User talk:Dmcq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Dmcq)
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.


I didn't understand your @me paragraph at the arb case filing at all. It sounded pretty circular (Its notable because its notable) I'm sure that's not what you meant and I would like to understand. Revise please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry I used notable in two senses one being the Wikipedia sense, I meant it was in because it satisfied [[[WP:Notability]]. I'll stick in the WP there. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Still makes no sense. "the topic satisfies WP:Notability"; Well fine, but you never said how much less distinguished your point from what I said. To repeat and elaborate, what I said was...
Sen Inhofe - Scientists don't all agree!
Voter - Yeah? Like who?
Sen Inhofe - Like all these guys on Morano's report. Like all these names on the Oregon Petition! That's who! These are scientists by God! They've got at least a GED degree and work at the grocery! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what satisfies WP:NOTABLE.
If you disagree, then please refine your paragraph, or if you do agree, consider taking pity on the poor arbs and deleting it as unnecessary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see what you wrote was:
1. From before I arrived at the article, the rationale for the article was NAVIGATION. We hear regularly that "scientists don't all agree". Well, who ARE those dissenting scientists? That makes this NOTABLE.
That seemed to be talking about Wikipedia users wanting navigation to such scientists and that does not confer notability. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It says "we hear" (because others publish statements) about groups of dissenting scientists. The publication of such statements is what satisfies WP:LISTN, if you wanna fixate hypertechnically on something that isn't really key to the filing. I think you're in good faith trying to polish a speck of nuance that doesn't really exist, and that's not really making the billiard ball any shinier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The point of the filing there was to try and remove the article. The reason for an article's existence is notability. Okay I didn't read what you meant in what you wrote but I guess a lot of other people would make the same mistake. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added a note there saying you've clarified to me you meant sources outside of Wikipedia navigation requests. Dmcq (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ROI Act[edit]

Hi, why did you revert this change [1] about the ROI Act. The Act doesn't mention the Commonwealth? Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By the Statute of Westminster 1931 a country had to be a dominion to be part of the commonwealth.This was not relaxed until after the commonwealth countries accepted the London Declaration saying one wanted to keep the King or Queen as sovereign was this changed. A country under the Statute of Westminster declaring itself a republic without a sovereign automatically was not part of the commonwealth, and it still isn't unless it explicitly says so using the wording of the London Declaration. They knew what they were doing - they were leaving the commonwealth. What you are doing is just your own thoughts not based on sources. Dmcq (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's difficult on Wikipedia. Every one has an equal voice. You don't seem to understand basics and no doubt would not accept a lesson. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Some people are interested in learning and growing; others aren't. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass Revert[edit]

I would suggest very closely reading refs before engaging in mass reverts. It is impermissible to use headlines as the basis for ref'ing something. I read each ref closely. This article refers to living people and has made extraordinary and controversial claims. I would suggest you self revert and discuss on the talk page efforts to reinsert these refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page as per BRD. It seems obvious to me tyhat the majority at least of your changes were not on a sound foundation. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll move over there. My concern was (and is) that there were entire sections of that article which were improperly sourced, some of which didn't even mention the subject of the article (denialism). Capitalismojo (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Case declined[edit]

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, concluding that it was not within the scope of the committee's remit. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


I seek NPOV, VERIFIABILITY, BLP, and the best possible coverage of climate matters we can possibly pull off, but by staying within the policies/guidelines. That doesn't always take me where my personal climate opinions want to go, but so be it. The truth shall set you free. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I wonder how long before someone tries to make hay out of my word choice "pull off"? We should start a pool!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe you seek to push your own agenda and to hell with Wikipedia's policies like you always do when anything you think is fringe comes up. You are currently rubbishing BLPCAT. Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If you have a logic-based rebuttal to what I said about BLPCAT I'd be much more interested in hearing those details than further editor-bashing. Alernatively, if you really truly have the evidence to crucify me, then please file your AE and let's see what happens. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like you to stop putting your crusades above having a good encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If that is indeed what some editor is doing, I'd encourage you to seek a topic ban without drama or delay. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Just shove off, you're not on this talk page for anything productive. Dmcq (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of !vote thanks for taking time[edit]

Whatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


I thought Camelbinky's comment was less civil than yours, but it wasn't to the level of a PA and therefore blockable. Also, once a discussion on Wikipedia is closed, nothing is supposed to be added to it. Please self-revert. I don't know about @Drmies:, but I don't mind you saying that what I say is like what a "fecking eejit" would say. FYI, I used to have email enabled when I was pinged, so pinging would have made me, at least, respond faster. Origamite 13:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Origamite; in my opinion, there was plenty of uncivil non-blockable commentary on both sides, and quite unnecessarily so. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No self-revert. Camelbinky twice put back those remarks to me over a week when they were removed by me and another editor. You are okay with that sort of behavior because you will do nothing about it. I said nothing uncivil to anyone except you two and you made it extremely clear you were okay with uncivil remarks being addressed to people on Wikipedia and said I was asinine. And I didn't say I disallowed pinging, I pointed out it was unnecessary when just replying to points. Dmcq (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok if...[edit]

