User talk:DVdm/Archive 2010

Archives by year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Please remain civil

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your personal attacks have been removed. — Sebastian 18:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was out of line . My apologies to the engineers and philosophers (even to the armchair ones) who might have been offended by my remark. I shouldn't have taken the obvious bait in the first place, and flatly ignore 173.169.90.98's blunt collective attack on "most physicists". I notice that you didn't leave a comment on his talk page, but it doesn't really matter, as I also just notice that he seems to be blocked as another sockpuppet of a banned user. I see you removed his remark from the section where it was blatantly off-topic and sort of made it on-topic by moulding it into a question/suggestion section concerning the article. Good idea. Cheers and happy, productive 2010. DVdm (talk)

Only an admin would be so goofy. What a joke. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sebastian has a point. I shouldn't have taken the bait. I sort of enjoyed the exchange, but it didn't really belong on the talk page of the article. Cheers and a happy, amusing 2010! DVdm (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies here and at User_talk:SebastianHelm/NVC#Minefield_feedback. I replied to the NVC related points there, but there are also some points on that page that fit better in my reply here.

You point out that I didn't leave a comment on his talk page, and you even cut me some slack for not knowing that the IP editor was banned as a sock puppet. But, regardless of what the editor did elsewhere, there was no reason to template the IP editor, neither by language nor by content. The language of the post can not be regarded as an attack on any particular editor. The content was legitimate: It touches on an interesting question; a question that is - despite Michael's denial[1] - so interesting that it's discussed in its own article. If we did not already have that article, then that post, with a little bit of good will on the part of those editors familiar with the matter, could have started a fruitful discussion resulting in just that article, or at least a section in the Einstein article.

I think I know what you mean when you say "I sort of enjoyed the exchange"; I believe you may have felt similarly as I did when I started this section; it feels good to defend a cause one stands behind. From your reasonable reaction I now realize I could have done so with less emotion, though, and I now realize that the section heading "Please remain civil" was not appropriate. Please rename as you see fit.

Wishing you a happy and amusing 1/2*3*4*5*67, too! — Sebastian 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In total agreement! Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light

Thanks for adding the direct quotation from Taylor; that should end a dispute. Would you mind putting quotation marks around the quoted language? I don't have the book. Thanks again.—Finell 03:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done: [2]. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!—Finell 11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Noodles

"Consider something falling into a black hole, say a human body – feet first. ... A body falling into a black hole will be stretched feet from head and crushed side to side. This is known jocularly as the "noodle effect." Anything falling into a black hole will be noodlized, as shown in Figure 9.2" Cosmic Catastrophes by J. C. Wheeler, p. 182.

I made the edit at the library and tried to remember the exact word from memory. I thought Wheeler had said "noodlization" at some point; I was mistaken. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the reference. Thanks and cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Sorry! I was reverting the page and did not know that you had fixed the problem in the meantime. Please forgive me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I can live with both versions, although I slightly prefer the version where "classical" is used as an adjective to "music" in stead of as a standalone noun.

As long as the word "metal" isn't anywhere near - yuck! ;-) DVdm (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you're going to edit war over things, please have the decency not to compound the problem by sending fake "vandalism" messages to editors who have provided clear edit summaries. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Only today I noticed your most recent message on the talk page. I was not aware of it. Now that I read it, I wonder why you didn't remove the link from the article yourself. If you feel strong about it, feel free to do that - you are the admin (I guess).

Anyway, I used the vandalism template on this IP's talk page because it mentions the usage of the edit summary and the article talk page when removing content from a controversial article, so I think the template was indeed appropriate. It could have been his first edit, although, as you can see from the list below, this user seems to have some very special single topic agenda:

• 90.220.88.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.217.104.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.215.124.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 96.232.106.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.215.124.140 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.214.85.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• WeDon'tWantAny (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I strongly suspect that this user is banned from editing physics pages, and therefore works anonymously. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I explained precisely which IP editors I was, and why your evidence for me being a banned user was very weak indeed. Here is the message in which you acknowledged this and apologised for your accusations. What new evidence have you gathered since then that makes your claims valid again? (My connection is very poor, if it has re-synced and caused an IP change please associate me with 90.220.88.171) 90.214.85.123 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Remarks:

• I was not replying to you, but to Chris.
• I did not formulate accusations. I formulated strong suspicions.
• I acknowledged that the place (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts) where I formulated the suspicions was not appropriate, and I apologised for that, not to you, but to David J Wilson.

DVdm (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that (if you are serious about these accusations) you report your concerns through official channels and have a checkuser request performed to see if I am your banned user friend. Bringing out these accusations in response to every edit by me just makes it look as if you are trying to direct attention away from the issues at hand with ad hominem attacks. 90.214.85.123 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You really should pay much more attention when reading talk page messages. To help you with this I have added some extra emphasis to a phrase in my previous message. As for a checkuser request, maybe later. DVdm (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

None of that has any bearing on your inappropriate smearing tactics. Please concentrate on the actual issues instead of finding ways to make subtle attacks on users. 90.214.85.123 (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of information on Inertia article

(note: moved this from higher up and added a section title - DVdm (talk))

DVDm, I think it's ridiculous that you deleted my information on Moffatt's new ideas in the Inertia page. Your reason? "This bold new theory threatens to undermine everything we've worked towards." You think you can delete a scientific theory from a wikipedia page because you don't agree with it? Do you consider yourself a scientist who considers all options before making a decision? Apparently not. Even if it was a theory with major flaws, it would still have a right to be represented, albeit appropriately criticized. This theory is more robust than any gravity theory ever proposed, INCLUDING Einstein's. It has agreed with all observations to date, and has made predictions that have been fulfilled properly, all without ridiculous dark matter or other scientific inventions made to fit Einstein's theory, and it's the only theory that gives a good reason for the origins of inertia. I'm going to file a complaint about you if you don't respond and give me a good reason why Moffatt's excerpt should be deleted. SAxelrod —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Hi SAxelrod, a few remarks:

