Talk:Serra dos Órgãos/Archive01

Redux: providing degrees kelvin for mean temperatures in a national park may be a cute joke, but that is not the place for such jokes. Why not translate all place names into Klingon and Manchu, too?

As for the Fahrenheit temps: a basic standard of technical writing is that one should not write a mesurement with more figures than justified by its accuracy. When you write "26.5 F" you are implicitly affirming that the error in that measurement is less than half a degree F; which is FALSE information, because the error in the Celsius temp is much bigger than that.

By the way, this is not the first time that you have wantonly discarded a lot of my work, only because you disagreed with one detail. Please try to show more respect for those who are trying to help. (My English may not be very good, but I fancy that it is still better than yours.)

All the best,

Jorge Stolfi 05:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Stolfi,

For someone who states that Wikipedia articles have no owners, you have strangely taken upon yourself the role of "police" of all articles concerning Brazil.

If information in any given article is inaccurate, we all welcome correction, but it is certainly not your place to decide what is "useful" or not. Do not erase information that other people have taken the time to write just because you would not have written it, as you have done with the Kelvin temperatures. If you think it has no use, you are welcome to ignore the figures, but others might find it interesting to have as a reference. Should some other user make the proper conversion and add references in other temperature scales, I would not erase it (in the worst case I'd verify the accuracy of the conversion if I knew how to do it and, if it were wrong, I'd correct it). I also find it rather surprising that I should have to say this, since you were yourself offended when YOUR work was discarded, as can easily be inferred from your uncalled-for-sarcasm and rudeness above. That might not have been your intention, but that is what it was.

As for the quality of the English language, do not flatter yourself. The fact that you would have written things differently does not mean that your version is the right one, as you seem to believe. As a matter of fact, it's not always a question of "right" or "better". Since you are Brazilian, you must be familiar with the fact that it really changes nothing if you say "the grass is green" or "green is the grass", except you believe that whichever you pick is the best or more accurate form of saying or explaining things.

Now, you ask for respect, but you have shown none. Or maybe "respect" is too strong a word in this situation. I'd say "consideration".

Regards,

Redux

P.S.: FYI, Webster's Dictionary definition for the word "fancy": "1. imagination or fantasy, esp. as exercised in a capricious manner. (...) 4. an idea or opinion with little foundation; illusion. (...)."

Jorge Stolfi was correct, your use of degrees Kelvin is silly in this context. Furthermore, it is wrong. The CGPM abolished "degrees Kelvin" nearly 40 years ago; they are now kelvins. So I'm deleting them.

I'll stick my second point here too, for Jorge's sake: his comments about the precision of the conversions to Fahrenheit apply equally to some of the height conversions. Gene Nygaard 20:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(This is in response to edit by Redux of the article with this explanation:
1st: Cannot round up 71 ft, too much. Better to round down 1 foot;
2nd: Why add 20 ft when 280 is an even enough number (if it were 283...)?)

Okay, I'll explain the heights, too. If that 1500 m were for one peak, we might take it to be to the nearest hundred meters. In other words, 1500 ±50 m. That range (note that it includes 5,000 ft) is from 4,757.2 ft to 5085.3 ft.

However, what we have is much more approximate than that, referring to six other peaks in the area. So 5,000 ft is correct. The actual variation is probably at least ±100 m, probably more likely ± 200 m or ± 300 m. Better to treat that 1500 m as if it is only to he nearest 500 m or thereabouts. Since even 5,000 ft as an exact figure would only be mere 24 m off from 1500 m, that's well within the expected variation, which is probably ten times that over all.

We also need to look at it the other way; your 4,920 ft figure would most often be interpreted as to the nearest 10 ft, somewhere in the range 4915 ft (1498 m) to 4925 ft (1501 m). I'd be very surprised if even one of those peaks fell into that narrow range, let alone all six of them.

