Open main menu

User talk:Dragons flight

About my healthEdit

About three weeks ago I was diagnosed with Burkitt's lymphoma, a rare type of white blood cell cancer. The diagnosis was made in the early stages, and the prognosis is relatively good (at least as cancer prognoses goes).

However, I have a long road to recovery involving surgery and chemotherapy that is expected to take multiple months. During that time, there will likely be periods where chemo has me down and I may be unavailable for extended periods of time. There will also likely be periods of time where I am feeling relatively well (like right now) and may choose to contribute to Wikipedia, as I enjoy it and they encourage chemo patients to stay mentally engaged. However, my participation and responsiveness to inquiries is likely to be very hit and miss over the next several months.

If anyone wants to, a friend and coworker set up a donation page to support my costs during treatment [1], but I'm not expecting anything from anyone here and already have pretty good health insurance and good support.

Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to beating this thing.

Robert Rohde aka Dragons flight (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I wish the very best to you and I hope you are able to defeat the cancer. It is completely understandable why you might have to disengage from Wikipedia for a while; when you return full time, it will be celebration for the project, as we'll have you back again, and more importantly, a celebration for yourself, as it'll mean you're well again. All the best, Dragons flight, all the best. Acalamari 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Best of luck! I am lucky not to have any such personal experience, but I recall a friend that fought some cancer for decades. There were bad years, and there were good quiet decades, but she did a lot of good stuff in between - and a few not so good, don't we all? :). And she never, ever, 'was' her disease, she was always herself. That we can fight to control. I hope I can do the same if needed someday, and again, wish you all the best. - Nabla (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thinking of you with sympathy and hope. Among all your more important contributions to this project and this community, I've never forgotten the effort you made to do this. With my appreciation and very best regards and wishes. Ira Brad Matetsky, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Good luck with your treatment and recovery! I'm sure this must be a trying time for you and it's completely understandable that you would need to take some time off from Wikipedia. If there are any articles that you would like us to keep an eye on while you're gone, just ask. Hope to see you back soon! Kaldari (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
<3 Keegan (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you've been dealing with this. Strength and healing go with you, and hoping for a speedy recovery <3 - Alison 22:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Robert! This is not happy news. I wish you a speedy and complete recovery! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. It's a slow process but I am trying to stay positive and keep my eye on the goal. Dragons flight (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking of you and yours and wishing you health and fortitude. best, Keilana (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

UpdateEdit

It has now been about two months since I posted about my cancer here (and about three months since the initial diagnosis).

After 2 surgeries and 6 in-patient chemotherapy treatments, I am happy to say that I am now recovering at home. Burkitt's lymphoma is one of the relatively "good" forms of cancer, and >80% patients in my position can expect to be fully cured. There will be a substantial period of rest and recovery, as well as a long period of monitoring for potential relapse, but I am optimistic about the future and being able to get on with my life.

Thank you to everyone for your support. Dragons flight (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear you are on the mend. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This is very welcome! I wish you a speedy rest-recovery! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Super news! Delighted to hear you're well on the road to recovery :) - Alison 08:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, hope to see you back here then.! Doug Weller talk 12:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Welcome home. Glad you're better. A Traintalk 06:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Maryam MirzakhaniEdit

 On 15 July 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maryam Mirzakhani, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT♦C 23:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Editnotice loadEdit

I'm here per this comment, can you change the page protection of {{Editnotice load}} to template protection. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence surveyEdit

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2017 Las Vegas Strip shootingEdit

 On 2 October 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. BorgQueen (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dragons flight. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Three years!

