User talk:Dmcq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Contents

Advanced search[edit]

FYI, most Google search tools have an "advanced search" option, which easily lay out options (like removing terms): http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search

You're correct in saying the results can be unreliable. The numbers on top are never entirely accurate IMO and are only ball park estimates. --RA (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Try and see if you can stop the book Londonderry in America being the top entry returned for Google books with the search term Londonderry. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a persistent little fecker, alight. Gone. :-) --RA (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Bloody hell: ~0.4 million vs. ~10 million!? --RA (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That's quite a difference and a look at the pages emphaises it. I think that shows why I was suggesting Londonderry should point to the disambiguation page. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way... --RA (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, they were either trolling or incredibly thick, either way I'm glad they're gone for a while. Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Logical symbols TfD[edit]

Dmcq, although I think that you may be right in saying that the articles on logical symbols aren't notable, a TfD isn't the right way of dealing with it. You haven't provided a valid reason for deleting a template. First you should do a multiple-page AfD nomination. If the articles are deleted, then you could put this template up for deletion because nothing links to it. I would recommend withdrawing the TfD. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How about looking at it and deciding if we should have a list of such links in the first place? Even if the symbols had some notability why would one want to do this? It is just someone with a yen to accumulate article and template creations without any real sense behind it. Do you feel it is a reasonable template to have in Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If the articles are notable, I do think it's a reasonable template - a way of navigating between a well-defined list of closely related subjects. But that's really beside the point, because the decision in a TfD will probably be based on the reasons for deletion, and none of them apply here. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
See WP:TfD "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here". We are not bound to keeep silly things simply because it doesn't fit some classification. Work out for yourself if it actually does anything in the least useful. For instance if Turned E actually had some notability would such a template have any point? A reference to logical symbols should just point to list of logic symbols. If a person is interested in the glyphs in Unicode then they should be pointed at Unicode mathematical operators. What this template does is cause trouble navigating. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, but at least this sounds more like a rationale for deleting a template. You should add this comment to the discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right about that, as I said after Arthur Rubin's comment he said what was really wrong much better than me. I said about the notability but that was me just scurrying down the wiki policies rather than working out really why it all felt wrong and shouldn't be pushed in and loads of articles created to support it. Dmcq (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

ICL DAP[edit]

Please see new notes at Talk:ICL Distributed Array Processor. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

God does not exist[edit]

Thanks for the humorous read of weird computer error messages. It reminded me of one message that used to come up on a CNC machine that I programmed for years ago. The software was from an Italian company and had been translated into English. Some of the error messages and dialog boxes took a few seconds to figure out what they meant due to some broken English. I was out at the tool one night when the operator of the tool was shutting it down. When he clicked to shut the system down, instead of the usual "The system is now shutting down" or some such message, what was displayed was "The system is now getting off". Thanks again for the link. Dismas|(talk) 01:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The next line out was
THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERS HAVE BEEN IGNORED: GOD
 ;-) Dmcq (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WT: WikiProject Mathematics #"Unregistered" appearance of .3Cmath.3E and latex to html[edit]

Sorry for stalking, but what did you mean it the summary of [1]? Surely do you not confuse 78.144.197.99 with the latex to html user? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't. Just that I see that latex to html has been responding to some extent. Sorry if I have caused trouble, I thought I had withdrawn that fairly quickly. Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Windows 1.0 logo removal request[edit]

After we reported the fake logo issue, Codename Lisa decided to specify a link to http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/02/17/redesigning-the-windows-logo.aspx as a source which just makes me LOL - looks like Sam Moreau or someone else at Microsoft decided to fix the initial logo missing problem by creating a fake logo which they now represent as an original Windows Logo! Really, history is a subject to change... -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've complained as I thought the deletion should not be speedily closed but kept open for a week as it definitely wasn't obviously something to keep. Plus I've put in a request to move the file to 'Fantasy Microsoft Windows logo.svg' instead and put a reference to the actual logo in the summary. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that renaming is a good idea. Wikipedia editors are not aware of that and display this logo on Windows 1.x/2.x page descriptions. About 10 hours ago I have removed the logo from all the pages linking to it on all available languages (including Portuguese, Georgian, Italian, Romanian, Polish etc.) and when I check the file links now I see that some of the links have been restored. Please add you vote for deleting the image as misleading/inappropriate, this would be much more effective in stopping this fake campaign... Aaleksanyants (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd have preferred it go and I suggested a more descriptive name. The one tyey've given implies someone actually was thinking of it back in 1985 and there's no evidence of hat. Dmcq (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
More descriptive would be Fake Logo Of Windows 1.0, and probably the file with such name could be later used when describing the real history regarding this logo (who is the real author, how it became to be considered as an official logo etc.) - I think this is a subject for a separate article :-) Aaleksanyants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.97.42 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Fantasy rather than Fake is what I wanted it called Dmcq (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look around and the earliest I can find that design is from September 7 2010 in Logopedia. Dmcq (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I see they've moved the image back to the previous misleading place on Commons. I can really sympathise with people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia when they try to fix something stupid and come across such opposition. Dmcq (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An original of the logo was found on some documentation for a talk on the Windows SDK so we've agreed it is a Windows 1.0 logo even if it doesn't seem to have ever actually been used for advertising Windows. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dmcq. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
Message added 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Charles E. Keisler (talk), MCTS 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Out of line comment?[edit]

From my point-of-view, the OP was unsure if there's anything of importance still on the drive that's not backed up. OP probably knows that the click might mean something disastrous and does not want to smash the hard drive, but wants to find if there's anything he can do to fix the problem/recover the data. In my view, your comment was an attempt at humor that was unwarranted in such as situation. Apologies if you feel differently. -- 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have some way of helping them read the disk then go ahead. They can for instance run a disk checker and changing the temperature or putting it edgewise rather than flat might also 'help'. I believe that even if they had no problems reading the disk it would all still be a waste of time but perhaps not quite such a bad one as persisting in trying. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Euler, Complete Works, Online, in Latin[edit]

French National Library

— Organized in Volumes (the numbered links placed between brackets and situated at the top of the page) and Chapters (the list of links placed in the body of the page).
Only 12 volumes out of over 72, in the original Latin, but I honestly doubt there's a more complete collection anywhere on the entire web.
— Discussion on the sum of two cubes starts here.


