User talk:Dmcq/Archive 8

Proofs on Wikipedia
Dear Dmcq, Never have I known that it was not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide proofs. Because there were some, I thought it would be nice to give one using differential equations as well. The calculus one is a bit vague in my humble opinion. That is why I added one from my own work (I have never searched for those proofs explicitly, by the way). But why is it, then, that those proofs are not to be deleted? Or are 2 (as a maximum?) allowed. Just to give the reader more insight in the topic? Again, thanks for having notified me. I did not violate guidelines on purpose. Kind regards, Svdongen (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidelines about proofs aren't definitive, see WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. The overall maths style guide isWP:MOSMATH. Basically we should not normally include proofs unless they are very short and help the narrative or they are notable in their own right. And even then for anything long just the main points are given rather than anything formal. And proofs should always cite a place where people can look up the definitive article. The Euler's formula article has had a number of proofs being stuck in and it has only just been reduced to three after struggles with people desperate to keep thir own workings in Wikipedia. The ones there are all cited and it is agreed the proof of that formula is notable though I'm not sure all of the proofs there should be there. I'm pretty definite we don't need yet more proofs stuck in. If you look at the talk page Talk:Euler's formula you'll see people trying to stick other proofs in. People putting in their own proofs is called WP:Original research on Wikipedia and is definitely not wanted. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you. I did not see the talk page, but now I have and saw a lot of attempts were made. However, I would suppose it would not be a problem to remove the 'by calculus' proof because it is not very clear and not as good as other proofs available. Rather would I substitute this by emptiness. Thank you for your quick response. I have learnt a lot this week and I'll mind this the rest of my life :).Svdongen (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Header. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may beblocked from editing. You added the text, I reverted, as per WP:BRD take this to the discussion page. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * So consensus is fine sometimes if you are asking for it but you are all in favour of discussing things behind peoples backs? Fine idea of collaborative editing you have. Dmcq (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have stood up for not informing editors about discussions. One cannot get collaborative editing and consensus if you discuss things behind editors backs. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the noticeboards is to inform other editors about issues with a topic, it is expected that those editors will contribute by providing their opinions or by contributing to the article, neither of these things require this notification, this applies to pretty much any content noticeboard. Consensus is still established on the respective talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the purpose of the noticeboards. However I believe what you are supporting is biased partisan stealth WP:canvassing. I see no point in this discussion here with you when there is one on the noticeboard. I believe it was you who was complaining lest there be a separate discussion elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Querying a noticeboard is not canvassing. I suggest you stop characterizing it as such. If you think a user is canvassing, take it to an appropriate administrators noticeboard. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing it at the fringe noticeboard first as I should. See previous reply about what you wanted. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You started this very conversation here. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You did with posting your notice here now stop wasting my time with your silliness. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Minus signs
Hi there! I verified my own edits you told me about in the article Plus and minus signs, but can't see why you think it's not OK: If the last point is the only one to be considered as bad edit on this Wikipedia article, why revert back all my edits to much complicated and unnecessary coding, instead of just changing this one? Hoping you’ll understand I just didn’t do silly search&replace, I patiently awaits clarification. Cheers! — SGC.Alex (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I carefully replaced + and − by the corresponding ⁺ and ⁻ Unicode characters which give the same aspect, at least on my browser (Chromium).
 * 2) About the minus sign transcribed by, I used the unicode “−” sign but not hyphens.
 * 3) As I read somewhere, but can’t find where anymore in the moment, the difference between 5 − 3 and 5 + (-3) [compare the lengths and meaning] is to be shown using hyphens and minus signs.