The same goes for that 1000 m elevation, somewhere within a park covering 110 km² IIRC, or whatever--fairly big in any case. It isn't for some specific place, and even if it were it wouldn't vary significantly in any 20 ft change of elevation. SO just as that number shouldn't be expressed to the nearest tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, it shouldn't be expressed to the nearest foot as it was, and it shouldn't be expressed to the nearest 10 ft as you made it.

You need to stand back and look at the overall philosophy here. What we should have, to the best of our ability, when we have measurements expressed in dual systems of measurement, is this: Those who ignore one set of measurements should get the same information as those who ignore the other set of measurements. One one important bit of that information is the sense of the precision of that measurement; does it look like a rough approximation? You need to go study up on things like significant digits and accuracy and precision; find one of your old math books and see what you missed the first time through. Gene Nygaard 14:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You know, you were doing very well in your explanation, right up until the end, when you decided to be "witty". That really doesn't help your point at all. Now, you want to question the precision of the measurements, I suggest you take it up to the Brazilian official organ (the IBGE), which is where the numbers came from. But maybe you know more than them too? Perhaps you'd like to suggest that they too go back to the math books? If you don't like this little joke of mine, maybe you should think twice before making one yourself. Since the numbers were given by an official government body, I assume they are as accurate as it gets, and I gave the precise conversion of those numbers in feet, which is what we should do here, being that this is an encyclopedia and all. Now, since I really don't have the patience to get into an edit war with you, I'll be taking this for arbitration as soon as I get around to it. And by the way, if you feel like questioning the official number, maybe you're the one missing the "no original research" point. Redux 13:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good grief! Not the old "It's in writing so it must be true" argument.

Exactly which numbers are you talking about? The numbers in meters, or the numbers in feet, or both? Not just feet, certainly, based on the editing here I'll throw that possibility out. And if its only in meters, then you have no argument whatsoever here.

So let's assume that it is in both feet and meters, the only thing that would give you any support at all. But if so, were the conversions put into the document by some expert who knew the subject, and who is also proficient in the use of English units of measurement? Or were they an afterthought, stuck in by some clerical person who doesn't know beans about feet or degrees Fahrenheit (and probably not about the subject matter of the document either), who was just given a table of conversion factors and told to stick in the conversions for the benefit of any dumb American who might want to read about it?

Note carefully that I'm not the least bit bashful about telling anybody that they are wrong about things like this. What I find strange is that you think there could not possibly be anyone working for a Brazilian government agency who could be every bit as silly as you have been here, when it comes to making conversions.

In fact, I often see the same sort of nonsense in false precision of conversions to metric numbers in documents published by various branches of the United States government. Gene Nygaard 13:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redux, maybe you should just look at de:Serra dos Órgãos, they give the heights of some of these mountains. I must say I agree with Gene, and his numbers are fine. Lupo 13:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The argument, Nygaard, is: "it's official, so we must assume it's true". What part of "no original research" don't you get? At the most, we could include a note as to the numbers in the conversion not being absolute. I didn't calculate them, I simply took them from an official source. Originally, I only inserted the conversion in feet so that someone from the US, when reading "1000 meters", actually has a clue as to how high that actually is, not to state that those were the scientifically correct numbers in feet. You argued it was okay to add 70+ feet to one of the peaks because the actual height in meters wouldn't vary, but if one was to convert back, the actual number in meters wouldn't be accurate, would it? That's what I meant. Again, a note could be made about all this, and an actual precise conversion could be inserted. Now, if you think that whomsoever doesn't agree with your opinion is "silly", I'm sorry to inform that the joke is on you. Get off of your high horse. Also, you might want to reavaluate your manners, you might not know it, but it is possible to tell someone that they are wrong without resorting to gratuitous rudeness. I think you are wrong, but so far I've not called you any names (note: wrong about the "no original research" thing, I wouldn't know if you are talking jeabirish about the technical stuff). Redux 14:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What, no feet at all in this "official" but unidentified document you are talking about? Then you have no case whatsoever.