• Please note that my agreement or disagreement with this theory really has nothing to do with the removal. I stated the reason in my edit summary. Please have a close look at wp:FRINGE and wp:UNDUE in connection with the phrase describing the book: "This bold new work, presenting the entirety of Moffat's hypothesis to a general readership for the first time, promises to overturn everything we thought...". In order for this new theory to deserve a mention in this encyclopedia we need some reliable secondary sources referencing this new theory. See also: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
• Regarding your remark "Even if it was a theory with major flaws, it would still have a right to be represented, albeit appropriately criticized.": I'm afraid that's not possible here, since that would be original research, which is strictly forbidden in this encyclopedia.
• So it clearly is a bit early for this. As soon as this theory proves its usefulness and value, and gains some momentum, or as soon as it is significantly criticized in the scientific literature, there will be a place for it in the Wikipedia. We'll have to be patient.
• If you would like to discuss this further, I will move this section to the article's talk page, so others can participate. But please, have a close look at the links to the Wikipedia policies I just provided.
• (Please sign your talk-page messages using four tildes (~~~~)? - Thanks)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, SAxelRod, your account seems to have only one purpose, to push this book. Now as it happens, I know who professor Moffat is. He is trying to sell a book while at the Perimeter Institute. This book contains several key phrases indicative of "crank" work. Moffat is not a crank, but this does not change the fact that this is a work coming from an "advanced studies" institute which is driven slightly differently than peer-reviewed science. I suggest you learn about Wikipedia science article policies, single use accounts and the like. Also, you're supposed to discuss this on the article's talk page, not in a million different places I have to try and follow you at. Jok2000 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration

Hello, DVdm. This is to inform you that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8

Beginning to look like wp:ROPE - DVdm (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Earth rotational energy/mass calculation

The Earth's rotational energy is not straightforward to calculate, due to non-uniformity of composition, giving a complicated calc for a precise moment of inertia. However, once that's done and we have a cite for the rotational energy in joules, I think a simple division by c^2 = 9e16 m^2/sec^2 is simple and routine enough. Hope you agree.

I was shocked that the spinning Earth includes more than TWO BILLION tons of pure kinetic energy! SBHarris 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I tried a shallow Google books search, but couldn't find anything within 10 minutes. But indeed, if we find a source for our rotational energy, we can include the simple division. I did find a source for the rotational energy of a typical pulsar though: 10⁴⁰ joules :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice you found a source. Good job. DVdm (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Neutron star or black hole rotational energy is significant. 10⁴⁰ joules is almost a million years of solar output. So if we found one and could tap it via magnetic field or or the Blandford-Znajek process, we would have quite a power source, and could extract all that energy without having to wait the million years. Note to the future. SBHarris 23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Same initials?

Nothing spectacular, but I just noticed we appear to have the same initials. If that is what your user name stands for, that is. I use DvdM as a user name at other sites, wich is why your user name caught my eye. DirkvdM (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dirk... Indeed we share our initials. I use DirkVdm at other sites. So we are bound to keep running in on each other, so to speak ;-)

Groetjes uit B.! - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

En teurg uit N.! (Als ik je goed begrijp.) DirkvdM (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dat doe je :-) - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Complex Number" and "Cubic Function"

Sorry to bother you like this, and I know that you must feel that I am quite impatient for your response on my previous talk page, and coming from a new IP user like myself, but I wanted your response to the two questions that I addressed on my talk page, that is the talk page of this IP address: 71.118.39.165. I wanted to provide a link to the Simple English Wikipedia for Complex Number and Cubic Function, but I do not know how to do so; I turn to you, a more experienced Wikipedian, could you please provide the link for me? I would greatly appreciate it. 71.118.39.219 (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I once had a look at a few articles on the Simplipedia. I couldn't believe my eyes. To be honest, I almost wet my pants. But anyway, if you like to point readers to that place, you can see how it's done in Complex number, which already has a link. Open the article and look for the "Simple English" entry in the languages table on the left. I think you can just add the string "[[simple:Cubic function]]" somewhere at the bottom of our Cubic function article. I'm not going to do it for you though, as I don't want to be involved in pointing readers to Poorqualitypedias :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay

(See context)

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo Guy (Help!) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks a bunch :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

a theory must come with a number of conditions under which it has been proven true.

I see you already have a long story of edit warring. I still can come with an explanation of the above sentence for you.

A condition is a condition.

True is the opposite of false.

Regards.--Environnement2100 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the article's talk page. DVdm (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lowercase wikilinks to uppercase sections

Hi! There is no need to uppercase also the first letter of the article name because it is not case sensitive (Wikipedia:Linking#Piped links). I mean [[dual number#cycles|cycles]] does not work, but [[dual number#Cycles|cycles]] or [[dual number]] works. Moreover upcasing only the useful letter keeps the code as simple as possible and permits to avoid special cases. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information. Keep up the good work! DVdm (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi! Thanks for your clean up of Quadratic_equation#By_shifting_ax2. I went overboard on the details, haha. Wikipedia rocks :D Elgooog (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Quadratic equation Edits

I noticed you've cleaned up this article before so I thought I'd let you know that User:Brianoc1129 who has recently been warned for vandalism has made a series of edits that probably need checking out. I have absolutely no idea if they are valid or not. Vrenator (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, the overal changes are valid, but not needed at all, and rather distracting, as the condition that a must be non-zero is clearly stated in the lead. So I have reverted the edits. Good catch. Thanks for notifying & cheers. DVdm (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DVdm. You have new messages at Favonian's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Favonian (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

My deepest, most heartfelt apologies for causing you to open Watson's book - something no man should ever have to do lightly. Jokes aside, he tends to have his chronology straight (as he does in this instance) - just start flipping pages once he starts talking about music or psychology. Zappa's a bit problematic from a Wikipedia standpoint, as the most reliable sources are web-based (globalia.net and lukpac.org), and the vast majority of the printed biographies are varying degrees of rubbish - basically, the more spectacularly a given source fails WP:RS, the higher chance it has of actually being correct! Anyway, in the case of this, the whole "named on Mother's Day" story reeks of apocrypha, but it's the sort of apocrypha that's pretty hard to actually disprove in any meaningful way. Even though Zappa himself pegged 1964 as the "start date" for the MOI, a much better case can be made for the bands in 1963 and 1965; the 1964 band had very little in common with what most would consider the "MOI sound". Starting to ramble here, so I'll just remind you to watch out where the huskies go. Badger Drink (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"... something no man should ever have to do lightly" indeed. Working my way through --aka reading-- the book was a painful struggle, but "beauty is a pair of shoes that makes you wanna die", right? :-) DVdm (talk)