 * Those subscript letters do seem to depend on the font okay, they were only raised a little on mine compared to the superscripted signs, but when I cut and pasted to word they became much smaller than superscripting the signs. I must admit to some misgivings about using unicode generally rather than for the obvious things shown in the editing toolbar for a couple of reasons, browser support like in this case (if times is used it replaces those characters with MS Michio and they get a bit unreadable on the screen), accessibility in how well are such characters read out by readers for the blind, and editors coming along like me who don't easily spot the difference in the characters and make a mistake. I had a look around to see if there was anything talking about accessibity and how good the support was for unicode but couldn't see anything, perhaps that is okay. I think I'll ask on the accessibility project and see if that is generally fine now - after all if Unicode can be supported having the characters in text isn't such a big job. It may be just that I've been used to browsers having really crappy support of Unicode. I've never heard of people using minus and hyphen at the same time like you say. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just found Manual of Style/Accessibility which has it a bit down on unicode. I'll ask anyway as that might be a bit old.Dmcq (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay I've asked a question about it at WT:Accessibility Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the research on your part. I look forward to the answer given by the WP Accessibility team. — SGC.Alex (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay will do, I've fixed the link to the discussion. I'm wondering if I should really have gone to the help desk instead but I'll give that talk page a day. Dmcq (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems they want us to use ascii and  unless we should obviously be using unicode. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping me up-to-date! — SGC.Alex (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm interested too, I've asked for another opinion atHelp_desk and tried to phrase it as neutrally as possible.Dmcq (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring
FYI. 86.** IP (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Objection to decision
A simple look at the history shows there is a (slow) edit war. Since March 15 there were at least 7 reverts/undoings between three different users. Page protection is used instead of blocking; would you have preferred I looked at the complaint with a per-determination of blocking one or more users? Anyhow, clear edit war - as with all disputes, discuss on talk page and/or pursue alternate methods of dispute resolution. If a consensus is reached prior to the page unprotecting, or if you wish another administrator review the unprotection request, feel free to place a request atthe relevant page. Otherwise, if no consensus is reached, and edit/revert/undo warring resume after the protection expires, that will be dealt with as well. Likely by another period of page protection. But possibly blocking. Lets try to avoid all of that. -Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have conveyed my low opinion of this admins decision on their talkpage. Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was an edit war. Yes, slow moving.  But still an edit war.  There are ways to appeal my decision as you know.  You are hardly in a neutral position, however.  I am, as I only came across this request at RFPP.  I'll take your advice on blocking into account in the future, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Moral relativism in Conservapedia
I saw that you reverted my citation. I didn't understand that and I'd like to. This is the actual material from the Conservapedia page: "While the idea of moral relativity exists independently of (and substantially predates) the scientific theory of relativity, moral relativists seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views. Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." In particular, I didn't understand the second source part but consider me new. Thanks, --Olsonist (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We can't go trawling through Conservapedia for quotes, we've got to show a WP:Secondary source that was interested in it. There's a whole bit about this at WP:PRIMARY. By the way it is usual to start new sections on a talk page at the bottom, see WP:TALK, you can do this by clicking the 'new section' button at the top. I've found aNew Scients magazine article about that moral relativism business so I'll stick that in. Conservapedia also isn't a WP:reliable source for citations as it can be written by anyone, well at least that's the theory there.Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, it's necessary to provide both a good secondary source for the interpretation and a primary source for the text itself. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Yes, a secondary source is necessary for the interpretation but it helps the reader to have a reference to the actual text under consideration. That primary reference is not interpretation; it's textual evidence and a non-specialist would see it as such. Additionally, looking at the article's References, 3, 17, 22, 24, 27, 33, 35, 47, 48,  52, 59, 60, 62, 63 and 82 are all primary references. In particular, 17 and 22 are good examples of providing both a primary reference to Conservapedia along with an interpretive secondary source.--Olsonist (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is better to only give a primary source if needed for something for instance if it gives accurate factual data to clarify things in a secondary source, we don't normally have to provide the primary reference as the secondary source talks about it. It certainly isn't what is usually done if you look at other articles. Reference 3 is the main page and we're explicitly allowed to describe the sites own description on the obvious main face of a website as per WP:ELNO though most other pages need secondary source references. There's a couple of others in that category but I certainly think some of those other references could be removed without loss. I agree some really are of intrinsic interest but I think I'd try to check each reference into Conservapedia and ask if it really does contribute much more than the secondary source pointing to it does. Links to primary sources really are discouraged in Wikipedia unless they perform a useful function in an article over and above the description in a secondary source.


