User talk:Dmcq/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dmcq. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

FYI

If you have not already heard, please see the note at top my talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I was just wasting my time saying what I thought of what he said and trying to give what I thought of as good advice. I should in general desist from anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I was talking about my realization just today that I have been violating my voluntary TBan re climate. I already reported myself to AE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I saw that note and thought why would he be informing me of that and dismissed it, and though you meant the business about consensus and my reply to Biscuittin on the Village Pump. Dmcq (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but..

...how is "Wikipedia is now run by a small group of people with a political agenda." reasonable? Tiderolls 18:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Does it matter?? People complain. I said it was a reasonable amount of complaint. If Wikipedia is to accommodate a wide variety of people then people need to be able to complain rather than have their comments suppressed. It is his user page and he is entitled to some latitude. Dmcq (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. A complaint about the flag issue was recently filed at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Dmcq, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.--John (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You edited against the consensus you participated in. You just delayed changing back in the hope that people had gone away. That is called slow edit warring and ownership. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --John (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Go and comnplain to ANI then. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I know WP:NOTCENSORED and all, but really now, "the general pubic"?

I haven't been able to figure out what you are trying to say. Dmcq (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland, Wales, England & Scotland infoboxes

Howdy, you may have noticed my reluctance to delete or edit the parameters-in-question at the infoboxes at Northern Ireland, Wales, England & Scotland, even though I support such deletions or alterations. My reluctance is due to the overwhelming flack I got over doing such types of changes, years ago. If you'd like, you may check my 'block log' for elaboration :) GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No worry. As I tried to say to Snowded he is not under any obligation to do reverts and should only do them if he agrees with what he is doing. Nobody is obliged to actually do any edits on Wikipedia and we can't use the just following orders excuse. Dmcq (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Forewarning, these discussions around the 4 constituent countries-in-question, can become quite nasty. Nobody would know, better then me. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wales. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Removing a designation specified post mediation is disruptive. Marking this now so you can't say you haven't been warned. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your continued insistence that no reason has been given is perverse. I replicate the statement on the top of the talk page for the Wales article - inserted by the original admin who managed the process. I can only assume you haven't read it ----Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

STATEMENT ON TOP OF WALES TALK PAGE

The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation. The discussion is summarised in this archive here. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs.

Irrelevancy explained on the talk page for Wales. And by the way you have now done three reverts. Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wales. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. DDStretch (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dmcq (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not broken 3RR and the edits were to try and get Snowded to actually discuss the change. If you would read the talk you will see that no reason has been given for Snowded's reversions except that it was long standing. No support was given to Snowded and support was given to me. In fact why did an admin get involved at all at this stage instead of waiting to see if it was longer running? Dmcq (talk) 8:48 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

I've decided that now the article page is protected, there's no longer any reason for you to remain blocked. However, you need to realise that 3rr does not allow you to edit war up to that hard limit, but it is the limit beyond action is absolutely justified. It was apparent that you and Snowded were edit-warring and gaming it so that you didn't exceed the hard 3rr limit. I hope you can behave a bit better in future. Good luck and remember that discussions are always good. By the way, the consensus was really so thin for removal that many would say it didn't exist at all. In this case, more discussions are always advised. DDStretch (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate that being an admin can be a thankless task can I ask that you just eff off thanks and only intervene if there is a real problem? Dmcq (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It is responses like this which mean that when a similar situation arises, you may well find others are less likely to be charitable towards you. DDStretch (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want or need your charity. I don't want to know you at all. Goodbye. Go away. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"jurisdiction"

Hi Dmcq. Just wanted to clarify something, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and "England and Wales" are the three legal jurisdictions of the UK. So I think it should be placed in the status field at Northern Ireland and Scotland, to indicate that they have that additional status. If we decide to add another term to Wale's status field, such as "subdivision", "administrative division", "subnational entity", or other term to clarify Wales is a part of a sovereign state, as a oppose to an independent country, I would push for this phrase to be included in addition to "jurisdiction" on Northern Ireland and Scotland. Rob984 (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Corrected the 1st sentence, which was terrible; probably will be reverted.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent times

Whilst I know that you and me don't agree a lot of times and sometimes our language comes close to borderline incivility I just wanted to let you know that I respect you as an editor and hope you don't disappear off the site as fellow collegial opponents of mine Scolaire and Murry1975 have, as well as full on opponents such as HighKing and Bjmullan. Whilst I myself am largely semi-retired disappearing for weeks or months at a time, the Ireland WikiProject has lost too many good editors over the past year, and whilst the biggest a'hole of them all Gob Lofa has finally been outed and blocked as being Lapsed Pacifist meaning less trouble for us all, the Ireland WikiProject actually feels like it's dying. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Peter Gleick