Arxiv.org

Mostly his, translated into English, as well as a few about him. — 79.113.231.88 (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dmcq. You have new messages at Talk:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland#Union_Flag_vs_St_Patrick.27s_Saltire_in_the_lead.
Message added 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved back the video on Oragami[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that you moved the Lang video from the math section to the external links section in Oragami. The use of the external media template is well established and specifically noted in WP:EL. It is intended to be used in the same place that the media would be used if it were freely licensed, which in this case would be in the math section.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the least usual to have external links in the main body of articles, they should be in the citations or externals normally. I see no reason to include the video in the main body. Plus also I don't think one should just associate some image that wasn't in the original. And by the way it is origami, not oragami. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted again and set up a discussion at Talk:Origami#External video. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up the user (+ sock puppets) related to the Benedict XVI Hoax >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 12:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

reference desk[edit]

OK, the reference desk is not an How to forum. But also, it is not a place to discuss what things should be. You told internet should be free. But using adds doesn't (wikipedia). I don't want sold a worldwide solution like free. The main reason I want to this at the router is effectively I own cheap device where you can't configure anything. You can't load many pages with 84Mb of ram and publicity enabled (including non blocking ones).62.39.140.158 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So basically you are saying you have a need to access the internet which justifies your actions because you lack resources. I guess I can sympathize to some extent. I don't know what kind of system would have that little memory for the user, possibly a Nintendo 3DS. If it is later Windows on an earlier PC I'd put Linux on it myself but I guess there's a real worry that a problem while changing over will leave nothing working if you haven't anyone around who knows what they're doing - and I can't see how you could be in this state if there was such a person around. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you are in France. You are not in some poor third world country. There is no excuse in France that I can think of. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a Nintendo, you can enter proxy parameters on their consoles and you have an option to skip images loading. Generally I like things using MIPS architecture even if can't do things with it.
Cheap is rather a comparative between devices that provides the same functionality with some extra and the possibility to install custom software. I don't need this except in some case like the router (there are always a way to do things in another way).
Thanks for removing the close.

2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I did some work on MIPS coding for various R3000 - R5000 type chips but there was more call elsewhere especially for ARM implementations. One of the reasons was that one could make a quite big memory saving using the ARM - which is relevant in your case! For some reason I never understood ROM tends to be quite a bit slower than RAM so people still wanted a lot of code to execute from RAM, plus downloading new code or even generating code on the fly was common. On the other hand MIPS chips had more advanced facilities before ARM so that was their big strength. Dmcq (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Aphrodite[edit]

Someone just blogged this to me: the girdle might be a throwback to Aprodite as the Sumerian Inanna as a mother-goddess and the other is a cautionary tale on the evils of adultery: After the adulterous couple were discovered and the male gods summoned (the female gods found the whole thing indelicate and stayed away), Hephaestus at first demanded the return of his bride-price from Zeus, who disclaimed any responsibility. Finally, Poseidon intervened on behalf of Ares, guaranteeing that the latter would pay an equivalent fine - which, of course, he never did. But I have a futhur question: Wasn't another use of the girdle was as a kind of celestial shield. When King Anchises unwisely boasted of having slept with the goddess, Zeus hurled a thunderbolt at him, but Aphrodite interposed her girdle and saved his life. When did this happen? And was the girdle or net were either of then made of bronze, gold, or Adamant? Venustar84 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

II think the girdle was supposed to be of gold but there's no authoritative version for any of this stuff at that level of detail - storytellers embellish their yarns as they go along! I'm sure the reference desk will get you better answers. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I have seen it happen again and again that an RfC is opened in order to get input from new or uninvolved participants, and then descends into the same shouting match between the same few people that led to it being opened. Invariably, new and uninvolved people then decide not to venture into it, and the template is removed after a month without a resolution being any closer. It is especially incumbent on the person who opens an RfC not to let that happen.

I will be quite happy to engage with you in the Inclusion of Irish flag section of the talk page – or indeed the Northern Ireland flags issue talk page – if you want. Or at least as long as I think there is something to be gained by continuing to discuss it. In answer to the specific issue that you put to Valenciano, I believe that a factual article on the flag or flags of any place is worth having, even when the place does not have any official flag. An article about conflict over a flag is also worth having, but it should have minimal overlap with the flag article. European wars of religion does not go into detailed discussion of Christian churches, and Football War does not explain the rules of football, or the organisation of the World Cup. Therefore, Flags of Northern Ireland says what it should say, and is appropriately illustrated, but Northern Ireland Flags Issue needs to be gutted, and a proper article written about the conflict over flags. Scolaire (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the issues article but you seem to have some funny idea in your mind of what the topic is if flag of Northern Ireland must display the flag of Ireland as a possible version. The RfC was not yet listed last I looked and it may well fail due to the reasons you say.We have discussed the issue in those sections and I saw absolutely no movement or readiness to change anything so I don't see what your point is. Anyway I think the talk page is a better place for discussion than here. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
My point is, simply, don't challenge every editor that doesn't agree with you. That way the RfC won't descend into an unseemly point-scoring exercise. The RfC is listed now, so why not just hold your peace, and see how it develops? As I say, I will gladly enter into discussion with you in any (other) forum. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer any discussion to be on the talk page please. Dmcq (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You said you didn't see what my point was, so I told you what my point was. The article talk page wasn't the place to do that: it doesn't add anything to the discussion there. If you don't keep trying to have the last word, I won't keep having to respond to you. Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk page. Not here. I value having everything in the open rather than people having any agreements elsewhere. I really do not wish to discuss anything to do with article content and improvement or any decisions elsewhere here. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Neither do I, as I've told you three times already. I came here only to comment on your behaviour on the article talk page. Not to attack you, but just to say that I thought it was inadvisable. I would not have posted again if you had not responded in a way that required a response. Or the second time or the third time either. There really is no need for you to say anything more. If you don't, then I won't. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I have asked you to go away from this talk page. You are banned from this page. Comply or be taken to ANI for harassment. Do not say anything here not even to say you will comply. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Take me to AN/I. I love comedy! Scolaire (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Look dude, there is no rule against you sticking around but come on. You're obviously not welcome here, comments like "Take me to ANI" are a pride issue and serve no significant constructive purpose, and there just really isn't any point in your sticking around. Why are you here? Be polite and respectful by leaving. It's not a big deal and the only reason not to is because it requires you to swallow your pride.--v/r - TP 22:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Raised at WP:ANI#Could some admin warn a person to just stay away from my talk page. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of my comment?[edit]

Hi Dmcq,

I recently commented on a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and noticed you just deleted it. What was wrong with my comment?

Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice you had added a response, The section had been added by User Talk:Hyperbaric oxygen who is a blocked sockpuppet. I think you must have added the comment in between me looking at it and just editing the page to remove the section to the end of the page. If I'd noticed you'd responded I'd have hatted the whole business instead. One of those things I should be a bit more careful about. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I just wanted to make sure that I had done nothing wrong. I'm still learning my way around WP. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That revert...[edit]

I don't quite understand the oint of that revert. I just noticed that WP:RULES redirected to that page, so I added it in. How does it interfere with Ignore allrules? Numbermaniac - T- C 00:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Many long standing editors on Wikipedia have a problem with saying the policies and guidelines are rules even if they are. The point of ignore all rules is to say there aren't any rules. If people start pointing to that saying they are rules they will just get into arguments with them. See WP:NOTLAW, those rules are supposed to just be accepted practice and subject to change by consensus.
I quite accept this is a bit of a fantasy just like the WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY which is another reference to that bit in WP:What Wikipedia is not. I hate though to think what it would be like if people were totally okay with the idea it was a bureaucracy with rules rather than people should just do what they felt was right to improve the encyclopaedia. The first paragraph of WP:POLICY describes what it should be like for most non-contentious articles, it is only if editors want to say Obama isn't American of push their thoughts about how good homeopathy is or something like that they should have problems and all that stuff becomes relevant. Dmcq (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I see. Sorry about that then. But thanks! Numbermaniac - T- C 10:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Compass and straightedge[edit]

I did a google books and I found only two instance of compass-and-straightedge in the first 100 returns when I searched with"compass-and-straightedge". Therefore I do not believe the form with the hyphens is the common name form now. Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The first one I see says "Compass Constructions: Activities for Using a Compass and Straightedge". Obviously hyphens would be incorrect in that case, so we can't count that one. The third one say "Constructions by Compass and Straightedge". Obviously in that case the hyphen would be incorrect. The fourth one says "been shown that every construction possible with compass and straightedge can be done with". Obviously in that case a hyphen would be incorrect. The seventh one says "They restricted the tools to be used for creating geometrical figures to a compass and straightedge only". Obviously a hyphen would be incorrect there. The eighth one says "the classical construction with compass and straightedge runs as follows". Again a hyphen would be incorrect. The ninth one says "Solutions to the Three Historical Problems by Compass and Straightedge". Obviously a hyphen would be incorrect there. The tenth one says "The Compass and Straightedge represent the spiritual and material aspects of Nature and Life." Again, a hyphen would be incorrect. By what means did you filter out the instances like those in which use of a hyphen would by all standards be incorrect? Did you just do that manually and retain the first hundred of the other ones? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Which ones would you actually admit as okay for a hyphen? Anyway probably better to do this on the talk page of the article. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dmcq. You have new messages at Frungi's talk page.
Message added 17:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frungi (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

sooo, if Q is countable then y not R is countable either[edit]

its bcz we got some great policy of our own, u know 93.118.212.93 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

heres a good example of what r u actually doing to me n my ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Selection_algorithm#BFPRT_Worst_Case_O.28n.29_or_Not.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.118.212.93 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You should put new discussions at the end of a talk page.
If you want to ask a question about maths then Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics is the place to go. If you want to discuss maths Wikipedia is not the right place, there are many forums on the web for such discussions but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a discussion forum. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

n pls again, what if my entire life is some american hoax that r using including heavy brain treat in order to c what happen: r u sure 4 example that progressive depth search routine cant actually solve chess, or "Karatsuba" isnt quite the beast mark, or three set paradigm isnt quite seal 7th from revelation book: y r u doing this all to me: to test me gun fire power equivalent to c if God lets u continue with ur... whateva usa doing around the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.118.212.93 (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are not well, please try and see a doctor immediately. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

wow dealing with americans is pretty much the same as dealing with my romanians here: y bother try to speak english anyway... n most important i not just enjoying life let to the real healthy guy all the progress ... ok, thank u 4 taking ur time talking to me: its the same like talking to my romanians, thnkx again 93.118.212.93 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me ?[edit]

Would you know how to prove the following formula without recourse to either beta functions, hypergeometric functions, Cauchy matrixes, Möbius inversion formula, or finite differences ?

\sum_{k = 0}^p{(-1)^k\ \frac{n}{n+k}\ C_p^k}\ =\ \frac{p!\ n!}{(p+n)!}\ =\ \frac{1}{C_{p+n}^n}\ =\ \frac{1}{C_{p+n}^p}

79.113.242.174 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Stuck a version using recursion and the binomial theorem on the maths reference page, they're pretty elementary. Dmcq (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! — 79.113.224.23 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Michael Gambon". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

wow i think uve deleted my message bcz the algo idea is too hot LOL[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bubble_sort#a_possible_useful_1_-.3E_k.2C_k_practically_any_value_1..n_data_extrapolation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.118.212.93 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

RoI Name[edit]

Fair enough on the edit. I reverted it as it seemed like a new user who hadn't read further. I have no issues with it being mentioned at least briefly in the lead. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I think in fact I shouldn't have reverted you but tried to phrase the business better as there is a bit of a problem which could d with solving. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Either way, it's now a massive can of worms through no fault of ours. Canterbury Tail talk 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

City of Culture[edit]

