoove you to keep your message short. Anything longer than about 50 words, I am inclined to ignore. If you do not A) sign your post or B) make a new section for it, I WILL ignore it.
I am aware of the following discretionary sanctions (DS) notices: BLP, COVID-19, Falun Gong
Having already edited non-trivially, I will pretend as if DS notices had been applied in the following area(s): U.S. politics post-1932 (AP2)

Babble

Translation

I've been looking for someone to improve zh:多爾縣 (威斯康辛州). The county has a sister city relationship with zh:景德镇市 and they are in the process of erecting some sort of public artwork recognizing this in 景德镇市. In 2019 dozens of students came over on the Summer Work Travel Program. If you would like to translate more of it, I am willing to help you out by doing some other task in return on the English or Spanish wikipedias. For example, I could expand Changzheng, Shanghai--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have a deadline to fulfil, I won't get to expanding the ZH version of Door County, Wisconsin today, tomorrow perhaps. Hoping there is little struggle in finding Chinese transliterations for some of the smaller place names. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a guide with tables and this site gives background into how Anglo place names have been rendered. Even if you botch a place name, Wisconsinites botched Algonquin place names a long time ago, and still are using the botched names today. Because of this, people from Wisconsin have no right to resent place name mistakes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since have not yet named an article you for me to improve in return, I improved (or so I thought), 16 Chinese location articles that you have made 10 or more edits to. I also fixed bifurcated wikidata entries for two Chinese locations, so all the languages show up in the list to the left. If you have any preferences as to a particular article you want to see improved, let me know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the Door County article. Now the number of state parks is incorrect because one is omitted (there are six, not five like the article says). Here is a link to a version of the Door County article with correct information.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Door County article is in better shape now and is suitable for translating again.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLACEHOLDER TO PREVENT ARCHIVING CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

Regarding your edit here, I suggest that we not sort by installment date, because that information is not viewable to the reader, so the reader might wonder why the sorting is acting that way. What do you think? —GoldRingChip 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: Maintaining the default (allowing the column to be sorted without specifying a sort-value) isn't correct as, for instance, in 2010, Kirk (MA) was appointed to replace Ted Kennedy, months after Gillibrand (NY), who was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton, but since the NY special election was in Nov 2010, after MA (Jan 2010), the default sort ascend behavior, upon first opening the table, is to place New York second-to-last behind West Virginia. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. While it's true that Kirk's service began before Gillibrand's, I don't think it's necessary in this column of this table to differentiate between them, as this is merely a table of the subsequent elections. BUT even if we want to maintain it like that, my point stands that a reader won't understand why the sort is sorting Burris first and Goodwin last by Electoral History since the cell only reads, "2009 (Appointed)" for all of them. And I think it would be compounding the problem if the full dates were added — "September 24, 2009 (Appointed)." This column is most minor column in the table. Furthermore, you may find that going back before 1913 and even earlier in the early 19th century, dates became more scattered and/or indeterminate. That's why this column has to be left as simple. —GoldRingChip 17:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Yita Incident

Hello, CaradhrasAiguo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yita Incident".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting senate races

As you go back in time to earlier U.S. senate races, you'll find it will get to get harder to sort the races by their intent (ran/unknown/retired/resigned/died) and their result (gain/hold/re-elected). Earlier races are more complicated: there are multiple races for the same seat, vacancies left unfilled, post-term-beginning appointments made, etc. Too many times an editor would have to make a judgement call as to which would come first and a reader couldn't understand why it was sorted that way. I used to sort them all by their intent & result until I found it too difficult. So I began changing them to alphabetical. It's nice to have the "actively changed" (i.e. gain) seats near the middle, but it becomes a confusing muddle eventually. That's why I recommend just using an alphabetical sort, leaving the A-states on the outside and progressing to the W-states in the middle. What do you think? —GoldRingChip 13:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I opted for the Pickups to be numerically higher within the caucus since in wave elections such as 1946 or 1948, it is only of the major parties that is having multiple pickups, so comparing the Before and After of a caucus would make it clear what the extent of the gains, e.g. GOP seats 42–53 are all newly GOP, and seats 1–41 remain the same as before. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured that's what you were doing. That's what I had done in earlier edits, but I later regretted that choice and shifted to alphabetical states within a caucus for the reasons stated above. The standard I'm trying to apply is clarity for the readers and a reasonable consistency. —GoldRingChip 16:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Special election held concurrently for the same seat as the Regularly-scheduled one, under this scheme (lower-numbered seats are retentions), it seems only once in a blue moon does the opposing party (the non-incumbent / one having not held the seat as of the election) only win one but not both of the concurrently-held contests. If there is no party change from Oct (before the election) to the beginning of the new Congress in Jan or Mar, it is fair to classify it as a "Hold" or "Elected"? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This, as you've noticed, is tricky. Let's start with 1946 as an example:

In California, a Republican appointee was elected both to the special and the regular. Elected.{{Efn|Appointee elected}}
In Connecticut, a Republican appointee retired and was replaced by a Republican in both to the special and the regular. Hold.
In Ohio, a Democratic appointee retired and was replaced by a Republican in the special and a different Republican in the regular. Gain.

