User talk:Dmcq

we should refer to these in article text

See the hatnote, we should refer to these in article text.

Which hatnote? Don't understand. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry should have said we shouldn't refer to internal essays in the article text. The hatnote is the bit under thr title and just before the article text saying:

For the internal Wikipedia essay, see Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read.

Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bummer, I think it is helpful. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all part of ensuring verifiability to separate the article text from any of our own ruminations along with stopping using Wikipedia itself as a citation or source for anything except what we might refer to in any company like their front page or what newspapers say. Dmcq (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll also refer you to WP:5P

Specially to the fourth point. Please show respect for my work and at least read it before trying to delete it. I agree with removing the rocket application from the product rule page, but if you read my new article (assuming you know at least a little bit about the subject) you will realize It's not the same as Tsiolkovsky rocket equation since this accounts for every case and initial conditions, and also fully describes the phenomena. The article itself is about Rocket Dynamics and as I see it it's not too technical. The example may be complicated, but that's just the nature of the subject and as it's stated, it's an example. If you read the article and find any equation wrong then please tell me since it might help more people. About the citations, I personally did this piece of work and thus I don't see the need for further citation other than the links to other wikipages I inserted. If you didn't notice them, please read the article entirely. If you disagree with my point of view I'll ask you to first talk to me about it before making any rash decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabur (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is your own work then it cannot be part of Wikipedia. See WP:Original research. WIkipedia is supposed to summarize what is in WP:Reliable sources, not put out stuff of its own. It is a pity you have put so much effort here, I'm sorry but things like this must be published elsewhere first. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just like many, many other Sites what I did was just manipulate equations that are already in wikipedia. The results I show are quite useful for many engineering applications (specially automatic control) and I don't think you have the right to neglect other professionals or students this information, specially since it's not easy to deduce what I show. I'll also refer you again to WP:5P, particularly the fifth point: "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule". In fact I uploaded this article because a bunch of EE students asked me to. I don't really understand your need to delete that article, do you think anyone is benefited by that? Or do you rather think that the more not-redundant information on wikipedia the better? I doubt many people will read my article but the people that do will be thankful for it. For me that's more than enough reason to keep the article. Please give me your thoughts on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabur (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very much against Wikipedia policies to put your own deductions into articles. If you wish to debate the matter about original research with someone else WP:ORN is the right place. You really really do need a citation in a wp:reliable source for something like this so it does need to be published elsewhere first. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead you might like to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and someone there might be able to better advise you about sticking mathematics into Wikipedia and maybe find some citations that are suitable. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Rocket Dynamics. Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at cimanyD's talk page. →Dynamic|cimanyD← (contact me) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Floating point. Users are expected to collaborate 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:

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.

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 an appropriate 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 be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your counsel to yourself unless a situation becomes much worse. I do not appreciate this sort of thing when there is no necessity and there is a place in the talk page to start commenting. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are free to delete the above user warning if it displeases you. The reason why I posted the warning is because, at two reverts, several editors including you were one edit away from violating the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. I was surprised the first time someone warned me for two reverts, but upon examining WP:3RR I realized that they were right. Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're technically correct but you could have gone about it in a less confrontational way. Like "hey, you might want to slow down a bit, you're at two reverts I don't want you to get into trouble over this." WP:DTTR is worth reading if you're unfamiliar. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, and I apologize to Dmcq, who I consider to be a very valuable contributor. I don't want there to be any bad blood between us. I clearly pulled the trigger on everyone who was at 2RR without thinking. Sorry about that. Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I love happy endings. Take care - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for the compliment, always good for the ego even if I haven't been doing much recently :) Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OPERA experiment

Hi. I removed this comment from Talk:OPERA experiment. Please note that Wikipedia is a not a discussion forum. However, to answer your question: yes, the curvature of the Earth has been taken into account. The details are available in the paper the OPERA team published.--95.209.255.206 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough about removing it but I would really like to know exactly where in that paper it says it took the depth of the instruments into account in calculating the distance. You have not answered my question properly. I'll place a variant at the science reference desk instead. Dmcq (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I've searched around a bit more and found [1] which describes how the points were put into a 3D frame and then calculated from that which is what I was looking for. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Howdy Dmcq. Is it possible to have that Project's talkpage semi-protected. That anon bloke is just gonna keep reinstating his Ireland is, Ireland was section. He/she is obviously just 'bleeping' around. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask for him to be blocked for a week, I think that would be better than stopping ips accesing the page. Dmcq (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ones complement