No its the city, stylised through-out the article to the City of Cultures style. "UK City of Culture is a designation given to a city in the United Kingdom.....The inaugural holder of the award will be .....It was announced in July 2010 that Derry|Derry/Londonderry would be UK City of Culture". My emphisis', one with wiki brackets removed for point. From your edit summary "This is talking about the organisation and event not the city", which its not the event its the city, its being pipelinked to the city, and is refering to the city. Murry1975 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Derry~Londonderry won the competition to be City of Culture 2013. The Culture Company 2013 do allow people to use Derry, Londonderry or Doire if they really must but the brand is Derry~Londonderry and as per IMOS "Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry orLondonderry, use that name for the entity; " Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you show where this entity exists and says link to the city? Murry1975 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Culture Company 2013 and The Brand Dmcq (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"headquartered at Ebrington in Derry~Londonderry" and "The Parade Ground Ebrington Square Derry~Londonderry BT47 6JE". Its their style to use Derry~Londonderry. The entity is Culture Company 2013 Ltd. Murry1975 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes that's true they use their brand for everything they can even when not wholly appropriate. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you seem to be saying that the brand is simply a style. That's not true. It is the brand and used in the logo. The company is a separate entity. Compare to London 2012 for instance which you could be sued for misusing. Dmcq (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Any Thoughts ?[edit]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2013 July 6#Convergence and Closed Form Expression. — 79.113.213.214 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Does telling an ed to "Feck off" violate WP:Uncivolity? If you thought I was badgering,a trip to WP:THIRD would have demonstrated annoyance and desire to collaborate despite disagreement. Now I just expect you to be obstructionist. Was that the outcome you hoped for? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Bugger off to WP:ANI if you wish to complain. Dmcq (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

successive differences question on math desk in July[edit]

Hi thanks for your help on this question. If you're interested, i found the limit ratio to be e^(1/e) by fiddling with it symbolically, which is also close to the values of the terms up to n=11. e^(1/e) is slightly less than agm(1,2)._Rich Peterson 170.170.59.138 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Music of Ireland[edit]

Hello Dmcq, I have added some text to the section you created here. Although I am aware of the fact that you are semi-retired, I'd be interested in co-operating with you on any changes that would help ameliorate the article. In summary, I am happy to do the work required and would appreciate the endorsement of a few editors such as yourself. Thank you for your consideration. With kind regards; Patrick. Pdebee (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not at all interested in music. I was mainly interested in having the very long lists of musicians in the Ireland article removed or cut down to something that had some sort of reason to it but I didn't want to remove the names entirely so I moved them to the linked article. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bell curve image[edit]

Hi, Dmcq, thanks for putting the new bell curve image,[2] which it appears you created just yesterday, in the Intelligence quotient article. That is a better and more informative image than some other bell curve images I have seen in that article and related articles over the year, much in the same format and appearance as some of the images I have seen in the professional literature. I appreciate your work in putting that in wikispace and in the particular article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

RD[edit]

Where do questions about Wikipedia go in the RD? 78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are asking about how to use Wikipedia then the help desk is the place to go, see 'Help' in the list on the left of the page. If you are asking general questions about Wikipedia the Miscellaneous reference desk is probably the best. I do not understand what you mean by "Would these questions apply to the whole world, or just me?" You need to be clear about what you are asking. We do not know you personally, we can only answer a question as written. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know it meant what part of the world you're in. So. It should be that question you didn't understand was unneccessary, if "Tell us what part of the world your question applies to" means what part of the world you're in. For a possible better explanation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Would_these_questions_apply_to_the_whole_world.2C_or_just_me.3F
You should said you were referring to the guideline. Those were things for people to try and remember when asking a question so they don't put in questions like "How do I apply for social security?" without saying what country they're in. You can see the problem with you asking a question about something but not saying what you were talking about. Dmcq (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, why are you so active if it says you're semi-retired and no longer very active on your talk-page? 78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I used to be much more active. Dmcq (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Michael Jackson.

Wood & Wood flooring[edit]

Hello, sorry for my format mistake, you´re right,

Main article: Wood flooring

, fixing it, thx --Euroescritor (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already fixed it for floor, I sometimes do gnomish tasks like that! Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I¨m also thinking about creating a new category ( Wood Flooring ), but i guess i´ll have to do some research first, doesn´t look easy thing...thx for format support--Euroescritor (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is quite easy actually. One just uses the name as a a category and then click on the red link to put some basics in. DO an edit on a category to see what is needed, mostly just a link to another category to put it in. However looking in category:Floors I don't see all that many entries that one would put into a wood flooring category so I'm not sure it is worth setting one up. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i don´t understand the copyright issue, i haven´t implemented the changes from the site you´ve mention. We´ll have to talk a bit better this issue, greetings.--Euroescritor (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Stupid mistake on my part, my apologies. I have reinstated the changes. The source was in fact just moved around bit and the outside source had copied an old version of Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, with more people like you and i, we´ll have a better Wiki ;)--Euroescritor (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WTF??[edit]

I noticed you replied to this editor and his comment. I made similar points in the last poll on naming (mainly Austrailia- because the continent land mass isnt the same as the country landmass). Quite odd to read something like that from somene else! Murry1975 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

People don't distinguish much between continental Australia and the country, and where there is a difference people would normally exclude bits of the continent. So Australia referring to the country is right as the main article. That argument just doesn't translate to Ireland though. Wikipedia is not in the main based on logic, it is based on sources. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

indent?[edit]

Hi Dmcq, at the conspiracy talk page, I think you were replying to me, but if so I suggest you add a missing indent to your remark and my reply to help others follow the talk. Thanks, happy new year, etc. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No I was saying his reading of what it said was correct and how it should be. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, in that case... please consider modifying your comment because the word "that" is ambiguous... does it refer to my remark or someone else's? I know the answer due to this thread, but at the talk page thread iut is confusing what you mean. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Indenting is supposed to show what something refers to. I'll try to be more explicit. Dmcq (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for tweaking the comment; all is clear now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

CONLEVEL[edit]

Re:[3]"You really think so few people have looked at this question that it may violate WP:CONLEVEL?"