Creation Myth

I'd be happy to continue discussing, but can we do it without cluttering poor Jimbo's page any more?EGMichaels (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the dictionaries there is nothing to discuss. If you think that you are cluttering Jimbo's page, by all means stop commenting and walk away from it. The thread will be archived in a few days. DVdm (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

Note that I use endless IP's. Try banning me, stupid drool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.171.194 (talk • contribs)

Try banning me, stupid drool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.201.103‎ (talk • contribs)

Try banning me, stupid drool.

Try banning me, stupid drool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.112.229 (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous IP address

Hi DVdm, this the new account I have created: :| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC) . I was wondering, since you seem to remember our little discussion from approximately two months ago if you could tell me how to move everything from that IP address to this new account.

Hi. You don't have to move anything. Actually you can't even move anything. Everthing you wrote stays where it is, and you can safely forget about that IP address.

When you write on talk pages (article and user), don't forget to sign with the four tildes (~~~~). Happy editing! DVdm (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for telling me that.I´m new here so I have to get used to all the rules.Thank you again.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Soyouarenewtobooksandprintedtextingeneralaswell:-)DVdm(talk)18:12,15April2010(UTC)

User talk:Socioj

Hi DVdm. Since your warning to this person, he has vandalised Cricket and I am reverting his edit. It looks as if it is a vandalism only account and I think he should be closed down. All the best. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack. Yes, I was about to escalate to WP:AIV, but I notice he is already blocked (reported here and acted upon here.) Cheers. DVdm (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your note - I intentionally removed those 'See Also' links, either because they were not relevant, or because they were already linked from he main article. I've redone this, with an edit summary that explains it in detail, as I should have done to begin with. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, excellent.Thanks & cheers. DVdm (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Newton-Raphson

In Square root#Computation, you write:

The technique is an application of the Newton-Rhapson iterative solution method to the function $\scriptstyle y=x^{2}-r$, using the fact that its slope at any point is $\scriptstyle dy/dx=2x$.

The problem is that the function is actually

$\scriptstyle y={\sqrt {x}}-r$ with $\scriptstyle dy/dx=1/{(2{\sqrt {x}})}$. You may instead wish to use the convention

$\scriptstyle x=y^{2}-r$ with $\scriptstyle dx/dy=2y$.

-- Glenn L (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well no, the function is $\scriptstyle y=f(x)=x^{2}-r$ with $\scriptstyle dy/dx=f'(x)=2x$. With this function the NR scheme $\scriptstyle x_{n+1}=x_{n}-f(x_{n})/f'(x_{n})$ reduces to $\scriptstyle x_{n+1}=1/2(x_{n}+r/x_{n})$, which is the scheme you find in the article. It produces a zero of the function f, i.o.w. a value of x that makes $\scriptstyle f(x)=0$ and thus $\scriptstyle x^{2}-r=0$ and thus $\scriptstyle x^{2}=r$. You can verify the math, and, more importantly, you can verify the source (follow the link to here). Cheers, DVdm (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

don quixote

So in your battle with the good the bad the evil, you managed to do harakiri.

Editing this way is stuck and loose the fun, any content that has any level of complexity would be killed. What is the sourceability of common knowledge ? what if any statement will be challenged by all the crackpotters world wide ? you go an tell them study physics full time for a couple of years and then come back ? Professionals doing physics will simply bounce off this crap and if you loose credibility with somebody once you loose his help forever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyredeagle (talk • contribs)

Hi Flyredeagle, a few days ago I left a welcome message on your talk page. This message contains a few links to relevant articles about how things work around here. If you intend to make some lasting contributions to the Wikipedia, I think it is in your interest to have a close look at some guidelines and policies. In the process you will learn where to leave messages on people's talk pages, how and why to sign them, what to write and what not to write, and much more. Where in doubt, feel free to ask. Take your time and enjoy! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way

I wasn't trying to call you out or anything. There are just a lot of misconceptions flying around because this is such a charged discussion. I feel your pain in dealing with some of the editors on that page, to be nameless. It's probably hardly worth it and every time I comment I feel like I'm making a huge mistake. Anyway happy editing.Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm... pain is a big word. It's more like perhaps... facepalm or something :-) Anyway, thanks and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Hello DVdm. Thanks for your recent AIV report, but two points: Most importantly, please don't repeat a vandal's BLP violation in your reports. Also, for future reference, new reports go at the bottom of the page so that we can keep them in age-order. Thanks again —DoRD (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dep, I will keep this in mind. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested compromise wording, Genesis creation narrative

Okay, how about if I propose something like "Apart from some Christian theologians, most current scholars consider it to be a creation myth [See #questions of genre below]" - as a possibly promising compromise ... ? Could you live with that? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Komaan Til, niet hier. Ik bedoelde ginder. DVdm (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You know I don't speak Dutch, right? But I was able to translate your reply with the assistance of Google translate. Just wanted to sound you out about it first, old boy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know. Thought you were Dutch. I vaguely recall you correcting an edit you made when not logged on, and replacing the (Netherlands based) IP with your name. Could have been someone else. It was a while ago. Sorry. DVdm (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No prob, but no, never been to the Netherlands yet... So what do you think of the proposed compromise wording? Or would you tweak it? btw nice to see on this page that you like Frank Zappa, I have also been a fan of his... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm really not interested in this over here. Better take it thataway. DVdm (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gravitational Thermodynamics

I noticed your deletion of various Benjamin Gal-Or references. Just to note that I've proposed deletion for Gravitational Thermodynamics, which appears to be nothing more than a promotional page for the same person (and edited by Bengalor (talk · contribs)).