I appreciate that your view is that "what is in the literature" trumps "what is correct" in this issue, but I respectfully request that you hold off changing all the instances back to one's from ones' until this has been talked out on the mathematics talk page (where I'm currently writing a post). Otherwise we'll be in a pointless edit war. --Matt Westwood 08:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I just changed one before checking but okay I'll go to the maths talks page. It is more of a computer thing I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha - good call. I'm not so familiar with the computer community on here - is there a page there where this discussion can be entered into? --Matt Westwood 08:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: just noticed, you appear to be from Bracknell! I used to live in Bracknell, just round the corner from Ferranti, where I used to work. Small and happy world. --Matt Westwood 08:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I found myself talking to someone who is the husband of one of the ones I dance with as well here. Bit of a disaster what happened to Ferranti. There's two computer projects WT:WPCS and WT:COMP. Neither is as active as maths but I think this will get them hopping ;-) WT:WPCS is probably best for this I guess. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - as suggested. --Matt Westwood 09:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

roll-up

Dear Dmcq, it is good to have your help in this. Looking at your talk page, I get the impression that you are no stranger to editorial struggles. I can easily see the merits of the case for the roll-up that you have made. Nevertheless, on careful thought about this, I would like to say that I think it would be better to completely remove the section, rather than merely roll it up. I think that it may just add to troubles if I should here try to elaborate on my reasons for this.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TPO about deleting other people's comments. It's really better to just leave them unless there is a real problem like a person's identity being revealed or there is vandalism or something like that. Even for ones own comments if people have started to reply it's best to just strike it out with <s>...</s> or otherwise note something has gone. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very prompt response. I think this is a case of "something like that", better not more explicitly. I do not know the best way to go from here, but I think some way is probably needed.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything to worry about. I'd just ignore it and it'll be archived eventually. You have my full permission to change my comment at the top, well in fact you could do that anyway it isn't really a user comment. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Again thank you for your prompt response. You suggest I just ignore it, but leaving it there rolled-up is a qualified way of saying that it should not be just ignored. As of this moment, I don't see an advantage in changing your comment; perhaps I will change my mind about that. I don't know how to deal with this problem, but I do think that there is a problem that would be better dealt with somehow, and overall I think leaving that section merely rolled up will tend to make that harder.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll change it to just say 'unproductive discussion' Dmcq (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your change to the roll-up. The main problem is still unsolved, and I think it is still a serious problem, as far as Wikipedia goes. As for the minor difficulty of my deception post, it is not that I feel I did something wrong, and am worried about that. It is just that I think I did something disadvantageous for the Wikipedia exercise, and would like to have been able to undo it.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As I think it over, it seems to me that the Wikipedia has limited resources to deal with a problem of the present kind. Several editors seem to agree about the problem, but that isn't enough. The idea I tried was unhelpful. The idea of seeking bureaucratic intervention has been floated, but it seems that people think it will not be suitable. It seems that no editor actually knows a way to remedy the problem.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

editor names

It is very good to have your help here Dmcq. I can see that you are concerned to have the Wikipedia editing process work well, and I am grateful to have such a person contributing.

You write: "and p.s for Chjoaygame, do you think you could try and just avoid referring to Headbomb and just refer to what has been stuck in instead please? If you find you've written 'Headbomb' down have a good try at rewriting." This illustrates a difficulty. These two sentences use one particular editor name twice, and another once; they could hardly have been written clearly otherwise. I think if you look at my posts you will find that I have indeed mostly been diligent and consistent in following your advice to refer to the text rather than to the name of the editor; I could name other editors who haven't been so careful. Following your warning, I will be even more vigilant on that in future. We are now concerned with a pattern of editorial behaviour, not just with specific issues of text; the editors themselves come into this. This can happen on the talk page. It seems to me from the way things are going that indeed the Wikipedia does not have facilities to deal well with the current problem, and that it will turn out that the most determined editor will get his way, with marginal concern for policy, because others, of whom one has already declared his hand, are tired of the messing about. Thank you for your care in this.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Usage share of operating systems

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. --Jdm64 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

As advised by ItsZippy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard‎, applied to Mediation Cabal. Though You already know that, I believe I had to inform You formally. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Dmcq: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