The number of editors is irrelevant. Just look at the AfD (or the talk page, or any past AfDs). The editors' first and most convincing response is most always a variation on "we already discussed that and consensus is...". My concern is that these are really the only answers given, while the relevant policies, guidelines, and broader consensus is being ignored.

Re: "I'll not enquire about all the rest of the abbreviations but I would point out that scattergunning links like that is not enlightening."

The proper response is to ask for clarification, following WP:DR and WP:FOC. I'm sure you noted that the links have all been brought up earlier, so if nothing else they were added to provide reference to the concerns with which I agree. The two which had not been mentioned, FRINGE and POVFORK, are the basis for the details I gave. (FRINGE has been mentioned since). --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth discussing anything with you when you quote consensus and then say the number of editors is irrelevant so just go away please. Dmcq (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point. You think consensus is a vote. It is not. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I said to go away. Please do so. Do not write here again unless you have something more useful to say. The place to have written anything about this was at the AfD. Do not write here disagreeing with that, just go away. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
(humor) Maybe that should have been "knot" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

IDIDNTHEARTHAT[edit]

Multiple editors have brought up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with regard to the dispute resolution attempts for List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

There's a very simple way to avoid such problems: Follow WP:TALK, ask questions, refer to relevant policies/guidelines, and demonstrate that you've read what others' have written. --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Most reasons in Wikipedia can be explained simply, perhaps you are doing something wrong? A couple of straightforward well thought out reasons is better for getting a point across than pointing to a long history of rambling dissent without good explanations. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You're not addressing the concerns. This appears to be a pattern. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, maybe you should take it down a notch. I know I should have. We only just heard about List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming at the recent FTN thread, and should be taking some time to become familiar with the history before speaking darkly about patterns of misconduct from editors whose work we barely know. Guy Macon has a point in his comments in that FTN thread. To the extent that "uneasy truces" exist on any page, long-time participants are likely to feel "poked" when other editors show up and break that truce, no matter how well-intentioned or informed the latter (believe they) are. Similar logic exists behind WP:DTR, if that makes sense. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
"We only just heard about" No, that would be you. See the discussion immediately above on CONLEVEL for a start. It is an aside from the most recent AfD.
"long-time participants are likely to feel "poked"" I agree. It's covered in WP:DR, WP:CON and WP:OWN. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, I seem to be prone to those lately... :-P I do think you and Guy Macon both have made reasonable points in the FTN thread. Happy editing... --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to me) 22:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That discussion at FTN is a good illustration of why I think it is dysfunctional. A bunch of like minded people discussing things away from the talk page of an article and then descending in force and ignoring others at the article talk page. Descending as a mob on climate change articles doesn't work because there are enough other people in Wikipedia looking after them but it is extremely bad practice in my mind doing it to less popular articles - especially as the editors on that noticeboard do not and have an objection to putting a notice on the talk page of articles when they start to discuss them and so exclude the people developing the articles from their discussions. The in-group nature of the noticeboard is I feel adhorrent to the spirit of Wikipedia, you don't get it on any other noticeboard I've seen. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I think FTN is fine in principle since NPOV = what the science says. In practice, it's not always handled well: sometimes it verges on meatpuppetry, and the finer points of demarcation are sometimes glossed over, and I agree that effectively forking the article talk page to FTN isn't a good idea. But then, nothing on WP is always handled well. Anyway, on balance, I've come to agree with Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Proposal. --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to me) 13:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I see you have put your assent to being a meatpuppet there instead of discussing at the talk page of the article. So could you just shove off with Ronz and not bother my talk page again thank you, I really don't need to have you and Ronz stick stuff on my personal page. Don't either of you come back unless it is really necessary for some reason. I am happy to discuss article topics on the article talk page but I'm not happy to be harassed about them on my talk page. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

[4] While it's not clear what it is you're trying to communicate, the battleground mentality is clear enough. Please note WP:BATTLE violations are subject to arbitration enforcement. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just go off to ANI instead of threatening me on my talk page if you think you have some case. Or better why not just state your case why you want to delete part of the article on its talk page. Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Global warming list[edit]

I'm sorry for being a dick (thread now closed) at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I shouldn't have jumped in without taking the time to figure out what was going on, and I should have addressed "spirit" of your objections rather than going on at length about the "letter". To do that, and then accuse you of WP:IDHT and WP:TE, was pretty hypocritical. Hopefully others who come to the article via this thread at WP:FTN won't make similar mistakes, and won't pile on . Editor Guy Macon expressed some cautions in that thread that make a good deal of sense.

On content: from what I've read at talk, I like the idea of indicating, for each scientist on the list, the specifics of their position relative to the IPCC consensus: where they diverge from it, what they criticize. I think it also makes sense to indicate each scientists' specialty relative to the field and their criticisms. That makes more sense, imo, than radically depopulating the list.

Again, I'm sorry for the disruption and unpleasantness. WP isn't going to work if editors aren't collegial. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see what on earth you're apologising for, I think what you said was quite reasonable. There wouldn't be much point in discussions if everyone knew everything and agreed with everyone else in their interpretation! Anyway de nada or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Really?! I guess it's good to be one's own harshest critic, within reason. And good not to be easily offended on WP; well done. It was a poor edit, and I went on too long about it on talk, but the main thing was "speaking darkly about patterns of misconduct from editors whose work we barely know". That's just wrong, and I hope that sort of piling-on isn't occurring. --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to me) 13:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I see from above that you and Ronz both have come from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I'm afraid I think that board is a bit dysfunctional full of people who think having an article about something is promoting it and they should all be removed from their clean scientific encyclopaedia. A bit like a reverse Conservapedia. Um, I think I've just used up my rant for the day. Dmcq (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

2002[edit]

I don't want to add any more to that thread, so I'll answer you here, if that's OK.