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. This means that next time we could probably use a simple spam warning on the talk page of 112.202.72.88 (talk · contribs). By the way, you forgot to warn the author about the deletion tag, so I just did that. I also put pointers back and forth between the talkpages of username and his IP. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that. By the way, 112.202.17.195 (talk · contribs) seems to be another IP for the same user, judging by their edits.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, added. Let's keep an eye on this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pythagorean thm

re your remark "David, it appears that you are trolling. Please stop." - Where did that remark come from? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob, see his entire past history at for instance Centrifugal force, Speed of light, Cross product, ..., and now Pythagorean theorem. Banned from editing physics related articles. Now focussing on mathematics, with essentially WP:NOCLUE, that is if we are supposed to WP:AGF. I can no longer AGF after these things were explained to him so many times. So the only explanation is trolling, resulting in recurring talk page disruption. Someone with much time should report Tombe and make serious work of getting him perma-banned from editing anything related to science, mathematics, logic, ... DVdm (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think it's trolling. Sometimes we may get frustrated with other editors' styles, and think they are being malicious, but in my discussions with David so far, I don't think he means to upset anyone in the discussions at Pythagorean Theorem. This may be hard, but you might try to have a friendly discussion about it on his talk page so that you two understand each other. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I think we are highly incompatible, and we understand each other perfectly. I see that you assume good faith, but for me this has become absolutely impossible. The pattern is simple: putting something silly (original research) in an article, messing it up, and then hijacking the talk page, relentlessly challenging everyone to prove him wrong. Good luck :-| - DVdm (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re incompatible, I can understand how you feel. All I can say is that sometimes I'm surprised that someone's intentions are better than they seemed before I discussed it with them on their talk pages. There's a malignant effect that the online world of Wikipedia can have on editors in general, and it takes some getting used to in order to not have the type of online personality in ourselves, that ticks us off when we see it in other editors. I'm in the process of learning that myself. Happy editing, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning grammar on Supernova

Parsing out the elision and rendering the sentence as:

This pair-instability supernova creates a larger quantity of elements which are heavier than helium ("metals") than in other types of supernova and which are not leaving a black hole remnant.

does not rescue it. The most natural interpretation of the second "which" clause now has it referring to "elements," but it is not "elements" which are "not leaving a black hole remnant." Gomphothere 16:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss on article's talk page in section Talk:Supernova#Not leaving or does not leave. DVdm (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And this one was much better as well. You're learning fast. Keep up the good work :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AN3

This looks like it might be resolved at Talk:The Apprentice (U.S. season 3)#Table colour - can you confirm this before I try to figure out why the table uses such hideous colors? Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I must say that I have no idea what the war about the colours was about. I had noticed 3 vandalic edits by this IP, and then noticed that he was involved in some revert war, so I warned the IP for 3RR and reported it at 4RR.

I now had a look at the article. I.m.o. both colour schemes are a torture to the eye, so it doesn't really matter to me either way. Don't they have any nice pastels? Hope this helps? Cheers. DVdm (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you acted correctly here, but if it is resolved I would just as soon not bother. Thanks, and keep well, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, quite indeed. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bullets were good

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Golden ratio

You removed a link: [*Golden ratio at the orthodox church on red square in Moscow showing examples of the golden ratio at the orthodox church in Moscow on the basis that the text surrounding the pictures and diagrams were not in English. To see the pictures and get the point you don't need to read anything. And it's only a link, after all, and to a very famous example. Brews ohare (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is very famous, then it should be easy to find a link to an article in English. Besides, the diagram is useless. Using the same base diagram one can find any number of examples of any ratio in it. DVdm (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Narrative

Is it possible to topic ban User:Til Eulenspiegel and User:Cush  ? Their recent edits to the talk page are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and they're preventing constructive work being done on the article. A full ban would be excessive, but would it be possible to ban from editing just this page ? Thanks. Claritas (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, topic bans are being imposed every day. See WP:Editing restrictions for a bunch of examples. I had opened an incident at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#Til Eulenspiegel on talk page but not much has happened. It's already in the archives, even without a resolved-tag. You can open a new incident and refer to this archived thread, and ask what can be done. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot

I have found that it is not necessary to remove WildBot's messages (as you did at Talk:Richard Dawkins). It doesn't matter, but FYI I have oberved that WildBot returns to check articles in due course, and will update its message (removing the message if it thinks all issues are fixed). Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! DVdm (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Option 7

Hi. Did you have any thoughts re Option 7? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha... yes, bad thoughts actually... I just opened a subsection on the talk page. Let's keep it there so someone can slap me in case I say something silly ;-) DVdm (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's been kinda quiet over there. From the lack of response, I'm not sure whether or not I've satisfactorily answered the objections to option 7. Did any part of my responses to you and Dick answer any of your objections satisfactorily? If not, I'll probably drop the subject of angle brackets. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As usual, see talk page :-) - DVdm (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen of the Trappists

It is also people the way speak but with sources... Santé also! Did you drink this extraordinary beer? José Fontaine (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but without a reliable source, this kind of statement does not belong here. Sorry :-| - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. This kind of title is not so important. It is almost for the fun. The most important thing is to show that these words (Queen of the Trappists) are really used. And there are many other sources. I did say it. But I don't want to have a war edition about that... And to loose time ... Sincerely, I regret, José Fontaine (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Weight Article

Dear user, you seem to consider my latest attempts in stopping wrong information from being published in a public article to be somehow inappropriate. I haven't been putting too much of an effort in the article, I only tagged it for improvement, and did so partially, and the misconceptions were introduced again as I left the article unattended in favor of paying attention to real world stuff. Therefore as the article's tag suggests there is a root problem with the article, a discussion (that shouldn't be so excessive, as the concept is quite simple) in the appropriate section in the article, that you failed to use, also notice that a summary for every edit was provided then and the suggestion to use the discussion as well.

I'm replacing the previous message here, which I have to recognize was provocative and excessive, for a more appropriate and polite as you deserve your respect too.

