256:
235:
204:
266:
914:'s edits. I was exploring the diff functionality and misread the changes from "100-foot (30-meter)" to "30-metre (100 ft)" and from "30 mph (13 m/s or 44 ft/s)" to "50 km/h (14 m/s; 31 mph)" as total metrifications. I didn't realise then that the "{{convert..." command was an automatic converter. Apologies to all concerned.
690:. Unless the latter has something to say by way of justifying their behaviour, I will be content to consider this matter closed. I would ask ProProbly not to engage in such disruptive behaviour again, as it does not contribute to the functioning of the encyclopedia, and it deters others from contributing to articles.
817:); first drawing mistaken conclusions about who was being bold and who was doing the reverting - thus showing that you have not followed the case, and then arrogantly declaring a consensus without a sound basis. And not having contributed materially to the discussion yourself I am not sure what your motive is.
851:
with one in parenthesis. Here's why: the argument being advanced is that the metric should be used unless the article refers to
America or Britain. But the article is about Human Scale. Last I checked the Americans and British were included in that. In addition, the article itself specifically refers
725:
edits and me who reverted to the original uncontested text. I also explained why. Archon continued to argue without an apology or excuse for failing to describe, justify or seek consensus for completely replacing customary measurements with metric ones. Then after I again restored the original text,
416:
Since when are kilograms or
Netwons considered more natural "human-scale" units? I don't think there are any "official" units for force or weight that are more natural, but the force of a punch or some other human activity and the average weight of a human come to mind as rough replacements. At any
699:
By way of explaining my own position, I would just say that the MOS gives clear guidance on what units articles are expected to use when they are not directly related to the USA or UK – metric units. Since the position I was following was the default position, there was no reason for me to start a
526:
A disambiguation clause at the top of the article would be better than the wholesale removal of this passage. "Human scale" is a well established term used in that context, and so requires disambiguation precisely for the reasons that Jerzy states. Will someone with the technical knowledge assist
578:
Perhaps distinct from Small is
Beautiful, i recall that anthropologists believe there is an inherent human parameter, around 150, that represents the maximum size of a community in which "everybody knows everbody" is likely to be essentially true, rather than either hyperbole, a platitude, or an
504:
specific "human scales" for development projects or organizations have been enunciated by SiB advocates, but i note that even if there is diversity of opinion among the as to the numbers, info about the numbers or numerical ranges would IMO be appropriate to the accompanying
769:
in single-minded pursuit of an agenda which is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Past experience shows that such conduct usually results in an indefinite ban because it is tedious, wasting the time of editors and admins and spoiling the experience of readers.
751:
and it is not controversial. Ensuring that articles generally follow the MOS is good editorial conduct, and editors are expected to respect the MOS. Adding content to an article that has received relatively little editorial attention is not really
746:
I'll say it again, for the sake of clarity. US customary units are the primary units in articles that relate directly to the USA, and not in any other articles. This is the consensus position of the entire community as clearly expressed at
730:
came along and, again with no explanation, restored Archon's bold edit. And that is how the article currently exists with Archon's contested bold edit still in place. And that goes against
Knowledge principles, pillars and all.
756:; reverting someone else's contributions is bold, and you would be expected to provide a really good reason for doing so. Your personal vendetta against metric units is not such a good reason. I would assume this is why
890:
is fine, and as I said below in my apology, I had mistakenly thought the change was from customary to just metric when I changed the article back. I accept I was wrong, so can we drop it now please and move on. Thanks.
166:
813:
edit, and he is the editor who made it. I think the original version should be restored until we see a consensus based in policy, sources, and common sense for changing it develop. I also see you (
632:, in addition to suggesting a more constructive course of action than reverting my edits. I had added content to the article and corrected some errors, which he also removed without justification.
322:
491:
482:
624:. He asserted that my edits constituted "undiscussed metrification" and insisted that I should discuss the issue on the talk page. The article had previously used metric units, as
368:
Does anyone have an idea for a "human scale" of energy? The energy in a meal? Energy of running a mile? Energy spectrum of fatal injuries, using the "energy dumping" theory?
417:
rate, I think we can do better than just plain
Netwons and kg, which don't seem particularly human-scale IMHO. At least "tens of Newtons" or similar would be much better. --
942:
312:
160:
937:
765:
I should warn you that if you continue to disregard MOS consensus and start revert-wars you are likely to face administrative sanctions. You are acting like a
288:
279:
240:
801:
709:
677:
92:
779:
411:
426:
476:
is enhanced, by adding a section with encyclopedic discussion of that sense of "human scale", a HatNote Dab along the lines of
609:
536:
98:
481:
This article is about the physical limits of human life and direct experiences of humans. For downscaling development, see
181:
57:
860:, I just received the bot notice, which means others have just received theirs. So no, you're likely not done here yet.