"The ccTLD '.ie' used to be administered by a department within the UCD and is now run by IE Domaind Registry Ltd. In January 2002 it introduced a set of rule changes which relaxed the rules for obtaining a .ie registration, including the following: (a) generic names are now allowed; (b) domains of two characters are allowed (cannot be only two letters); (c) you must still have a real and substantial connection with Ireland, but now this is referable to the 32 counties, therefore Northern Ireland clients can now register .ie in addition to .co.uk which was not possible before;"

Information Technology Law: Professional Practice Guide, Law Society of Ireland, 2004

--Tóraí (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a look up the policies on Wayback and it seems you are right to a large degree. After 2002 a substantial connection with Ireland was explicitly written as meaning the whole island and the requirements for companies to do business in the Republic removed. In fact before 2002 the policy looked to me like it would stop a foreigner in ROI registering but would allow a person born in NI to which was rather silly, after that anyone with a correspondence address on the island could register a domain. They must have had to use their discretion a lot, but then again it was expensive and they didn't have many registering. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please use USER template[edit]

Hi D, I'm not mad or anything, but I was surprised to learn I'd been referenced in the AE action without being pinged. Had I known, I likely would not have said anything anyway, so no harm done. In the future, you're welcome (of course) to mention me as often as you like, but if you do so - especially in a dispute resolution or enforcement proceeding - please alert me! The easiest way is via the user template in your post, by just refering to me by typing {{User|NewsAndEventsGuy}}. Thanks, carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven'used the user template before. I see it puts talk-contribs after it, is that what you really want when I reference your name or was it just in this context? Or is there some other template which is better? Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyway you want to let me know is OK by me Dmcq (talk · contribs), but it sure is easy to do the USER thing (like I just did for demo purposes). I do it all the time and no one has complained, and a few have thanked me. Anyway, apology accepted no harm done. Cheerios, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks[edit]

I'm sorry that I upset you so, especially so soon after the AE discussion. I too am frustrated how the talk page discussions get steered far off topic.

Thanks for withdrawing the ANI discussion. I'm hoping we can find some solution to the problems.

As for the topics you brought up, I am not seeing any disagreement that we need to identify and incorporate the reasons for the article topic being notable.

I think TRPoD jumped ahead in the discussion, making lots of assumptions that are not clear and where there's likely to be strong disagreement. Should we take steps back to address your concerns and/or assumptions made as the discussion progressed? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know which, if any, of the proposed notability sources anybody and everybody has actually read? I quit watching the page, because I have not read any of them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe I have said this before starting when you said that the number of people who were looking at that page was insufficient to establish a consensus and twice again when you started plastering a whole lot of notices about IDIDNTHEARTHAT and FOC and threatening with AE, but I'll repeat it again, please do not put anything on my talk page unless you have to. Dmcq (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Dope slap, I should have said in my comment that I'd like to know those things, but at the article talk page where they are relevant. Sorry to butt in Dmcq. I'm leaving now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes thanks that's the right pl;ace for that. Dmcq (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Regarding this [5]: I never suggested that the links were unauthentic, but is there a specific reason to override WP:ELPOINTS and include external links in the main body of the article? Smtchahal (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And I never said that their authenticity was a reason for keeping them. They are the main subjects in articles in reliabe sources and are linked for that reason. They are not external links, they are links to the primary sources cite by the reliable sources. See WP:CITE not WP:EL Dmcq (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:CITE, citations are (basically) what you get when you place <ref>...</ref> tags in the body of an article and {{reflist}} (or <references />) in a separate section, so that they get listed. This, however, does not use external links in the main body of the article, something governed by WP:EL, not WP:CITE. Another type of citations, called parenthetical referencing, also does not use external links directly in the main body. I'm not sure how you could call these citations. Smtchahal (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry yes I see the links have been stuck directly into the mainline text, that shouldn't have been done okay, they should have been in refs if anything. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_of_talk_page_by_DHeyward[edit]

You are an extremely accomplished editor, and have been around long enough to know it is a desirable practice to discuss concerns with an editor on their talk page before bring a complaint to ANI. I don't see evidence you did that (I glanced at the history to see if it happened and had been removed, please let me know if I missed it, which would change everything.) My view is that User:DHeyward has been active on that thread, but not what I would call disruptive.

My concern is that the ANI thread is becoming an extension of the Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming discussion, rather than a discussion of conduct. I see you are asking for uninvolved admin action, but I would expect that an admin would look for evidence you have discussed it on their talk page first. I would like to archive the discussion as premature, but I am hesitant to do so given your last statement, because that might be perceived as an improper action by myself. However, if you were to agree, then it would not be a problem. My suggestion is to make open a dialogue on their talk page, which might go better outside the glare of that heavily trafficked talk page, and if that is unproductive, it would simultaneously satisfy our process need for such a discussion, and might more clearly identify problems. Of course, my real hope is that you might work things out. Yes, I can dream.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I thought something similar. Not that I expect it would result in progress from my experience with that ed, just that working the way up the DR ladder in such cases is always desirable. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I've found the experience of having another of them on this talkpage unpleasant and my experience of DHeyward does not fill me with any confidence that talking with them is a good use of time for either of us. The talk page is supposed to be under discretionary sanctions, is it really necessary that people go through the whole DR process? Have the admins just abandoned it? For all I know some of those people are potential good editors and just need to be shown that there's some discipline and order in Wikipedia rather than a yah boo forum where any tactic to exhaust and drive out the opposition is okay provided they don't use four letter words. An uninvolved admin should be looking at it every so often and handing out temporarily blocks for any messing around they see. Dmcq (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well isn't it amazing what having an outstanding AN/I can do, editors are interacting in a reasonable fashion at the moment on the talk page. It shows it is possible. Perhaps just discretionary sanctions notification to the various people involved is what is called for at the moment but it would be nice to have someone come around every so often as I get the feeling it'll be back to the normal business in a weeks time. Dmcq (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request at Robot[edit]

I was just about to deny the request at Talk:Robot but by the time I got back to check, you had agreed it! I believe that the original sentence

The possibility of robot autonomy and potential repercussions has been addressed in fiction and may be a realistic concern in the future.

would be more accurately and more pedantically written as

The possibility of robot autonomy and of the potential repercussions associated with autonomy has been addressed in fiction and may be a realistic concern in the future.

