User talk:Cwmacdougall

ARBCC

Hi, Per WP:DISRUPT, failure to answer simple direct questions is indicative of disruptive editing, and that is something which is expressly prohibited by the arbitrators. In the arbs' WP:ARBCC ruling, they placed all climate articles "broadly construed" under discretionary sanctions. This edit of yours just repeats your earlier naked assertion that there is a dispute. Will you please, at the article talk page, tell us the substance of the dispute and the reliable sources on which you base your reasoning? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

How dare you make such an accusation of disruptive editing? An editor tried to suppress discussion on a talk page by collapsing the discussion on false premises. I rightly pointed this out! And if you want to continue this discussion, do so on the article talk page. cwmacdougall 1:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

NewsGuy deleted from his talk page the following, as is his right, so I will repost here:

Regarding your ridiculous unfounded complaint about me, on Christmas Morning you asked for sources. I provided them on Boxing day. I don't think your complaint has a leg to stand on, especially as we are discussing my "I agree" comment on the Talk page, not the article itself, and moreover a comment which was mainly complaining of your collapsing of the article on false grounds. Re my complaint about you, the note on your talk page is a warning, and I understand we are supposed to warn, and give an opportunity for reform, before filing formal complaints. cwmacdougall 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

United Empire Loyalist

Why did you revert my edit of United Empire Loyalist, in which I simply copied a more accurate translation elsewhere in the article to an earlier position? Your version is definitely wrong, as the article is now inconsistent, so if you had enough reason to dislike my addition, you should at least alter the other place where it occurs. But "hope restored" is definitely wrong anyway; "spem" is in the accusative and "reduxit" does not mean "restored" but "he/she/it restored", or more literally "he/she/it led back". PMLawrence (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've since changed it in the latter place too, so it's now consistent. It may be slightly more literal, but it is much worse English. cwmacdougall 10:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Global warming

Your recent editing history at Global warming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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

Recently we had an EW at a climate page article, and in the Monday morning debrief some who probably know more than me about enforcement issues said the proper forum for an article under discretionary sanctions under an Arb ruling would be at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Beats me which is the preferred venue, but this user already knows about ARBCC so notice shouldn't be an issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

TPX thinks I'm involved in an edit war? How do I prove POV and insert a POV tag, except as I've done it? The edit warriors are those like NewsAndEventsGuy refusing to engage on the talk page, even deleting and hiding contrary views... cwmacdougall 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to reboot the conversation, raising concerns individually, so editors can fully address them in a manner you find satisfactory. Begin by highlighting all references you say are substandard and can be improved, and proceed from there. Once the issue has been sorted, you can move to the next problem. — TPX 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I agree that rebooting, with a short summary of my position would make sense. I propose doing that when I have time to revisit the issue. cwmacdougall 13:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)