148:
43:
923:
563:
648:
900:
826:
740:
112:
881:
629:
797:
673:
117:
33:
843:
515:
905:
628:
requires of articles which do not relate directly to USA or UK topics. I explained this clearly to him on my
394:
142:
87:
636:
215:
589:
78:
138:
615:
472:) a WP article is about the concept the title names, not the titling word as a term. If the article on
431:
284:
855:
814:
793:
669:
554:
579:
assumption that in practice doesn't get tested. If documented, it would IMO belong in the article.
495:
188:
287:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
203:
122:
573:
775:
705:
686:
The article has now been reverted by a third party to its status before the dubious edits by
644:
221:
877:
422:
382:
375:
8:
919:
896:
822:
736:
271:
154:
68:
339:
668:
reverted, and now we discuss. Further reverts without consensus are not appropriate.
605:
532:
473:
441:
83:
788:
Looks like we have three editors favoring the current version and one editor favoring
865:
560:
464:
is about a topic distinct from that stated in the lead, and (w/ rare exceptions like
390:
64:
911:
771:
748:
718:
701:
665:
640:
625:
457:
449:
620:
My recent edits to this article were repeatedly reverted without justification by
174:
873:
839:
586:
512:
418:
792:'s version. We can let this run a while longer, but I expect we're done here.
915:
892:
818:
810:
789:
753:
732:
722:
687:
661:
657:
621:
370:
834:
reverts by ProProbly. No valid reason for objecting to use of metric units. --
931:
766:
601:
597:
528:
453:
361:
861:
445:
404:
386:
809:
I only see one contributor supplying a reasoned argument for keeping the
348:
lightest touch that can be sensed vs. heaviest weight that can be lifted?
37:
835:
757:
727:
582:
508:
351:
loudest sound that can be endured vs. softest sound that can be heard?
558:
by
Kirkpatrick Sale. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1980.
852:
to
American cities and American architects. Note also, in reply to
910:
Sorry, I've wasted everyone's time here. I misread the "diffs" of
255:
234:
465:
265:
469:
500:
I am not going to do the research to determine whether
173:
440:
The term "human scale" is also used to refer to the
283:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
261:
28:
943:
High-importance Urban studies and planning articles
344:Can we get some order-of-magnitude comparisons:
929:
490:can be added to the accompanying article, using
297:Knowledge:WikiProject Urban studies and planning
46:for general discussion of the article's subject.
938:Start-Class Urban studies and planning articles
300:Template:WikiProject Urban studies and planning
187:
201:
930:
444:school of philospophy associated with
280:WikiProject Urban studies and planning
378:comment added 14:47, 24 February 2003
403:added a couple to the list above --
277:This article is within the scope of
197:
15:
303:Urban studies and planning articles
220:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
13:
14:
954:
492:Human scale (Small Is Beautiful)
483:Human scale (Small Is Beautiful)
412:Do kilogram & newton belong?
264:
254:
233:
202:
58:Click here to start a new topic.
317:This article has been rated as
717:No, you are incorrect. It was
548:
496:Small Is Beautiful#Human scale
1:
291:and see a list of open tasks.
55:Put new text under old text.
635:Diff of the relevant edits:
610:18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
537:18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
7:
868:) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
590:21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
516:21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
63:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
959:
480:
397:) 14:55, Feb 24 2003 (UTC)
323:project's importance scale
294:Urban studies and planning
285:Urban studies and planning
241:Urban studies and planning
901:20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
844:00:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
827:06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
802:22:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
780:20:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
741:18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
710:11:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
678:23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
649:22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
596:You are referring to the
316:
249:
228:
93:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
924:20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
882:08:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
427:09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
407:14:55 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
21:
355:pitch that can be heard
340:(Additional dimensions)
210:This article is rated
88:avoid personal attacks
906:Sorry, I was mistaken
700:discussion about it.
113:Neutral point of view
856:Lesser Cartographies
815:Lesser Cartographies
794:Lesser Cartographies
670:Lesser Cartographies
118:No original research
721:who first made the
381:& modified w/o
272:Architecture portal
616:RFC:Recent reverts
474:Small Is Beautiful
442:Small Is Beautiful
432:Small is Beautiful
216:content assessment
99:dispute resolution
60:
337:
336:
333:
332:
329:
328:
196:
195:
79:Assume good faith
56:
27:
26:
950:
872:, metric first.
859:
566:
552:
458:Kirkpatrick Sale
450:E. F. Schumacher
379:
305:
304:
301:
298:
295:
274:
269:
268:
258:
251:
250:
245:
237:
230:
229:
213:
207:
206:
198:
192:
191:
177:
108:Article policies
29:
16:
958:
957:
953:
952:
951:
949:
948:
947:
928:
927:
908:
853:
618:
576:
571:
570:
569:
553:
549:
486:
460:, among others.