Hi Dmcq,

In the interest of preventing future disruption I may decide to seek some form of sanction on another ed with whom we have both recently interacted. I am writing to ask if it is OK to refer to remarks you and the other ed exchanged, or any comments you have made about the other ed. Questions? Ask 'em! Advice or criticism? Fire away! Thanks for your time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote whatever you like. Dmcq (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have not yet decided on a course of action, but I may take you up on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Back then the Spanish inquistion was quicker. Have fun !Serten II (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I was just saying to NewsAndEventsGuy that they can use whatever I say here just like anyone can including yourself, I'm not putting restrictions on quoting me. I've never been a great supporter of NewsAndEventsGuy, in fact we've clashed a few times and I don't like being dragged into admin debates, but I agree some admin action about you is overdue. I really was hoping you would eventually come around to trying to support Wikipedia's aims. I am coming to the conclusion there is no hope especially after your outright dismissal of what I said about your idea of nailing points to the door and why Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy and violating it is harmful to the encyclopaedia at Talk:IPCC consensus as being off-topic. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I am supporting WP's aims by writing and expanding articles. You? Serten II (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"I don't like being dragged into admin debates" well no effective editors like it, which is probably why no one has done it yet. If you decide to file first, please ping me, and if I file first with the elaboration you have provided I'll probably leave it up to you to add your DIFFs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── UPDATE - It's a bit of conundrum having both reservations about Serten's new article "IPCC consensus" as well as his behavior. If one takes action, is it "better" to seek AFD about the article first, or AE about the editor first, or do both at the same time? And if one is better than the other, why is it better? It's hard to argue with erring on the side of hope, or treating the situation as I'd want to be treated in his place. The answer I came up with in both respects was to AFD the article first (assuming I think it still merits AFD after more days of work), thus giving Serten an opportunity to rebut criticism within the bounds of our core principles, the WP:TPG, and WP:ARBCC. For an AFD, if still needed, it would be nice to get meaningful participation from editors with knowledge in the relevant areas. I'm not sure if that is easier during the holidays, or waiting until people return to wiki after the seasonal festive chaos. And as I said, maybe it will mature enough to avoid AFD in the meantime. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I can support an AfD on the topic of the IPCC consensus. How they have got people together and produced error estimates and their way of qualifying confidence is an interesting subject. And the various criticisms Serten has put there from social sciences are okay for inclusion. My big problem with it is that the article is mainly devoted to the criticism and states the criticism as fact rather than opinion, basically the article as currently written has big COATRACK and POV and WEIGHT problems. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
OK; if anyone does file an AFD I'm sure we'll talk more about what you like and reject at that time, given the state of the article at that time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The article has been moved back to User:Serten II/IPCC consensus which I think is probably the best thing to do. Though who'll feel up to arguing over every word trying to do anything with it there I don't know. Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Youre way much to deep entrenched. I invited for comments, and I do so here and in social science projects. If you assume, the article has been written from a sort of a sceptical (Donnalafromboise etc.) standpoint, you haven't read it. Social sciences do not critize per se the IPCC process, they have used their perspective to describe and compare it and that perspective is needed and useful. Serten II (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with what they say. I have a problem with what you say. And I have even more problems about how you go about it. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Grin. So what? Serten II (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dmcq reported by User:Scolaire (Result: ) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Try and count properly. Dmcq (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Follow the link and count for yourself. Scolaire (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I've linked to the four reverts now. Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly I should have just invoked BRD instead and gone back to what was there originally instead of trying to fix the text. Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay I reverted my latest edit, let's see what happens now. Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
BRD does not apply. My edit was not bold. It was discussed extensively beforehand and agreed by all parties, including you. You snuck in that "could" at the last minute, and you're now trying to pretend it was a deal-breaker. It wasn't. I'm willing to see what happens now, but I would like to see a commitment from you that you're not going to edit-war in future. Scolaire (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't what was agreed. It wasn't 'snuck' in, it wsas a major part of my last contribution before the change. I tried to get a good faith solution, I will not forget your response. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is you sneaking it in. You say what your main problem with Qexigator's draft would be, and how it should be addressed (which I did), and then add, as if conversationally, "You could leave out..."
You harassed me in every possible way. You made every kind of insinuation against me. You made no attempt to engage with my arguments, just reverted repeatedly and tried to present it as "compromise". My only concern was to make the article comprehensible to the average reader; you had some sort of beef against me and couldn't even tell me what it was. I asked you early on not to edit-war, but you went right on ahead. You have no complaint. Scolaire (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Bye. Dmcq (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Bye. Scolaire (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


Greetings! I noticed that you removed the {{fv}} tag that I added at Conservapedia. I explained in my Edit Summary that I couldn't find anything related to "ideology", "accusation", or "criticism", the very terms being used in the article. Anyway, I was thinking if you could add a quotation to the reference that would help to verify the material? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The accusation and criticism refer to Barack Obama not the theory of relativity, if the tag is about that then put the tag against that or at the very least put an explanation into the reason field of the tag. The way it was put in it looked like it was about the citation on the theory of relativity. Also the lead is suppose to summarize the article, is the thing you are complaining contained in the main text of the article and has it reasonable citation there? Or are you wanting the citations to be duplicated? Dmcq (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I understand your point. For me, in turn, it appeared that the source was trying to back up the whole previous paragraph. I think a {{citation needed}} tag for the Barack Obama part will do the trick. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at The Heartland Institute 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 get 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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dmcq reported by User:HughD (Result: ). Thank you. —Hugh (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

recent reverts[edit]

Dmcq, I can agree with your revert of my edit on the page, function, because sometimes there is a tendency to put too many things on these pages, and I may have done that with my edit. I'll use a link instead (when a page says "the property that..." and this property has a name, we don't necessarily have to mention that name in the text when that would make the text too long for its intended purpose, but it is always good to have a link to it). MvH (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)MvH

To Dmcq: I was already planning to improve the target article before you reverted me again, you can see that in the talk page of well-defined. But if you keep reverting my edits, I don't think I'll get very far. MvH (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)MvH
Perhaps improving the target article before referring to it might help. The first step would be to get some good sources rather than just discussing on the talk page and trying to decide what is meant and then sticking a link into function to what you decide. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)