... and best wishes for your health and well-being! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

... and four years, with best wishes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:PassArgumentsEdit

 Module:PassArguments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talkcontribs) 15:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:SwitchEdit

 Module:Switch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Post-Glacial Sea Level RiseEdit

Dear Robert, if You are in fact the author of the "Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise" graph (which I have on my PC since its first publication), I now would suggest to concrete the time reference "ago" to "b2k", which You probably know from the Greenland Ice core data (which I also all have on my PC), as published by the Danish team. "b2k" naturally means "before the year 2000" and would at least roughly relate to the date of the used data, otherwise becoming more and more mistaken. The correction would make the information correct and independent of the actual date. Thanks in advance and best wishes for your health! Hans J. Holm (see academia.edu/Researgate.net/google Scholar for references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:F13:11E9:9C2B:CACF:CD1:DDB1 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:CitationEdit

 Module:Citation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:ExpandCitationsEdit

 Module:ExpandCitations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

New global warming artEdit

Hello Robert,

Today I started a new page with the objective of improving figures on the topic of climate change. I've been wanting to do this for a couple of years, but the high quality of the current images has put me off so far. However, I do feel it is important to have updates of the most important images related to global warming. If I understand it correctly, you have made a lot of the figures ten years ago. I was wondering if you want to contribute to the update of those images or give me advise on how to tackle this daunting task.

You have used a lot of data sets. Were you able to access them publicly or did you have to contact authors of papers yourself? Did you find review articles for the data or did you make an overview of available records yourself? Femkemilene (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I made several dozen images 10-15 years ago. Some of those ended up in Wikipedia. Eventually, I found that other demands on my time were too large and I stopped working on it. (A decision that was made easier by how often Wikimedia Commons violated my copyright by reposting material without any indication of my authorship.) More recently, I have been making some new images in the last year or two, which mostly appear on my twitter feed (https://twitter.com/rarohde). A few of those may be relevant to Wikipedia. I would be happy discuss updates and provide pointers. Maybe I would even contribute materials now and again, but I'm not so sure. I do have original materials for some of the images (but not all due to a computer failure years ago). Most of the referenced datasets are available publicly, though there are a few where I communicated with authors directly to get copies of their published data. I'm a professional climate scientist, so I am familiar with a wide range of data. How I chose sources varied on a case-by-case basis and I couldn't really say in general whether I was looking at review papers or individual works. Dragons flight (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick reply. Apparently, I was following you on Twitter already, so I've seen much of those images before. I really liked the figure on the evolution of humanities energy system. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia Commons reposts the images stored there itself, but constant violation of copyright sounds like quite a pain. I see that you use both GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Could you maybe tell me what the difference is?
Fyi: I'm going to start this project together with a climate scientist working with at the Royal Meteorological Institute. I started a PhD on climate change recently myself.
We'd be very much interested in original materials. I assume that the software used for the creation of these images is now obsolete, so it's best to make the figures ourselves? For many figures, it will simply be an update on the figures from 10-15 years. Since the figures will contain new data and will look somewhat differently, I assume it's best to upload them not as a new version, but instead as a new figure with a reference (proper attribution) to the old version. Femkemilene (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I noticed that the external links in your template for GWArt (and GWArtOld) are not working anymore.
The images were mostly created in Matlab. For some I could probably find the original code and data, though in many cases it might be better to track down more recent data / sources. If there are particular images you want to know more about and/or get code, let me know. At the very least, I could probably answer questions about the images if something is unclear. In some cases, the Matlab outputs were manually edited in Illustrator or other programs before the final format was created. (Incidentally, In hindsight, I don't recommend manually editing files because it only makes things harder to update later.)
Several years ago, I ran a site "Global Warming Art" that hosted all of these files and more, but I found that maintaining the site was taking too much of my time. So eventually I stopped maintaining it. That's why the external link is dead now.
Incidentally, I do enjoy making graphics like those, but it can get burdensome. It was mostly an unfunded side project from my grad school days, and it was hard to maintain the energy over time. In a hypothetical world where I actually had funding to work on climate science communication, this is something I would enjoy doing more of, especially if there was a team working on it. However, in my current life I need to focus on research, and other things.
Who are you working with at RMI?
For truly new works, I would suggest licensing as CC-BY 4.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0. For updated works, it is probably better to use the same licensing as the existing works. If you really want to get into licensing, I could have a long discussion about this and the various pros / cons, but perhaps not right now. In some ways, the GFDL licensing on the images now is a legacy of the original GFDL licensing on Wikipedia, but even that is complicated.
As you may be aware, it is now common for most images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. That is typical today, though 10 years ago there was still a mixture of Commons hosted and locally hosted materials. Unfortunately, having materials hosted on Commons makes them harder to manage from the point of view of vandalism, since changes to Commons' description pages are not visible on user watchlists on the individual projects. Nevertheless most things have been moved to Commons (save fair use images). Personally, I've found the Commons community annoying to work with. People complain if your description page includes a lot of text, even though that is often necessary to describe complex figures. People complain if your charts aren't in SVG format, even if SVG versions don't look nice. (I've repeatedly had people create shitty-looking SVG conversions, replace all the image usages, and not even bother to acknowledge the original authorship or licensing.) Purists complain if there is text on the diagrams (even axis labels, etc.). I understand the argument for supporting multi-lingual versions, but I will still argue that unlabeled diagrams are harder on readers. Not to mention that irresponsible people working on Commons have a bad habit of creating derivative works (e.g. other languages, other formats, etc.) without acknowledging the original authorship or licensing. (Or argue that "it is just a graph" and hence authorship doesn't matter.)
Okay, that last part was a bit too much of a rant, but frankly I found the attitude and behaviors of some people on Commons grew to be exhausting. Even if the goal is to provide updated materials to Wikipedia, I would recommend having an authoritative version and description hosted somewhere off-wiki that reflects your personal best work. If you have a good way to do so, and wish to do so, providing code and data could also be useful to people. Best wishes and good luck. Dragons flight (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all the information and the rant :P. Unfortunately, I'm a disaster with Matlab.
I've made my contribution to Commons with an update of the CO2 concentrations, including a reference to your figure in the description. The python code I made available on GitHub, with a very easy language switch, so that people that don't understand python can still make their own language version. Hope that will help in keeping the Commons community content. I think you're right that figures should include some text to make it clear immediately what the figure is about.
At RMI, I'm working with Lesley de Cruz. She's now involved in a project around paleoclimate, so she should have access to most interesting data. Femkemilene (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:ISBNEdit