Thanks for your edit to Heartland Institute. I think it looks good.
May I request that you update the Peter Gleick article? It has similar problems. PB added a cn tag with this edit. Something along the lines of what you wrote on HI would be helpful. I do mostly WP:RCP and am not a copy editor by any means. Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith at Heartland Institute

AGF at Heartland Institute

Please stop your mindless reverting. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's Wikipedia:AGF by assuming that anything you disagree with must be Wikipedia:No original research while at the same time reverting quotes and insisting that sources be summarized, you may be blocked from editing. You know you are being used, other more knowledgeable editors are letting you mindlessly plunge ahead with your robotic wiki-lawyering. I demonstrated my good faith on the talk page, you shouldn't lawyer unless you can lay out the evidence step by step. Let's see if you can distinguish WP:OR from the summarizing that you are so fond of recommending. We may have to set up a poll to resolve this.Poodleboy (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, you have a WP:OWN thing going on too. You stuck around for far too long at Gleick also, and we couldn't get to the resolution until you got out of the way. You should work with serious editors, not carry water for abusive WP:RCPs who revert without any serious analysis. Poodleboy (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who you're confusing me with but have never touched the article on Gleick or even contributed to the talkpage.

As to the Heartland Institute article cut out trying to stick the results of your own 'analysis' into articles. If you really are convinced you are acting in good faith after all the explanations then you are not able to edit Wikipedia according to the principles in WP:5P. There are lots of forums on the web where people can put forward their own theories and argue with each other. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, confused you with that Hob guy, who also didn't seem to be able to follow the thread.Poodleboy (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If a thread is difficult to follow that is a sure sign that OR is involved. Dmcq (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment

You went a bit overboard on Poodleboy's talk page. I have no use for the guy's nonsense, but taking the high road puts his misbehavior into sharper contrast. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look at the thread in question, but that's definitely the best approach. Makes it really easy to persuade admins when ther eis a problem.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

section heading at talk global warming

Today you restored a non-neutral talk page heading in violation of the TPG standards requiring neutrality in section headings. The objectionable heading reads

"Should This Be Renamed "Global Static Temperature"? or "Slight Warming?"

Yesterday, per the TPG, I revised the heading so that it read simply

"Renaming"

The reasons provided by your edit summary were " it was there for ages and doesn't cause much problem". This heading which you restored implies credibility in the mantra "Global warming stopped in 1998" (or whenever), which is not the case. It also conflicts with the accelerating rate of warming of the overall climate system, including all five parts.

Please explain why a neutrality problem in a section heading suddenly becomes permissible with the mere passage of time, and more to the point, why the non neutral heading gains such desirability that you'd restore it after another ed finally brings the heading into TPG compliance? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The section heading had been there for a while and I certainly don't find it objectionable. Don't waste my time with this stupid nonsense. Raise aq complaint somewhere or an RfC or some other silly business if you wish but just go away till you find it really is objectionable rather than that you are putting in an uninformative heading covering up what people have discussed so it can't be found. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As you wish. See thread at neutrality noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

when I do a job badly enough I don't get asked anymore

Ola', with regard to this, my wife used to ask help with tech editing her submissions, but since I'm not a hardcore researcher or academic I kept making those sorts of comments (among other things). She said her audience already knows so much of that stuff its standard in sci writing to not try ton write for undergrads... and pretty soon I was only being asked for help with editing non tech stuff. Don't know if that explains it in this case, but at any rate, there is a lot of good material in Chap 12 AR5 wg1 and they reference several moree papers about committment published later. You can also googsearch a few keywords, teh primary authors name and restrict the search to the year the paepr was published. That turned up some secondary sources for the two papers under discussion. I may have time to look at it in more depth myself when the winter arrives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert Tilton

Hi @Jim1138:. Deleting sourced content should only be done for a good reason so the revert was right. The entries which don't have a good citation should be chopped though rather than waiting around with citation needed - we have to be especially careful not to put stuff that has no good basis into biographical articles. It probably will still look a bitty but it might be clean enough then for you to structure better. Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

unwarranted

Thanks for that; FYI I seem to recall a dispute over that word some time back. Probably a thread a in the archives if needed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dmcq. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A funny one

... this typo - Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)