I'm reverting, therefore, the article to a point that doesn't have any conceptual errors.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.18.167 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please (1) put talk page messages at the bottom, and (2) sign them with four tildes (~~~~). In other words, have a look at the talk page guidelines. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User, you still fail to use Discussion pages. And there's not such thing as a green light for reverting articles in favor of wrong information based on agreement with one's pal (User_talk:Lambiam#Weight) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.8.64 (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The last thing I did on Weight was to correct a spelling mistake. Three weeks earlier I reverted ([3], [4]) some recurring removal of sourced content and left a few warnings on 190.71.18.167's talk page. There was also a brief discussion on the article talk page, where 3 contributors tried to help this user overcome his confusion. Since then a lot of work has been done by a number of editors.

Now, in answer to your statement that "there's not such thing as a green light for reverting articles in favor of wrong information...", please have a close look at the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability which says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Please read that entire policy page. So I'm afraid that there is not much I can do for you. Perhaps you should take this up with those who created this policy. I think you could inquire on Wikipedia:VPP or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. DVdm (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source discussion

Okay, please accept my apologies DVdm. I am used to speaking frankly, but depending on your standards of communication, that may come up as a bit blunt. I did take your advice in going to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources as you can check by going there. Meanwhile Johnuniq told me that was not the appropriate place to make a case, because only specific details of guidelines are debated there. I then moved my discussion to the NoticeBoard page. To me it seems that if showing my points with the strength intended, editors will notice, and the arguments will be carried into the deep recesses of Wikipedia. Of course I am assuming people will take the time to read them.

I am a bit appalled with some of the things you have here in your talk page. Though I took your intervention in good faith, it seems much of what you do is to hassle and dispute edits, without any constructive purpose in mind, and blocking anyone who disagrees with you. I cannot be sure but that's what it looks like. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that Johnuniq told you that Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources is not the appropriate place to make a case about the Carl Sagan statement. The case you are making now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems to be about flaws in the Wikipedia policies. In my opinion that case does not belong there, but I'm sure that someone will explain that soon. Concerning your other remark about the things on my talk page, I can assure you that you have it wrong, but I'm not going to elaborate. I wish you good luck with your quest but I'm pessimistic about the outcome. Take care. DVdm (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am writing in IAR Talk page, but it seems like a wild goose chase because the page is visited very infrequently. Please if you want to make a comment right now use my talk page, so you won't disrupt what I am writing. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up

• RSN archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 66#Carl Sagan's Indigo Children

DVdm (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I should be doing this, but now that the dust settled, do you think there's a point getting consensus about thepatientcapacitor.com being a reliable source? I am thinking, and that should be the criteria to use, that linking to the site enriches Wikipedia, in ways you cannot get anywhere else. The source is verifiable as we discussed, and at least some of the links would be great additions to Wikipedia. Please, let me know. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As did others, I advise you to let it go. So no, I don't think there is a point in pursuing this any further, unless you don't mind risking to get blocked for disruption through some combination of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:POINT, WP:PROMO and/or WP:FORUM. DVdm (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Kindly explain in detail which part of my editing of Achatina achatina you regard as "original research or novel syntheses of previously published material". cheers Androstachys (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

See talk page Talk:Achatina achatina. DVdm (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Oh, thanks. Sorry! Mayurvg (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential energy

Hello DVdm. I noticed you left a cautionary message about reverting on TSRibeye's Talk page, warning him about provocative reversions and asking that he use the article's Talk page to pursue consensus. I agree with the sentiment of your message to TSRibeye.

I can offer the same cautionary message to you. I recently did some re-working of the opening sentence of Potential energy. I also cited a reputable Physics textbook. (Prior to that, the opening paragraph was devoid of any in-line citation.) I see that you have deleted my work, including my in-line citation, and replaced it with uncited text. That is a provocative act. Deleting cited text and replacing it with uncited text is incompatible with WP:Verifiability. It would have been much better if you had resorted to a suitable Talk page in an attempt to achieve consensus or at least some mutual understanding. I am entitled to revert your edit to Potential energy but I have decided against doing that. I will watch for your next move.

In my re-work on the opening paragraph I introduced mention of conservative force which I know to be central to the concept of potential energy. After your reversion of my work, mention of conservative force is again absent from the opening paragraph of Potential energy. Do you agree that potential energy is only defined for conservative forces?

I look forward to working closely with you on this article. Dolphin (t) 07:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My intervention was in perfect accordance with WP:BRD, WP:LEADCITE and WP:Lead_section#First_sentence. According to WP:BRD you are not "entitled to revert" my edit, but you are invited to join the discussion on the talk page. See details on the article talk page. DVdm (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these links. I was not aware of WP:BRD and I found it valuable reading. Technically, it authorises reversions of the kind you exercised at Potential energy. However, it also contains many words of caution and I think all who invoke WP:BRD as justification for reverting would do well to periodically refresh their memory of the words of caution. Also I see nothing in WP:BRD to indicate it is a legitimate method for deleting cited material and replacing it with original research or material not adequately supported by citations.

I'm not involved with this article in order to conduct a war against other Users. I genuinely want to the see the article improved. My first objection to the article is that a lot of work has been done to grow the article to its present size, but all the Users involved have only managed to provide two in-line citations. I am able to contribute to the article in several ways, and one of them is to insist on a much higher level of discipline on the matter of providing in-line citations to allow independent verification of what is written in the article.

Seriously, I am genuinely interested in working with all Users willing to work on Potential energy. See you again on the Talk page! Dolphin (t) 12:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your phrase "... legitimate method for deleting cited material...": I didn't find your cited phrase in the source. I asked a question about this on the talk page. Let's keep that over there, where there's more eyes.

