User talk:Dmcq/Archive 9

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 7

→

RationalWiki

You appear to be repeatedly making a misconceived edit. The link from Conservapedia to RationalWiki is not a self-link, it now has its own article, albeit one which I recognise needs improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your change to RationalWiki because it has no notability. Look at the talk page and the deletion debate about it. The consensus is that it should be a redirect. Please find some sources for notability before restoring it. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

article size

No, you've misunderstood; those limits apply to readable text size, not markup size.Teapeat (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Markup text is the reality. This is on the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you often start off with a 50k article that reads well, but is under referenced. To improve the article people add a whole bunch of references and suddenly it's 80-100k of markup. The actual text hasn't changed. Are you really saying that the better referenced it is, and the more diagrams and so on, the shorter the readable text of the article has to be? Because that is what you're saying.Teapeat (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss content issues on the talkpage. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding on MOS:LEAD?

Dmcq, recently at WP:LEAD, when I asked you to improve or replace the example I wrote with something else, you accused me of edit-warring—"Do not edit war shovingin your bad example you made up yourself"—and said I was looking at the example through "rose-colored glasses".

I am puzzled by such a show of hostility. You are a very experienced editor, and I'm sure you've read WP:No personal attacks. Is there something upsetting you that I should know about?

Regarding the accusation of edit-warring, perhaps this is a misunderstanding. When you deleted the example, your edit summary said your reason for deleting was that it didn't say what the subject was. Actually, it did say what the subject was, so I figured you just misread it. I explained that in my edit summary.

I understand edit-warring to be an obstinate behavior where a person tries to "win" a disagreement by repeatedly editing out an opposing idea rather than discussing it on the talk page and seeking consensus. Do you really think that's what I was doing? I quite loathe edit wars. Indeed, I'm hoping that we and the other editors on MOS:LEAD can work out a guideline that will dissolve a lot of the worst edit wars as a happy side-effect of clear and specific writing. I expect that a really good guideline will result from editors improving each other's work, rather than being written by any one editor alone. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. I stand by what I said. I believe your example is terrible. You wrote your example. You kept sticking it in. You said it was my responsibility to fin a better example. That is not true. WP:BRD is bold, which you did, revert which I id. discuss which I set up a talk page section about detailing my problem, then you just stuck it back in and said it was my job to find something better. Can I also add I don't think much of your pointing to thr guideline to justify your change to the article after just changing the guideline in accord with what you wanted. Dmcq (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling out your thoughts on this. Now your response makes more sense to me. And, now I'm sure there was a misunderstanding. Let's see if I can unravel it now. I didn't say that it was your responsibility to find a better example, nor do I think that. I asked you find one, but I don't think my asking makes you obligated to do so. I think removing the example entirely is a perfectly fine opposing idea for the page, worthy of discussion if that's what you really want. I thought, though, from your edit summary, that you deleted it on the basis of a hasty misreading, and our two edit summaries were all the discussion needed. On Controversies in autism, I didn't point to the guideline to justify changing the article after changing the guideline. I rewrote the lead of Controversies in autism first, and then wrote the new section of MOS:LEAD to capture what had by then become clear. Does that alter your understanding of my actions? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I put a couple of examples of what I considered better leads for controversies in the talk page. I really do not consider your change to the lead of the Controversies in autism as detailed in the diff you put in as an improvement. Dmcq (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those two examples. They have already advanced the conversation at WT:LEAD a great deal. Let's talk over there about the level of detail in each version of the Controversies in autism lead.

To wrap up the present topic, it bothers me that you were so quick to accuse me of edit-warring and that you thought I was sneakily editing the guidelines to justify my side in a conflict. I'd especially like to be sure that we're no longer misunderstanding each other about asking/inviting you to improve the example vs. saying it's your responsibility to improve it. Would you please let me know if your opinion on these matters has changed now that you've read my paragraph above? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for saying edit warring so quickly. I just saw something I saw as not particularly good being chosen and put in again and I didn't see why. I have said over at that talk page why I believe the article itself is not suitable for the purpose. As far as the change was concerned there was no reason to choose the MMR controversy for a second paragraph. The first paragraph was phrased in the non-standard form of object verb subject so it started off with 'why' which is normally the start of a question. The subject of the article is autism controversies.Dmcq (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. (And sorry for my own slow reply: I'm attending GECCO, a conference that, amazingly, has no Wikipedia article about it.) I agree with you that we could use a better article than Controversies in autism as an example, and even the wording of the lead is begging for improvement. Maybe our misunderstanding amplified a slight difference in editing philosophy. I've often seen flawed text receive a rapid series of improvements from multiple editors, while deleting the text entirely usually shuts down improvement and collaboration. Flaws are like a magnet that attracts editing. So, I usually favor putting something up even if it's second-rate. However, instruction creep is a different kind of problem. That's a reason why text really shouldn't be there at all, rather than a flaw that could be corrected. Anyway, I've gotten busy traveling, so I probably can't look at it for a while. This weekend, I'll be at Wikimania (which, unsurprisingly, does have an article about it). Will you be there? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean a meeting and communion with people of like mind? God no, what a truly awful prospect! ;-) I've never been enthusiastic about any sort of big meeting. Dmcq (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Dmcq. Someone has readded the photo that you removed on the Sailor Senshi article and opened up a discussion on the article's talk page. I have alreadyreminded the anime project about this situation. I was wondering if it is necessary that we open an RfC on the Sailor Senshi article to gain a broad consensus regarding the removal of the photo? Thanks, Darth Sjones23(talk - contributions) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to remove articles from my watchlist after a while if they seem to have settled down okay, but often these things just don't die, the editors wait for you to go away and then shove the stuff in again. Okay thanks I've deleted the diagram again and put a comment on the talk page.Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind notice