When you are canvassing contributors about the Irish article names, you seem to use the word "we" in a rather strange manner. Don't you actually mean "I"? And do you think your chosen selection of respondents represent some particular demographic that needs polling? What happens if some do not respond? What happens if some do respond? What is it intended to 'prove" or otherwise? Please share it with us all at WT:IECOLL. "We" need to know! Fmph (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I shouldn't have used we. The names chosen were names mentioned in that discussion as actually feeling some anger about the name of the article being Republic of Ireland. I wanted to see if it was actually true that some people felt anger about that. There are people claiming to talk on behalf of those people but denying they themselves hold the views strongly. I think there is a 'we' element in it as other people have expressed the same reservation about Evertype and Sswonk are claiming the page is disrupted because of the name causing bad feeling. Now there are a couple of names given as evidence the best thing to do is ask if they really are annoyed in a way that would justify considering excluding Republic of Ireland. As far as I can see so far the evidence is not strong. Are you uninterested in whether people feel personally affronted by Republic of Ireland being used as a tile as opposed to just thinking it is the wrong title? I was checking the evidence not canvassing. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of those who doesn't particularly object to the use of Republic of Ireland myself, and it is self evident to me that it's use does cause disruption and is a personal affront to many people. I certainly don't need some sort of individual public proclamation of annoyance to validate the idea that it does cause annoyance. You seem to be one of the few doubters on that particular issue. And I personally find even more annoyance in your suggestion/demand/request that editors should do so. Fmph (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel like that but if Republic of Ireland is to be eliminated as an option like Everytype says then there does need to be more evidence of a problem than people saying they don't particularly object and they're causing disruption on behalf of other people. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Fmph (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why what? Do you mean I should not take Evertype's suggestion seriously and investigate it? Dmcq (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does there "...need to be more evidence of a problem than people saying they don't particularly object and they're causing disruption on behalf of other people."?

'even more annoyance'? Are you actually personally annoyed the title is 'Republic of Ireland' or do you really not particularly object? Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe thinking of phantom traffic jams helps to understand why this is an important question. There are situations in which traffic jams form without any apparent cause, sometimes leading to a complete stand-still that may last for hours. And sometimes a traffic jam is caused by a car crash. It's important to distinguish between the two because in the latter case removing the wrecks is a necessary step for solving the problem, while in the first case searching for wrecks would just be a distraction. The analogy is by no means perfect. I am just trying to make you think in the right direction. Hans Adler 12:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"There are people claiming to talk on behalf of those people but denying they themselves hold the views strongly." I support a great many of the views of absent people such as I have mentioned. I do not claim to talk on their behalf, but I do express dismay that they are made to feel unwelcome and have been forced to express a sense of resignation in this case. I hope you will trust me on that. I am an American, not an Irish nationalist. That doesn't mean I don't also strongly oppose the title for several reasons, including on the grounds that it is biased toward a British POV and that a minority view is a correct view in this case, but that "tyranny of the majority" has supported the original titling since 2002. Sswonk (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been unable to find evidence supporting your views about these other absent people. There was a POV case years ago but that is no longer true in any way, and besides it was just an argument between politicians. I'm not aware of any personal feelings about it being used in Ireland even from before the Belfast Agreement. I believe you are thinking the name is causing the incivility. I asked those three you specifically named if they felt aggrieved by the name. One has said no and the the other two haven't answered. To be frank I think it is you and Evertype ignoring the RfC and unwilling to wait a decent period for another one that is the problem. You pair acting as if you were elected by all these absent people really turns me off. Could you tone it down and not refer to bad feelings but just the rights and wrongs of the name for use in Wikipedia please. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you would prefer to keep emotions or bad feelings about the title aside, the history of editor resignations from IECOLL and its effect of the absence of editors on the outcome of discussions and voting is very significant and has been mentioned as part of a description of the many issues involved. That situation may not have as much to do with the article name as with the administrative actions and biased "status quo" atmosphere, which is also of note. Nevertheless, nearly all of the argument I have made relates to the more clinical, formal objections I hold which relate to reliable sources, original research and vefifiability concerns. I do not in any way consider myself "elected by all these absent people", so get that picture out of you mind and maybe it won't bother you. Since, as a result of trying to help get you a single sentence confirmation of views, I am now likely to get formally charged with some inanity by Thryduulf, or Andrewa, or any of a number of clownish liar admins, you may see me leaving the project permanently. I consider you to be reasonable, and I like what you have written, so the above disappoints me a little. I am asking your for trust, again. Sswonk (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)