Concerning your phrase "... and replacing it with original research or material not adequately supported by citations": I showed on the talk page that the original wording can be backed by a Feynman citation, or slightly modified. DVdm (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

Hi DVdm. You recently undid a !vote by Hoecjok in the AfD discussion. While I agree that his edit was not contructive, I do not agree with undoing it. I think a better way to handle it is to strikethrough the comment and/or add the "little or no contributions" disclaimer template after his comment. I could undo it, but I think it might be better if you did it yourself. Of course, if you feel I am off base feel free to let me know where I have erred. Cheers. Movementarian (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I had considered putting a comment (without striking through, of course), but assuming that it was just a joke, I decided against it, as that could lead to some kind of off-topic discussion, or serve as a magnet for more. If it's no joke, I'm sure this brandnew editor will put it back and perhaps even explain why. So I'd rather not follow your suggestion and just see what happens, but, if you insist on having it on board, please feel free to do what you think is appropriate. I will not interfere. Hope you don't mind. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is along similar lines. I am concerned that the removal of the comment will serve as a catalyst for further off topic discussion. Given the content and clear intent of the statement, perhaps your assessment is more accurate. Thank you for your quick and candid response. Cheers. Movementarian (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti questions

Hey, thanks for the feedback on my talk page. I am finished with the Jack Sarfatti article for now. I have serious doubts about his supposed early life and academic background. The whole story seems to rely on one source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL this doesn't seem like a credible source to me. Can you offer any advice/comments? --DFRussia (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved reply to article talk page. DVdm (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Quasars and time dilation

Would it be possible to put the article on the discussions page of Time Dilation? (Cyberia3 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm afraid that the talk page wouldn't be a good place for it either, as article talk pages are for discussing the content and format of the article, not its subject - see the remarks at the top of the talk page. If you have some questions about this particular unpublished source and its possilble implications, then you can certainly try the science reference desk. Good luck. DVdm (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Frank Lambert all over the place

A few days ago, I nominated the articles "Frank Lambert", "Entropy (energy dispersal)", and "Introduction to Entropy" for deletion. So far the vote is going unanimously against me, but nobody has provided any evidence whatsoever for Frank Lambert's notoriety. One guy keeps repeating Lambert's claim that he has caused the majority of new chemistry textbooks to adopt his idea of replacing "entropy is disorder" with "entropy is energy dispersal", but nobody has cited any evidence for that. They have failed to cite a single acknowledgment of Lambert in any textbook, nor any journal article citing an article by Lambert. Please help. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for not having responded to this. I was away for a while. Seems moot now. DVdm (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Time dilation and space travel

Hi. Thanks for DELETING my entry on Time Dilation! However, I would be glad to understand the deeper reason for it and on what grounds you consider my entry false (mass increasing with speed). Did you ever see (heard) about that mass indeed increases with speed, though significantly only at relativistic speed? There is nice formula for that:

m = m0 /square root of [1 - (v2/c2)]

where m0 is the rest mass

v is velocity

c is the speed of light.

Perhaps I am wrong (or Einstein was too) but is that alone not preventing any particle with meaningful mass (including any collection of them, and yes: living body!) from ever reaching the speed of light, or even close to it??

Vega2 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vega2, indeed that is wrong. The formula does not prevent massive particles to reach the speed of light. The formula is just consistent with (or, if you like, describes) the fact that we cannot accelerate them to or beyond that speed. Furthermore, the concept of relativistic mass is a bit old fashioned, as you can read in its article, for instance at the end of this section. Specially look at what Einstein said about it at the end of the section. Surely that quantity of an object increases as it gains speed, but for the object itself nothing changes, since it always remains at rest w.r.t. itself. If this is not sufficient, you better take this to the article talk page, where others can comment as well, but I hope this clarifies sufficiently. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi DVdm. OK, I accept your argument. Any maybe "relativistic mass" is indeed old fashioned. But can you explain to me why it is so that particles possessing mass cannot ever be accelerated to the speed of light by their "own making" if their mass is not increasing? Is it not contradiction? Is it not the case that to be capable to accelerate so much would require infinite amount of energy (that is an amount of energy of WHOLE Universe plus much, much more)? I did not make it up, that doubt about uncertainty for survival of living bodies in such conditions. I read it in one encyclopedic Polish book written by professionals (source I attached to my original entry now removed). Cheers Vega2 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I cannot explain why massive particles cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. Science doesn't do that. That's a question for philosophy, or for religion. Science does the how-bit and leaves the ultimate why-bit to others. As to this specific case of the kinetic energy formula, T = m(γ-1)c², this formula is valid for massive particles only. There is no corresponding equation for light, so plugging the speed of light in this formula is not allowed, as there is a division by zero in there. Sometimes people say that this produces infinity, but that is just sloppy language, and actually wrong: it just is not allowed. The fomula is only valid for massive particles going at sub-lightspeed, and the fact that the mathematical limit is infinite, is again merely consistent with the lightspeed limit, it does not cause it. Cheers. DVdm (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! Yes, I understand! I heard that photons alone can travel at the speed of light because they do not possess ANY mass (in fact "they cannot help" but to travel ALWAYS at that speed, never any slower, forever "imprisoned" by that traveling speed (and any multitude of absorptions and emission on their way with other particles). End of story. However, as far as I know (returning to my initial question), because so far only with some subatomic particles it was proven that their mass increase (at least for us, outside observers), plus any contraction or time dilation, and because we cannot guess what "they feel" or notice themselves (because we are outside), I guess only in far future we could hope to determine "inside" effects of traveling at such huge speeds, or do practical experiments if that would be ever possible for living bodies to survive. I know it is rather long way to go, leaving all philosophy or religion aside. (How big speed we achieve so far? Voyager II around 17 km/s ? Oh yes, and no living cell even at that, yet!) Cheers! Vega2 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:Cloud_chamber#Link_Removal - could you please read my request there? Thank you, --Superbass (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Links to websites

Are you are aware that a website can't mandate you can't link to the site without their permission, theres tons of caselaw to back that up, so regardless of the clause on http://mathematics.laerd.com, there is no legal obligation to abide by it or not link to them. — raekyT 21:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Was not aware. Now am. Thanks for the link and cheers, DVdm (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: search laerd. DVdm (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of AN/I discussion

see here Count Iblis (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Commented here. DVdm (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Theory of Relativity Discussion Site & useless censorship

Hi there,

It seems you are the one that deemed fit to censor a posting of mine on the theory of relativity discussion site. I think my post was quite relevant to the topic. Please read it again, I am quite sure you would find it relevant. Mind you, I am going to try and post it again: and not because I am looking for someone to agree with me LOL. It's simply because I am right in raising those issues and by censoring me you might very well reduce the chances of a future scientist to come out with a better theory that would benefit all :-).