In this sentence The possibility of robot autonomy and of the potential repercussions associated with autonomy is a compound singular subject which should take has, and not a plural subject which would have taken have. Before I think about reverting, I would welcome your thoughts. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a difficult one. I changed it based on the repercussions also being dealt with rather than being just a single possibility. I also like to encourage editing if not too wrong :) So my long form was:
The possibility of robot autonomy and the possibility of potential repercussions associated with autonomy have been addressed in fiction, and may be a realistic concern in the future.
So I really should have said 'possibilities' but that doesn't read too well either. I don't have strong feelings on the subject. Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Exponentiation[edit]

Dmcq, standard mathematical practice is not OR. If a claim (such as "leads to contradictions") is not substantiated by evidence, it is not OR to point that out. We will probably not agree on this, we should probably take this matter to someone who can decide such matters. MvH (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)MvH

Get consensus on the talk page, it has no citation and can be removed immediately per WP:V. This sort of messing around has caused immense trouble in that article. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Lets take the matter to someone who can decide wikipedia rules. You can present my case as follows: "A cited published claim can be questioned in a footnote without violating the OR rule if that claim is considered wrong or misleading by the majority (according to the sci.math.faq) of working mathematicians". MvH (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)MvH
The talk page is there for you to get consensus for inclusion of what you say and there is a WP:DISPUTE process if you disagree with that or you can't get some consensus there. You don't need everyone to agree for a consensus but you most certainly should not be pushing your views on a controversial topic without consensus. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Plus read WP:BRD about bold, revert, discuss. Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I had a discussion with Quondum, he agreed that one of these quotes was misleading. A 100% consensus is not possible. I did not delete or change any of the main text, all I did is add a footnote. If a book claims to have demonstrated something (and not a small thing, namely: a contradiction in math!), and research mathematicians believe that the claim has not been demonstrated, it should be possible to simply say that in a footnote. Lets take the matter to someone higher up, I'll accept whatever comes out without hard feelings. MvH (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)MvH
Please look at WP:V. You shouldn't be sticking stuff in like that without a citation. It will be removed eventually if it doesn't have a citation. Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I had a similar situation a little while ago, where the history section on a certain math problem said the problem was first solved in paper [P]. I read paper [P], and concluded that it had only partially solved the problem. I changed the history section accordingly. Would such action count as OR? Could the act of reading a paper, and checking the claim made about it, be considered OR? I did not think I was doing anything original other than simply reporting what is actually written in that paper. Likewise, if a book claims that 0^0=1 leads to a contradiction, and gives no example of an accepted theorem in mathematics that actually contradicts 0^0=1, is it OR to add that as a footnote to that claim? MvH (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)MvH
If there is an error in a book and it is cited then the fix should be properly agreed on the talk page. I had a problem a while ago with a citation to one of SChaums books where the author had made an error and a person kept trying to insert the error into the article. It took some effort and agreement from other editors to remove the error but that just involved removing a citation rather than sticking in my own thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
But what about a sentence that is ambiguous? A sentence that implies something to many readers, without really claiming it? The word "problematic" in that sentence is problematic indeed. It suggest to the reader that there are theorems where things go wrong, without really saying that, and this ambiguity is then used to relieve oneself from the burden of having to give an example of an actual theorem where things go wrong. The issue is to follow the strict rules of math and to disallow the use of ambiguity. MvH (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)MvH
Please put any arguments you have justifying your edit onto the talk page of the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Attempt at consistent criteria[edit]

Sorry that you are upset at my attempts to find some consistent criteria. I've tried to find some basis for the material, and none exists that I can find. I've tried to get editors to offer criteria, and there's been one response which I've tried to follow. I've offered suggestions, and they've been ignored.

By going ahead and trying to change the content to the one response, I'd hoped editors might focus on the content. Instead you declare it "disruptive behaviour". What would you add to the summary of the situation? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I ask you yet again to stay away from my talk page and just discuss matters on the talk of the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I assume editors are here to collaborate and I use their talk pages with that assumption.
As you are not willing to discuss the matter per WP:DR, I'll simply ignore it as something made in the heat of the moment. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You have been repeatedly told you are not welcome on my talk page. Stay away. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry. No offense was meant. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You are not welcome here. Go away. Do not write here unless required to by policy. Just stop. Don't do it. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Magnets and solenoids[edit]

Hi Dmcq,

Regarding this. What do you mean by "using a tension wire to get more length"? Having the colenoid somewhere else, not using precious space would be really nice, but that sounds like a very expensive option. Do you happen to have an example?Joepnl (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You should ask questions on the reference desk and as said before it is a solenoid not a colenoid. You seemed to want to save space at the side where you could put something that pushed, I was simply saying you can put in the spring without the solenoid and attach a cord to the object to pull it a cord can always be put around a pulley and the solenoid put somewhere else. Dmcq (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. Sorry about the copy-pasted "colenoid" which is kind of stupid after spending a month playing around with them. We tried the cord idea, but the extra friction needs a much stronger solenoid (+extra parts +montage). I'll stick to the ref desk in the future. Joepnl (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism[edit]

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Image removal on Standard Deviation[edit]

this is the incorrect image on the article.

In regards to your revert, the image I removed on Standard Deviation is incorrect. The discussion the dubious tag referred to is located at Talk:Standard deviation/Archive 2#Example of two sample populations.

First of all, the axes do not make sense, this is binned data, but a continuous curve is drawn. If we ignore that for a moment, we will notice the average of the red distribution is can clearly not be 100. Why? From the definition of the average \bar{x} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_1^N x_i implies that:

\begin{align}
0 = \sum_1^N (x_i-\bar{x})\\
0 = \sum_{x_i - \bar{x} < 0} \left( x_i-\bar{x} \right) + \sum_{x_i - \bar{x} > 0} \left( x_i-\bar{x} \right) \\
\sum_{x_i - \bar{x} < 0} \left( x_i-\bar{x} \right) = \sum_{x_i - \bar{x} > 0} \left( \bar{x} - x_i \right) 
\end{align}

In other words, the moment of the right and left sides of the distribution are equal. This is clearly untrue, because the left side of the red curve is greater than the right side of the red curve for every distance from 100.

Based on the text on the file page, the image is a plot of a sample from a particular distribution - but it does not itself have that same distribution, which is what the caption on the article says.