 * Rationalwiki is very definitely not an acceptable WP:Reliable source for Wikipedia]], it isn't written by a respected authority or checked like a newspaper or peer reviewed or anything like that, it is just written by anyone that comes along. For instance a Wikipedi article is not counted as a reliable source in Wikipedia. In general we shouldn't be sticking load sof citations ito the lead of an aryicle as the items in it should be discussed with citations further down. Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that that whole sentence was unsupported; it is now barely supported. But in the case of criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism, it's just plain wrong. That isn't what Conservapedia is saying at all: Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. Definitely wrong. That was fixed in the one of the edits you reverted.


 * So the choices are, (1) strike the sentence as OR, (2) fix and at least add primary textual citations in lieu of or in addition to reliable secondary sources, (3) doing nothing, which is unacceptable. I lean strongly towards (2) which is where this all started. I don't think that many reliable secondary sources can be found (I've looked) for this rather minor factoid but still the sentence can be adequately supported in the Conservapedia text to the standard required by WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.--Olsonist (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The page 'Counterexamples of Relativity' at that was referenced by New Scientist says 'The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.  Here is a list of 39 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.'. There are problems with the argument you are using anyway, we should be following what the secondary sources have said not doing original research on Wikipedia, and besides which they are entitled to change that line at any time, Wikipedia can't go changing what it says on a daily basis like that, it summarises on the situation as reported. The lead of an article should really be summarizing the article rather than being a separate article so the stuff there should be referring to things further down in the article that are well supported by citations there. The moral relativism of relativity was not gone into further in the article though it talked about other aspects of the sites coverage of relativity so it needed a citation. Breast cancer is gone into in detail in the article. Dmcq(talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Counterexamples article first critiques what liberals say about relativity and then tries to disprove the Theory itself; these are separate issues. Nowhere does their article say that the Theory supports moral relativism which is what the Wikipedia article says that it says. So the Wikipedia article is just wrong on this. Further, your cited reference never says this either so it isn't valid support. With the exception of its last paragraph, it is mostly concerned with the 39 counterexamples. As a secondary source, it is reliable but of little if any value to warrant the sentence. Further, it duplicates 41 (of course, there are other duplicates as well).


 * But really, you're getting their argument backwards. Conservapedia is saying that it is liberals who are misusing the Theory to defend Moral Relativism: Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. They are not saying that that it is the Theory itself which promotes Moral Relativism: criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism. In sum, their complaint is with liberals and not with the Theory. This is not a small difference. Of course, the article then goes on to try to disprove the Theory on separate grounds but that is a separate matter.


 * All claims should be backed by sources, whether in the lede or not; citations do not impede readability. And regardless of the fluidity of Conservapedia, it is referenced some 17 times including Talk sections.--Olsonist (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way it is probably better to start up a discussion at the talk page of an article if going into details about actual stuff said rather than just some bit of Wikipedia policy. Dmcq (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied the last bit put here to the talk page of Conservapedia and replied there. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Subuserpage template for notifying talkpages of their being discussed
Hi, I just made a rudimentary subpage that anyone can put on the appropriate pages, just by adding, or you can make your own similar subpage, which produces the following:

Cheers, Blockinblox (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep anything like that though I'd have a parameter to put in the actual section if they wanted to plus a heading and some tildas for a signature. Can't see it getting far though with the extreme opposition the board seems to have to informing interested editors. Where would it be listed? with the way they're going I wouldn't be surprised if they just delete anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Willpower paradox
I have created a stub at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Willpower_paradox, hopefully it will get accepted.

Kgashok (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good for you, thanks. Dmcq (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC close
Although I did not agree with the proposal, I feel your agreement to early close the RfC at FTN was very gracious, and thought I'd drop you a note to say so. Best regards. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. When you recently edited Z4 (computer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Z3(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
And again. I can't can't seem to find any mention of Neary on this story. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Quadratic equation
Those crazy Babylonians. OK, fair enough, I just thought it might be more obvious to the reader if it is put in the form introduced at the top of the article. Kyle McInnes[citation needed] 15:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just the Babylonians. That sort of thing was common till just a few centuries ago in Europe, see Negative numbers. The Indians were the first to really accept negative numbers sometime between 200 and 600AD and the idea only very gradually percolated elsewhere.Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