 Module:ISBN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of AMResorts for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AMResorts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMResorts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AMResorts logo.gifEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:AMResorts logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Template: Cite journal - mistaken useEdit

Hi Dragons flight, I encountered a very far-spread problem with the use of the "volume" parameter of the Cite jounal template. According to the docs, the parameter expects an entry like "Volume four", "Vol. 4", "Band VII", etc. If anything shorter than 4 characters is entered, this is printed in bold text in the citation, to mark the mistake.

Nearly all uses of the template seem to ignore this. The result is a host of Volume descriptors, that are nothing but bold printed numbers. This could lead to misunderstandings and confusion among users trying to find the cited journal. For an impression of the extent of the mistaken use, look at Candide#Sources, for example. Or really any article citing lots of journals.

I'm adressing you, as you made the last major update to the template, in 2013. Perhaps you can help or direct me to the right place on WP for this. 2.247.243.131 (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The examples given on the template page show clearly that a number is expected and, as is commonly the style, the volume number is intentionally in bold. This is not a mistake, as the examples make clear. Mikenorton (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you really sure about that? Ok. Then there is no problem. Thanks. 2.247.243.131 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dragons flight. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dragons flight. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rounding templates nominated for mergingEdit

 {{Round}}, {{rnd}}, and {{decimals}} have been nominated for merging. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons TV ads listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of The Simpsons TV ads. Since you had some involvement with the List of The Simpsons TV ads redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Today's Wikipedian 10 years agoEdit

Awesome
 
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WoohoooEdit

  Hey, Dragons flight. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mjs1991 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 


I'm looking for a new free-use diagram showing global warming attribution/causationEdit

I've discovered your graphic, File:Climate Change Attribution.png, and added it to the Global warming article after some discussion on its talk page. Are you aware of any similar but more recent free-use graphics, by you or by others? Thanks for all your skilled and hard work. Best wishes. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: : I've just discovered at https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/ two "attribution" charts (probably public domain from U.S. government Fourth National Climate Assessment), similar to what I want:
If you know of one more similar to your earlier chart, please let us know below. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Update: I've just created File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3.png. Pending other editors' comments, I think that the new chart will meet the needs for an updated attribution chart. But if you know of something better, of course feel free to suggest. Thanks, and best wishes. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:ParsePageEdit

 Module:ParsePage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nblund talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Dragons flight".