Prodego talk 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A sample need not have the same mean as the population it is drawn from. For example on [6] you can see a sample of 1000 from a normal distribution which has the mode at one side like that. However I must admit looking at the distributions in that picture I don't believe they actually did take 1000 sample of each. I did not read the description to see they said they had sampled that many and it does not look like as close to a normal distribution as people reading the article might expect. So yes it does fail to some extent the test of images that they should look like what they illustrate - that's irrespective of whether they actually are correct or not. If you feel you must remove it then go ahead, I can't see a better image in commons. Dmcq (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Right - I'm saying that that sample does not have a mean of 100, and the article seems to be saying that that sample has a mean of 100. Prodego talk 21:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay I've reworded it to make it a bit more believable - changed from 'Example of two sample populations' to 'Example of samples from two populations'. Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop it now[edit]

Either you show a diff where I asked for anyone to interpret research, or stop saying that I did. DuncanHill (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC) I had thought you were just confused, but you are repeatedly claiming that I asked for something which I did not. Why are you doing that? DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I showed the diff. You don't accept asking for the results of the research is interpretation. How is someone supposed to give you the results without interpretation of what the authors say unless they just copy the paper? Why ask for the results anyway if you were going to research it? Now don't pester me on my talk page - the discussion is at the talk page of the reference desk. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
One can give results without interpreting them. Asking for results is just that, asking for results. Not for what to do with the results! It is your repeated failure to justify your accusations there that made me come here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the wrong place, go away. Dmcq (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem editor[edit]

Do you think that editor is overdue for a RfC? Apart from disrupting History of sustainability, he has been disrupting Tragedy of the commons and Mediterranean Sea. An admin has suggested taking him to arbitration, but an RfC is usually the stepping stone to arbitration. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with scientific sources, less with me. Serten (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
He's tried doing that sort of thing to lots of articles. It is very disruptive. The way he tries to claim scientific credentials on one hand and talks about scientists as techies also annoys me. He dismisses consensus and ignores OR about only relevant citations and misquotes things badly. He 'doesn't suffer fools gladly" so a right horrible mess.
I wish there was a way of getting some reform as I like to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia, and especially in fact if I disagree with their views as I see this as enriching Wikipedia with diversity. I am taking the approach of not going in for arguments and using a consensus against them to just remove their stuff - basically WP:Deny recognition as their big contributions don't get in and they don't get to argue much. They probably do have some good points sometimes which can be incorporated, if we afterwards have a look for such bits and do something about them perhaps they will learn that cooperative editing is more effective and stop seeing everyone else as a stupid obstacle to be crushed by power of endless arguments and edit wars.
I'm not altogether hopeful though that they are reformable. So I'm a bit reluctant about an RfC but if others think it has got to that stage I would join it. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with enriching Wikipedia with diversity, but there are limits. Consider his last comment on the article you are trying to protect. There is too big a disconnect with reality. He rides roughshod over Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then claims he adheres to them and you don't. He seems to have about the same level of understanding science as a creationist. In your case he avoids relevant issues by talking gibberish. In my case he avoids relevant issues by attacking me for holding weird views, views which he makes up himself and which have nothing to do with what I think. I can be patient with editors who are problematic but show signs there is something useful to work with. But I don't see that happening here. Just a high maintenance editor who will sink a lot of your time and leave very little in return. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not really trying to protect it as such as it could do with some fixes! Just the ones proposed are in total far worse. It is interesting the comments about Hardin, the way that they think the science is automatically discredited if they don't like what it says or the person saying it has some uncomfortable views or says something non PC in an area they have little expertise in. Personally I have a bit of sympathy for a person from Nigeria who said modern medicine is a curse for his land - their population has gone up by a factor of over 4 since 1950. Not that I'd want to abandon it myself but I know inside that the world is already grossly overcrowded. A bit of admin help in saying what to do might not come amiss. Dmcq (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Admin support would be great. It depends on the admin and it does happen at times. But currently the admin system is geared more to obstructing and punishing content builders than facilitating them. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Goodness, the material summarized here is quite interesting. A notion like "I am taking the approach of not going in for arguments and using a consensus against them to just remove their stuff" is not at all enriching Wikipedia. Youre mere protecting a mediocre status quo and denying scientific evidence. Good luck with finding "the right admin". In the meanwhile I keep on content building. Serten (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand about you thinking what you believe in is important and should be put prominently to the world. But having everyone doing that rather than just saying what the literature says by due weight would degrade Wikipedia and you would find it just another POV pushing forum when you looked at something else that you didn't have strong feelings about. That is why it is important to go by WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, there is only one thing that resolves the problems with Serten: Kick him out of wikipedia. This is harsh and maybe even unfair, but it is the only thing that helps this project. Whatever you do, whatever you try, nothing will help except of banning him from editing. If not, he will use wikipedia as his own blog, spamming his personal opinion in every article he finds, doing that with vigor and letting nobody stop him. He will edit-war, he will star personal attacks, he will try to scare away other users and he surely will not stop. And he will use every means to reach his goal, especially "missunderstanding" his sources.
Have you ever wondered why he never cites the page numbers? Don't make the mistake and believe him that this is just by accident, it isn't. He reads a book, remembers just what he wants to remember and then cites thing he assumes to have read, but which aren't in teh books. He makes claims up, and pretents that these claims are in his source. Who can check them? All of them? No one can, especially when they are in German. Have you ever wondered why he never cites the page numbers? And even refuses most of the times when you promt him to do? Its because no one shall be able to check his claims, which are often made up out of nothing. If you don't know the book you have no chance.
Don't let him fool you. In the German Wikipedia he was removed all of his user rights due to manipulating sources several times. He was banned a few tens, mostly because of edit-wars and personal attacks [7] as was his former account Polentario [8]. There is abolutely no sign of changing his behavior. This user is a pov-warrior with a political agenda and a lot of overconfindence. There is no way of properly working together with him. Ban him, or he WILL destroy your articles. 84.170.187.90 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

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 [9] 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)

Agenda[edit]

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)

AN/I[edit]

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)