Thank you for reconsidering your position, Diana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdiavaro99 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~)? Thanks.

When you carefully read point 4 of WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought and talk page guidelines you can find the reason for my removal. An article's talk page is not a place for discussing the article's subject. It is a place where additions or changes to the article can be discussed. Talk:Theory of relativity is not "the theory of relativity discussion site". You can find such a site on Usenet. My removal was not an act of censonship. It was an act of keeping the article talk pages free of improper article talk page content. I advise you not to try and post it again. So, please acquaint yourself with our basic policies. You find useful links in the welcome message on your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow Up Question

Hey DVdm,

Here's a follow up question to our previous chat about the quadratic formula page. It's also on my talk page. I would prefer if you could respond there. Thanks a bunch. Get to me when you can. 76.14.39.209 (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So the only way I can add my proof is if I can get some reliable source to publish it first? Do you have any suggestions as to who I can ask to publish it so I can finally get my edit into the Wikipedia article?

It's been a pleasure talking to you. I've learned a lot about editing Wikipedia. I have a bit more information about how I came across the proof on my talk page. Regards. 76.14.39.209 (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, stick around :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for the note. I don't use socks in the sense that you should be concerned with. See WP:SOCKS#Legitimate uses.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

hey there. i was the one that left the comments on the "regular polygon" page a couple of weeks ago. at first i was kinda pissed that my little bit got deleted. but then i found your note. i understand completely now. cheers! 75.147.97.62 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcome harassment

Please do stop following me around and criticising and/or modifying my contributions, often peppering your edits with provocative remarks. If you persist in this behaviour I intend taking this to the ANI and charging you with stalking. Androstachys (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I am not stalking you. Can you show me examples of such provocative remarks? DVdm (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have repeated (and expanded) this request on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lack of response noted. DVdm (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four glasses puzzle

Hi DVm. As a mathematician, you might like to offer you opinion on this AfD. I personally do not think it justifies an article, but I'm not fussy and I'm not an expert. It just needs deciding whether to keep it or not. --Kudpung (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I left my comment here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Hi, since this borders more on discussion of my intent, than on the topic of Atheism, I figured I would continue it here. Though I am not religious in the normal sense (spiritual at best, perhaps bordering on atheism due to not believing in a specific god), I am not at odds with Daunemen's addition if properly worded and properly cited. It seems a major viewpoint on the topic of atheism, held by various religious authorities and thus is a form of criticism of the concept of atheism. Though it may be or seem like circular reasoning and may seem like it does not have a logical basis, it is an opposing viewpoint, possibly a majority one by those who deny/refute atheism (from my experience - hence the need of cites to authorities on the matter). In this, though I am at odds over another contribution by Daunemen, I cannot say I am at odds with this (if all Wikipedia rules and guidelines are met). Disagreeing with a contribution does not make me summarily disagree with the contributor or other unrelated contributions. Hope that helps explain my intent, and my request for clarification of Daunemen's proposed addition. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, but as I said on the article's talk page, the addition should only be discussed after a source is provided. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The author started working on it on his talk page, so I guess discussion can be moved there for any who want to participate. In addition, in an attempt to be helpful, I've left Daunemen instructions on how to create articles in his userspace to prevent cluttering his talk page. Thanks again, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Enjoy the chat :-) DVdm (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Special relativity

Please reconsider closing the "speed with respect to what?" discussion. It revolves around a proposed modification to the introduction to the special relativity article, and besides, it should be over soon, assuming the questioner is not trolling. PAR (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, PAR, yes, (perhaps) it started around a proposed modification, but it immediately degraded into a typical never-ending "I know better than Einstein, prove me wrong" discussion. I don't think it will be over soon. The questioner clearly does not understand what special relatitiy is about, and that talk page is really not the place to try to educate him. DVdm (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think the "typical never-ending..." judgement is premature. PAR (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can trust me on this one. Anyway, the discussion had reached a point far beyond the purpose of the talk page: "Let me prove the point with three separate items which any gainsayer must address rather than just saying "no, you're wrong, it is constant" which is futile and devoid of logic." Such challenges really should never be addressed on article talk pages. Any reply to the A,B,C would result in A1,A2,A3,B1,B2,B3,C1,C2,C3... It really does not stop there. The ref desk might be a better place for this, and perhaps even not -- perhaps this is something for Usenet. DVdm (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the latest activity on the talk page, I see you are right, my optimism was misplaced. PAR (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

About a decade of Usenet experience :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk)

ANI discussion

Because you were involved in some of these disputes you might (or might not) be interested in commenting at this ANI thread Stevertigo's Pattern of Problematic Editing ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I made a comment here. DVdm (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time

I am willing to mediate this dispute, if all participants find me acceptable, and the dispute is still live. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that? Thanks, but I doubt there's something to mediate. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stevertigo_2. DVdm (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted link

Hi DVdm!

I am hungarian WP user (Fizped) and Commons user (Fizped). I am physics teacher. My hompage: www.fizkapu.hu. Deleted link in page Cathode ray:

• (http://www.fizkapu.hu/animator/_katodsugarak.html - Animation photos (Crookes tube under power and Cathode ray in magnetic field 1-2.)"

is a link to animation my photos. Have you looked at the animation? It helps to understand the cathode ray? If yes, please set it back to the site! Thanks!

I don't speak English. Sorry! Fizped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.185.43 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please read wp:ELNO item 11 (Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority), wp:NONENGEL and wp:PROMO. Sorry, but that's the way it works here. I have put a welcome message on your talk page, together with a more or less formal warning about the link. You might find some more interesting pointers about our policies. Good luck and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Relativistic mass of a photon

[5] You have mis-read your own reference! It says only that the relativistic mass of a photon is indeterminate IF you use the equation m = m(rest)*gamma. However, that only means you can't use THAT equation! It does't mean that the value for the relativistic mass of a photon actually IS indeterminate. As the book correctly says, the relativistic mass of a photon is E/c^2 where E is the photon energy hf. Naturally, this is frame dependent. SBHarris 01:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I overlooked the next sentence. Sorry for that and thanks for letting me know. Cheers. DVdm (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Albert Einstein - not a minor edit.