434:
414:
373:
342:
319:High-importance
302:
299:
296:
293:
292:
270:
263:
244:High‑importance
243:
214:on Knowledge's
211:
134:
129:
128:
127:
104:
74:
12:
11:
5:
956:
946:
945:
940:
907:
904:
807:
806:
805:
804:
783:
782:
762:
761:
715:
714:
713:
712:
694:
693:
692:
691:
681:
680:
622:User:ProProbly
617:
614:
613:
612:
592:
580:
575:
574:Community size
572:
568:
567:
546:
545:
541:
540:
539:
523:
522:
518:
506:
499:
488:
487:
462:
461:
436:This 'graph:
433:
430:
413:
410:
409:
408:
398:
369:
366:
365:
360:wavelength of
357:
352:
349:
341:
338:
335:
334:
331:
330:
327:
326:
315:
309:
308:
306:
289:the discussion
276:
275:
259:
247:
246:
238:
226:
225:
219:
208:
194:
193:
131:
130:
126:
125:
120:
115:
106:
105:
103:
102:
95:
90:
81:
75:
73:
72:
61:
52:
51:
48:
47:
41:
25:
24:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
955:
944:
941:
939:
936:
935:
933:
926:
925:
921:
917:
913:
903:
902:
898:
894:
889:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
857:
850:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
777:
773:
768:
764:
763:
759:
755:
750:
745:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
729:
724:
720:
711:
707:
703:
698:
697:
696:
695:
689:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
653:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
633:
631:
630:own talk page
627:
623:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:Dunbar number
595:
594:
593:
591:
588:
584:
565:
564:0-698-11013-7
562:
559:
557:
551:
547:
544:
538:
534:
530:
525:
524:
521:
520:
519:
517:
514:
510:
503:
497:
493:
484:
479:
478:
477:
475:
471:
467:
459:
455:
454:John Papworth
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
429:
428:
424:
420:
406:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
388:
384:
377:
372:
364:
363:
362:visible light
358:
356:
353:
350:
347:
346:
345:
324:
320:
314:
311:
310:
307:
290:
286:
282:
281:
273:
267:
262:
260:
257:
253:
252:
248:
242:
239:
236:
232:
231:
227:
223:
217:
209:
205:
200:
199:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
133:
132:
124:
123:Verifiability
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
100:
96:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:Learn to edit
62:
59:
54:
53:
50:
49:
45:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
909:
887:
885:
869:
848:
847:
831:
830:
808:
716:
654:
639:
634:
619:
577:
555:
550:
542:
501:
494:as a Rdr to
489:
463:
446:Leopold Kohr
435:
415:
380:
367:
359:
354:
343:
318:
278:
222:WikiProjects
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
107:
32:This is the
912:Archon 2488
772:Archon 2488
719:Archon 2488
702:Archon 2488
666:Archon 2488
641:Archon 2488
600:I believe.
556:Human Scale
527:with this?
374:—Preceding
212:Start-class
161:free images
44:not a forum
38:Human scale
932:Categories
874:Dougweller
543:References
419:Cybercobra
916:ProProbly
893:ProProbly
819:ProProbly
790:ProProbly
760:reverted.
749:WP:MOSNUM
733:ProProbly
688:ProProbly
658:ProProbly
626:WP:MOSNUM
371:The Anome
101:if needed
84:Be polite
34:talk page
849:Use Both
602:User1756
529:User1756
505:article.
395:contribs
69:get help
42:This is
40:article.
862:SW3 5DL
811:WP:BOLD
754:WP:BOLD
723:WP:BOLD
662:WP:BOLD
660:made a
655:Comment
405:Tarquin
387:Tarquin
376:undated
321:on the
167:WP refs
155:scholar
832:Oppose
767:WP:SPA
664:edit,
466:Nigger
218:scale.
139:Google
886:Yes,
836:Boson
758:Atlan
728:Atlan
583:Jerzy
509:Jerzy
182:JSTOR
143:books
97:Seek
920:talk
897:talk
888:both
878:talk
870:Both
866:talk
840:talk
823:talk
798:talk
776:talk
737:talk
706:talk
674:talk
645:talk
606:talk
561:ISBN
533:talk
470:Fuck
468:and
456:and
423:talk
391:talk
313:High
175:FENS
149:news
86:and
502:any
385:by
383:sig
189:TWL
934::
922:)
899:)
880:)
842:)
825:)
800:)
778:)
739:)
708:)
676:)
647:)
608:)
581:--
535:)
507:--
452:,
448:,
425:)
393:•
169:)
67:;
918:(
895:(
876:(
864:(
858::
854:@
838:(
821:(
796:(
774:(
735:(
704:(
672:(
643:(
604:(
587:t
585:•
531:(
513:t
511:•
498:.
485:.
421:(
389:(
325:.
224::
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
71:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