Furthermore, I did not add 70+ feet to any "one peak." This is a very rough approximation for a number of different peaks.

Beyond that, even if it had been only one peak, my conversion still would not be "adding 70+ feet" to it.

Like I said, quite seriously, dig out an old math book and find out what you missed the first time around. And also be sure to check out the Wikipedia articles on false precision, accuracy and precision, and significant figures. You are wasting your time, my time, and the time of anybody else who stumbles across this if you come back before doing so. Gene Nygaard 15:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, the conversion was precise (direct conversion), it is the exact same number expressed in feet. Your number, since it was calculated by you, is the one that constitutes original research. You still haven't grasped the concept. Perhaps if you didn't devote so much time to your rude remarks... I will no longer reply to them. As all people full of themselves, I see you will not listen to anything but your own voice. While I read a math book, you should be reading one on ethiquete, your rudeness is quite sincerely a bit tiring, and if you haven't noticed, it also makes it more difficult for anyone to take into any account what your write. And you haven't added 70 feet to a peak?? You go from 4,920 to 5,000 and you haven't added 70 feet? And you think I am the one who needs to read up math? No wonder, you can't see an inch (how many centimeters?) passed your own selfinvolvement. I actually spent time in my last comment clarifying what I had meant before, and really I thought we could have reached a common ground, but for that you'd actually have to stop and think about things before you write. Redux 16:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't read a damn thing about this anywhere else, did you? I warned you that you'd be wasting our time.

No, I did not "add 70 feet" in changing 4921 ft ± 0.5 ft to 5000 ft ± 500 ft. I might have subtracted 420 feet and even more, and I might have added 580 feet and even more. I might even have done both at the same time, since we are talking about six different peaks here. What I did is to make the number less precise, and quite properly so.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with original research, no matter what screwball ideas you have on that subject. Gene Nygaard 16:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The upper limit for the number is dispute is 2000 m (6,562 ft), the lower limit of the other 10 peaks mentioned. I'd give you 10:1 odds on a bet that at least one of those six peaks is 5,001 ft or higher. I'd even give you 2:1 odds that at least one of those six peaks is either above 5,500 ft or below 4,500 ft, so that even 5,000 ft isn't accurate to the nearest thousand feet. Gene Nygaard 15:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Redux,

I never considered myself "police of all articles concerning Brazil". I have only tried to improve those articles that I thought I could improve; being Brazilian, of course I paid special attention to articles about my country (yes, it is mine, too). My contributions included mostly pedestrian copydesk work such as sectioning, rearrangement of text, typos, etc.. And, yes, improving the English. (If some of your English sentences sound bad even to my ears, please think how they must sound to a native speaker.)

My work also included, very rarely, deleting information that was clearly superfluous or out of place. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be the union of everything that everyone wants to put in them. The articles must be "encyclopedic", and while it is not clear what that mans exactly, it definitely means that there are restrictions on what can be placed there. Little jokes like giving the kelvin temperatures for a park are as inappropriate here as in an ordinary encyclopedia; and giving Fahrenheit temps with fractions of a degree is just WRONG INFORMATION.

If you look at the history of most good articles, you will see that they only became good because they were edited by many people. That is the spirit of Wikipedia. But apparently you do not accept even the remote possibility that someone could improve an article that you wrote. Please note that I NEVER discarded your work, only tried to improve it: whereas you ALWAYS discarded mine entirely, often without even bothering to explain why. So who is being unconsiderate here?

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 18:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
PS. By the way, please indicate the source of the map, and make sure that it is fair use. Wikipedia is serious about copyrights.