Now let's look at 1912 and 1913:

In Maine, the Democratic interim appointee was elected in the 1912 special, but lost to the Republican in the 1913 regular. Very complicated. For this one, I put a cute little box around it in the Results grid.

I think these solutions work well. They're reasonably consistent, a reader can mostly understand them, and an {{efn}} note can be added if/when needed. —GoldRingChip 16:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I split out the results summary classifications for MN and WV in the Nov 1942 elections as a hopefully sensible solution for those split decisions and to avoid double-counting.

I would be willing for an RfC (talk of WP:POLITICS/US) to be held on the "Result of the elections" Composition tables. The point is, either way, there should be an additional visual (besides squinting at the word "Gain") that there was a change of party: either icons, a text formatting change, or the rearrangement I had been doing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DisamAssist

Thanks for the message about dab links on 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. This has popped up on the list of Articles with the most Dablinks for the last couple of days. To install "DisamAssist" go to User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist and follow the instruction (ie clcik on the link to your common.js page & add the template. (You may need to refresh your browser after that). When you open a page with it, any dab links will show up in red & you can click on it to see the list of options for that term/name etc.— Rod ^talk 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for that, I was deluded by the Vector layout screenshot (still had only the "Move" action in the drop-down). I will try disabling the "Orange dab links" feature in the Preferences. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, figured out that it needs to be run from the DAB page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to undo your good edit

I had to undo this edit because your edit caused the page to exceed Wikipedia's WP:PEIS limit, which caused templates near the bottom of the page to not work any more, including the template that showed the references.

It was a good idea, unfortunately, it "broke the wiki." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had redone the sorting by surname with manual line breaks (<br/>). Bluntly put, I think all the differing refs for each of the candidates is absurd, e.g. having 12 different references for the Ohio table when just a handful of sources (primarily the Clerk of the U.S. House and state Boards of Election / Secretaries of State) would do. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

common name

I see you have been changing China to People's Republic of China, which goes againt WP:COMMONNAME. MB 17:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because "China" is ambiguous in certain cases. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I'd posit that In wkpd falls under the definition of "RGW". Nathan Rich is not a reliable source. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

anti-chinese sentiment

you say "incorrect information" you must show the evidence. wikipedia is not a chinese propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.144.92.198 (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State's congressional districts

This edit may help you in the future articles. —GoldRingChip 20:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had written my script / code to automatically add the date key. Otherwise, each state's table would have been too tedious! CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

Regarding your 3RR report. It's unclear if there is really an edit war, and it would be tedious to step through 100 edits to find out. (I don't know who is disagreeing with what). The stuff about damage to the lander was hard to understand, but it appears to be sourced. The most I can discern is that the person you reported made some incorrect charges of vandalism in their edit summaries, and that they made not have received a timely 3RR warning. Is there anything more you could do to clarify your report? EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You put it correctly. The two "vandalism" reverts in the 06:00 hour (UTC) and the latter two partial reverts are perhaps pot shots. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we can't do much beyond a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

156.146.62.35?

Hi CaradhrasAiguo, regarding our previous discussion, I hope Special:Contributions/156.146.62.35 wasn't you? Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thank you for implicitly "AGF". No, I A) do not know how to operate a proxy; B) am still in the D.C. area, have never visited Switzerland, and will not until well after COVID-19 calms down. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries then! I hope the pandemic finally ends in 2021. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: If you grant permission here, I will email you...delving somewhat into my personal views which I do not wish to discuss publicly. It is neither a formal request to proxy edit nor to be unblocked. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaradhrasAiguo, how could I say no to that? Of course, feel free to. I probably won't respond – at very least not in detail – but I am genuinely interested in these views, and it really can't hurt to receive them in a way that excludes any impression of seeking a public platform for them. It also really can't hurt to get an insight into the other side of blocks from time to time. For the same reason, some RfA voters want administrators to have experienced the deletion of their own articles at least once. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the correct expectations, that's great! I kept the body of the message under 250 words, as well. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]