VPP discussion
Ah... I see you've had the "pleasure" of encountering the unique debating style of Agent00f. I wanted to bring to your attention Requests for comment/Agent00f as you may find it illustrative. Hasteur (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is Agent00f following JJB around the place? they seem to turn up one after the other and I find them rather similar in their approach. They seem to just deal in terms of rules without any real understanding of what's important, sort of like Jack exchanging the cow for some beans. Dmcq (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO JJB is following Agent00f around. Please feel free to do whatever you think is appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case I initiated clarifications at WT:Summary style, Dmcq began new discussion at VPP, and Agent joined in there before I found the new discussion to which Dmcq pointed me. I don't see either of us following the other to that page, but we were both interested in the subhead for different reasons. Thank you for your collective characterization of our varying reasons. Please feel free to direct me to "what's important" on any of the pages discussion has spread to, as it looks to me like "what's important" to you is already there in the guidelines. JJB 04:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, in the future please try to resist from relating everything and anything to your personal indictments (RfC's, ANIs, etc) against me in mixed martial arts space. Dcmq, I saw your replies to JJB's comments on summaries pages when researching splitting, and we both seem to have followed your link to the village pump section that you started over splitting. Hasteur might only be concerned about MMA drama, but I'm trying to clarify much broader issues that span across hundreds of subjects and tens of thousands of entries. JJB seems to be correct about "different reasons" as our paths never crossed in that long discussion.Agent00f (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that was all quite unpleasant.The business at WP:Summary style has been stopped till some big Mixed Martial Arts business has ended, see. The main discussion ended at. It pretty much explains their strange approach though I think they may have different motives that just meshed. Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It might interest you to know that the editor from your first link is an even greater precipitator of wiki-drama than Hasteur, by AfDing one by one a set of 200 entries which created the "big Mixed Martial Arts business" going back months. Since they're a few percent of the way through by now, I suspect that end of the business might not end soon. Fortunately, that space has become as drama-free as it's been since then, so please try to maintain it and avoid following their lead of making everything and anything about drama they've started.Agent00f (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how 200 AfDs can be anything but way more than enough to decide a general guideline from. It should have been all decided long ago. I have never had any interest whatsoever in sports articles and only went to the WP:Notability (sports) guideline to try and see what all the wikilawyering and disruption was about. Please do not go warning me as if I was going around the place causing disruption without some specific complaint. I'm perfectly willing to hear criticism. Dmcq (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree the affair+drama should've never gotten this far. In fact, I've made the same point about as many times as there are apparently entries to AfD. I believe user Victor Yus (also completely unrelated to any sporting interest) made the "crock of beans" comment at VPP, so you might want to take that particular issue up with him. BTW, I'm not warning you, only pointing out that using the comments of people who created drama as a basis only makes matters worse. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Time for an NLT block?
continues to talk about slander. Given the threats in the IP's edit summaries, isn't it time to block? My last NLT block was overturned, so I'm being a bit cautious - otherwise I'd go ahead now. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I think he has progressed from removing other people's text on the talkpage which is good. And he was called a crackpot. If only he could have just dealt with things a bit more cleanly from the start it might have got so acrimonious but I'm sot sure. Anyway I'd lay off it unless he does something more substantial like removing text on the talk pages or getting into another edit war. Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would probably misinterpreted by the editor anyway, so unless they make a clearer threat again, I agree, no NLT block. Dougweller(talk) 09:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I've replied to you at WT:NOR, I may have caused some confusion. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Me or the curios site?
Is it your intention now to edit me out of mathematical coincidence, or are you saying The Prime Pages is unreliable but the miracle stuff in the immediately following section is not? Was your objection just to the last? Honestly, that was not a pure coincidence. There was something else in play and it came to mind momentarily to make that particular add with the intention of removing. I don't even think that should have been done, FWIW.Julzes (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The site is not a WP:Reliable source. I chopped out stuff from it I thought would be unverifiable, basically stuff I believed nobody would bother sticking into a book or paper somewhere. Dmcq (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * For future reference I am a grouch. Hope this is newbie spam. Others have advised them this is not a social networking site. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)