Redux: The map and at least two of the photos were just copied from this site — without due attribution. That site in fact says that the photos are by Monique Cabral. If you obtained her authorization to use those images in Wikipedia, please say so in the image pages, and say whether she agreed to GFDL terms or otherwise. Otherwise you cannot use the images. Please take this problem seriously.
Jorge Stolfi 13:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Stolfi,

Again dude, if information is wrong, correct it, don't erase it. Note that "clearly superfluous" is, again, YOUR judgment. Of course, if an article is about colors and someone writes about measures, that's out of place, but I don't believe that was the case in any instance. And again, what "sounds bad" to your ears is not necessarily wrong, after all the "fancy" stuff must have sounded good to you, but it was still misplaced.

Now about the pic, I did not get it from the website you indicated. The place where I found them, which I really don't recall, made no claims to them, and in fact indicated that they were for free use. That can only mean that the pictures have circulated quite a bit, and if that's the case, no one can ever be sure who's speaking the truth, and really, nobody is about to run a background check for every single image. Plus, if the owner finds the image he can just ask for it to be taken down, but he'd have to prove that he in fact owns that image (copyright is not a "natural right", it requires proper registration).

Finally, and don't take this the wrong way, you might wanna take down a notch or two the Wikipedia fanaticism. I mean, this is a very, very interesting website, I'm happy and proud to contribute to it, but let's face it, it's not the cure for cancer. I know you'll read this and respond to it, but please, don't bother, 'cause i'm reeally not coming back to this page and continue this "discussion" in English with another Brazilian, it's starting to feel a tad ridiculous. I've seen your personal page, I know you contribute a lot to the website, way more than I do. Kudos to you. I guess we both should just go back to focusing on expanding the database. If you ask me, you spend too much time correcting comas in articles that are sufficiently well-written.

See You Around,

Redux

Redux, thanks for removing the fractions of degree. (Hopefully you will understand, eventually, why the kelvin temps are inappropriate here.)

But as for the images, this is a serious problem. You are mistaken about copyright law. The copyright exists as soon as one publishes something creative (and photos like these are creative) with a copyright notice somewhere. There is no need registration; and the copyright is not voided if someone afterwards copies the work omitting the copyright, even if that copy gets circulated all over the world. If you use that copied work, you are 100% guilty of copyright infringement, even if you never saw the copyright notice and have no idea of who the owner is.

I wish the law was different, but that is the way it is. So, yes, one must "run a background check for every single image" before using it, to find its copyright owner and make sure that he does not mind having their image redistributed for free without restrictions. If he does not say that explicitly in their web pages, you must write to the owner and ask permission; if he says "no", sorry, you can't use the image. (That is why you see so few images in Wikipedia, by the way.)

If you are using someone else's image in your private website, out of the spotlights, maybe no one will bother complaining. (You can even get away with murder if you are discrete enough about it...) It is a different matter when the image is included in a high-visibility work like Wikipedia, which is *meant* to be used at will by anyone. Think: if someone complains about those images, they will complain to the Wikipedia maintainers, not to you. Besides the adrenalin surge of being threatened with a lawsuit, the maintainers will also have the work of deleting the images from the article, and apologizing to the owner. At the very least, they will say some very unkind things about your mother...

So now you know where the images you used (including the map) came from. It is your job, unfortunately, to find the author and get her permission.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 03:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Stolfi,

Very well, I've taken down the two images and the map. I did not find them in that website, but they do claim ownership, and better safe than sorry.

Granted that this situation presents some loopholes, such as the fact that Wikipedia is US based, and according to US legislation, registration is necessary for lawsuit liability (therefore, if the people with the website cannot prove registration, they could not sue in the US, and I don't even know if Brazilian registration would be enforced in the US). In Brazil, one could argue that the pictures were just used as part of a "bigger" piece of work, and that reproduction of those pictures was not the main objective; not to mention the fact that there's no financial gain involved. Brazil is yet to legislate in the matter of copyright v. the internet.

But I must admit that, indeed, someone could venture to bring a lawsuit against the website. Anyways, thanks for the heads up.

Regards,

Redux