File talk:Nukecloud.png

 

Dear Anynobody, it appears your picture has some mistakes in it.

The location (and therefore height) of the 22.5 kTon marker isn't correct. The x-axis is a log scale, so 22.5 is more than 1/3 of the way from 10 to 100.

The correct location for the line isn't found by interpolating linearly, but rather logarithmically. If you want to know much of the distance from 10 to 100 you should scoot over to drop the 22.5 marker in the correct place, simply look at the logarithms of all the values involved:

log(10) = 1 ... log(22.5) = 1.35 ... log(100) = 2

Thus 22.5's marker should be 35% of the way from the `10' marker to the `100' marker. Note that it isn't 35% of the way from zero to 100. The zero point infinitely far off the left end because it's a log scale.

Uncited.

The data so nicely plotted up here is not verifiable because it's source is unstated.

Really. So if I say the earth is round, it's unverifiable because I didn't state a source? It'd be nice to have sources, but yelling at people turns out not to be the optimal way to get them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's an incredibly stupid example which isn't applicable in the least. You know darned well (or you should know unless you're stupid) that the height of a mushroom cloud vs. the output of a bomb isn't common knowledge in the least. And, nobody's yelling at anyone. There there now, I've decapitalised the title of this section for you too. 108.20.176.55 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's common knowledge or not; it's verifiable if someone can go to a library and check the information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand verifiability. Verifiability is demonstrated by the inclusion of sources in the text, generally inline or in some way that is clear. By your reasoning, anything may be included (without a tag/warning) if someone merely asserts that there's a source "out there somewhere", but that's definitely incorrect. Generally, if a statement is non-obvious and unsourced, it's removable immediately. But, often a tag (the warning in our case) is acceptable to be put in place as a stop gap to allow a non-dubious statement to remain in place while the community has a chance to find sources. 108.20.176.55 20:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Show me where in Commons policy sources are required. It is not at all true that unsourced statements on Commons are removable immediately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So, if I make a statement in an article page saying "Joe Blow was arrested for beating his wife." and it wasn't sourced, it would be removable of course. If I put that same statement as text in an image, posted it to Wikipedia and it was used in an article, it's usage in the article would be disallowed and easily removed (or tagged), but it would require a bureaucratic process to delete the image from Wikipedia. The fact that image is obviously the same as a line of text saying the same thing would be obvious in that case and it would be clear that the image should and probably would be deleted. If it was deleted, its users would have had it "pulled from under them", but they're grown-ups and they can deal with it, and it's just not that hard to deal with.
BUT, if that image had been "moved to commons", it would somehow have a full right to not be deleted? And, it would also not even be able to have a mention in its text page that it's not sourced and that it's use amounts to putting unsourced data in that text? All this even though it's negative and inflamatory about a living person? Is that what you're saying? If you are, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If you're not saying that, then let's get to work deleting it (or retaining a good warning). 108.20.176.55 08:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I see; you shove words into my mouth, and then call them the "dumbest thing I've ever heard". This is not about a living person, so all of that blather is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nukecloud.png#File:Nukecloud.png

The data represented on this graph are not sourced. I have no clue where to find sources. As a stop gap, I've added a warning to the text that the data is unsourced. However, that warning keeps getting reverted in an edit war. The only alternative I see is deletion, unless the warning can be somehow made to stick. 108.20.176.55 20:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)