FYI the NI article is under 1RR per WP:TROUBLES. Your revert was here. Your second revert was here. Just saying. --RA (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the guideline. I had not realized the revert rule applied even when completely different text was involved. Dmcq(talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well in fact the first change was not a revert under that, it was simply a removal so I only did one revert but thanks for the warning about the rule applies even when different bits are affected. Dmcq (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh yeah. Not so sure now either myself! It's a funny one. We're just dancing around inside a sentence. Anyway, it's more a notice to be careful in case you didn't know. Nothing's going to come of it and I know It's not belligerent, so I don't mind either way. --RA (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just so you know, it's a breach of 1RR. The first one was a revert. It reverted my edit here. The second one was a revert too. It revertedmy edit here.

It a breach of 1RR because a revert "whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." So that's two in 24hrs. --RA (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That edit was three days ago. If it went on you might have a point about slow edit war but it doesn't count as a revert. Dmcq(talk) 21:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Adventures on ANI

Great edit summary ! Its appearance on my watchlist inspired me to go look, and then to support the proposal. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I have to admit though I always start wondering if I'm wrong if people agree with me ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Praise to you for your philosophical attitude. As Lord Treasurer Winchester said, when asked how he'd nursed a successful political career through the reigns of four Tudor monarchs, "By being a willow, not an oak." The key principle of long-term survival on the 'pedia, IMO. Choess (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland RfC

Hi. I was doing a head-count on the RfC for my own interest, and I discovered that you have voted twice on proposal 4:one oppose and, more recently,one support. I'm guessing you will want to strike one of those, but I wouldn't presume to say which :-) Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was silly of me. I realized later the question is really do you want Republic of Ireland in the lead or not rather than which of those options do you support. That's a problem with having more than one choice. There should be some guidance for dealing with multi choice options like that where if you just say the option you want it splits the main vote. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Woody Interruptus and conflicts with policies and guidelines

Ping, you have replies. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest universities

Hello,

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#List of oldest universities regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thank you.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Formalization links

Hi Dmcq, Thank you for your comment and excuse me for answering it here, as it will takes me off-topic. My wish to establish a clear consensus for my actions is driven by the slight paranoia one must feel when realizing that the opposition I am facing has a history of taking content disputes into the behavioral legal framework. Frankly, considering how unpleasant Wikipedia has proved so far and the fact that the support that I have been expecting to show up did not materialize, I am quite close to shutting the whole thing down. It is not my encyclopedia after all, or my field for that matter, so why should I care how it turns out. Please excuse my short rant and thank your luck that it was indeed short. :). Regards, Yaniv256 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I consider the times I write to WP:AN/I an indication of a failure on my part. I don't go there with fables. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. You are right, of course. It is not natural for me to avoid humor, but I'll try. Sorry to have troubled you. Yaniv256 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits on Conservapedia

Your recent editing history at Conservapedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Galestar (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You must realize that you performed 2 reversions within 24 hours and Jojhutton performed just as many as I. Your seniority does not excuse you and Jojhutton from participating in the edit warring and placing all blame on the other party (it takes two to tango). Hence, I have given you both warnings (for what they are worth when they do not come from a member of the old boys club) as you are obviously not applying the rules to yourself or another senior member. Please refrain from this conflict of interest (both participating in an edit war and warning someone about edit warring) in the future.

Perhaps I should have just reported this editor because they had broken 3RR instead of just warning them. Dmcq (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You would also have to report Jojhutton, who you did not even warn, since they broke 3RR as well. You yourself have now done 3 reverts in a 36 hour period which is pushing it so perhaps report yourself. To report someone for edit warring when you are yourself engaged in the same edit war is a conflict of interest and would be an abuse of your power. Shame on you. Galestar (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. You have broken 3RR when you do the four reversion in 24 hours you did. Please start acting a bit more in accord with WP:5P and start editing in accord with reliable sources and neutral point of view. Dmcq (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to remove Conservapedia from my watchlist like I have the other things to avoid wasting my time - it is not worth the bother contending with people with a mission on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you areactive in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Finding the constituent numbers in a list that add up to partial totals

I suspect that this Math Ref Desk Q may actually be a homework problem disguised as a real-world problem, as your observation that "the first digits don't follow Benford's law" suggests. But, since I don't know for sure, I will assume good faith and answer as best I can. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

... for reconsidering your revert of my edit at number. Apologies if I gave the impression I agreed with the "prime numbers are a number system" nonsense on the talk page - obviously I don't ! Gandalf61(talk) 08:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have read better and not edited when things were getting me down which makes me a little ratty.Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Allegation of trolling

I called it trolling exactly because of all that you said. Because you are so agitated about condemning the Windows 1.0 logo that you forget the meaning of your edit. A logo put on the top of the article is meant to help identify the subject. What you put there does not identify the subject. And what I read above this thread explain it: You are intent on removing the old logo, no matter what. Cool off, dude. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Fleet Command (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I was agitated because my request to delete was removed after a day and I was insulted about it. The request should have been left the full week unless it was very obviously wrong and only removed before then by an admin. Here you come calling me a troll again. Well you really are a stupid eejit. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)