Just a quick note; I see you removed the claim that Einstein was a socialist. I don't know whether he was or not. But I do think you should not have marked that edit as "minor". --bodnotbod (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops - you are right. Sorry for that. DVdm (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Kalp (Aeon) Revision

Thank you for pointing out that mistake. I was attempting to rollback another edit on my watchlist and some how ended up rollbacking this user's edit. I would not have seen that with out your watchful eye. ^The World 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for finding my mistake. I believe you deserve this The World 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh... Thanks :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Time discussion

A discussion has begun (on the talk page) concerning the lede in the article Time. I invite you to join here: Introduction, take 2 ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for the invitation. I have skimmed though it, but I'm afraid that, to me, time is just what a clock reads, and we already have that in Time in physics, so I don't think there's much to contribute for me to the current discussion at Talk:Time. I'd rather see just one article on time, shoving the (i.m.o. useless) philosophical musings into some obscure corner, but that's not going to happen. Enjoy and keep up the good work. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply is on my talk page

Feel free to delete this section; I've just responded, as you request, on my own talk page. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticizing statements is not improper conduct under Wikipedia guidelines

DVdm, although it is improper conduct to directly insult a person by for example calling the person a moron or something like that, it is not improper conduct to criticize the statements made by a person. Therefore it is OK to say, that is an idiotic statement. But it is improper conduct to say, you are an idiot. RHB100 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you to stop saying that I make idiotic statements. DVdm (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Weightlessness

Hi, we met recently discussing about inertial frames. Now, I would appreciate if you could give a look at the article Weightlessness (particularly its second paragraph), to my (reverted) edits to it, and to the endless discussion with Sbharris concerning the question whether weight is a force. Thanks. --GianniG46 (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi GianniG46, I made a comment on the talk page. I also made a subtle article edit, which might help (perhaps). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Table salt?

I checked your book Bender, David A.... page 459. Nice reference, but where does it say that ferrocyanide is "used in ... table salt" (emphasis added). Anyway, this is probably better material for ferrocyanide.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added another (much better) source that says it is used in table salt. Bender is now used for a list of the 3 varieties. I have reworded and elaborated a bit ([6]). I think we can use this in the cyanide article. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Probably the table salt aspect is a rare application, but it is illustrative of the fact that [Fe(CN)₆]^4- behaves quite differently from CN^-. I would move your section to ferrocyanide.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't really my section, but I'd like to keep this little remark (as a sub-sub-section) in the current article. O.t.o.h. I think it's a good idea to copy and elaborate a bit on it in the ferrocyanide article, so by all means go ahead - good idea. DVdm (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Feynman Lectures

Thanks for your remark on my removal of Amazon reviews as a source from the Feynman Lectures! Because I only work as an IP, I usually get anything from insults to blocks for being insulted (you read that right), so this was really refreshing. Keep it up! --193.254.155.48 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise! DVdm (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Centripetal Force

Dvdm, if you have any issues regarding why I made those edits at centripetal force then raise them on the appropriate talk page. The section was entitled 'sources of centripetal force'. There was no need for all the extra details about centres of mass etc., and besides, it wasn't written very clearly. If you are interested in that article there is plenty of stuff which could be tidied up to make it shorter and more concise. Don't post messages of the kind which you did at my talk page. Those kind of messages are designed for vandalism and newcomers. David Tombe (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't template the regulars, but as a regular editor you should know that deleting properly sourced content is usually considered to be vandalism. So you got the message. You can use the article talk page to explain and discuss your deletion. This is not the place for that. DVdm (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dvdm, I wasn't even finished my tidy up session when I received your templated message on my talk page. My purpose was to shorten the section by removing unnecessary material. That was not a section for discussing planetary orbits in detail. It was sufficient to point out that in the case of planetary orbits, the centripetal force is supplied by gravity. That is all that was needed. It is perfectly in order to remove sourced material if the material is irrelevant to the point. I have given my views on the talk page at centripetal force and so I suggest that we carry on the discussion there if you so wish. David Tombe (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Signing in

You can stop telling me every time about the sign in. I have enough problems as it is. Maybe you can tell me how I can stop being signed out while I am editing? I use the proper procedure but I don't realize that I am not signed in any more. And before I even can rectify that you already see a need to remined me. And that already twice in a row! Have you nothing else to do? How about giving me more time before jumping on my back. Is that not included in the Wikimedia policy? --Martin Lenoar (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? As far as I know, I never told you about signing in. I only told you once how to sign messages with the four tildes (~~~~), but I never told you about signing in. Where did that happen? DVdm (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I used signing in for logging in or out. So you want to help? Or is your reaction to my attempt to edit automated? How about stop repeating with bombarding me always with the same assumption that I dont know what I need to do. This is a form of help, apparently common on the internet, which stopped me to consider looking at "help" pages, they all tell you the same over and over again and maybe somewhere in there is a little real help.

Now if your are real, then maybe you can tell me why it is e.g. ok to write on your talk page without being logged out. Like now. But when I switched form the Article page to the Discussion page of the "Introduction to special relativity", and tried to edit the part I had put in before, I seem to was immediately logged out. The note: "You are not logged in", came on above the edit page. So I logged in again, but was thrown out from the edit page. Again I did not do anything except trying to edit. And there you were again??????????? with all your accusations and "helpfull" information. How do you think I was able to establish an account? By having the cookies switched off? Or that I am so dumb not to let the computer remember my password? Thank you for all this assumption which seem to be based on the assumption that every "new member" must make the same mistakes. (Like the oh so helpful "Frequently ask question" lists). I now about the policy of Wikipedia that nothing is alowed which is not already established. But I don't consider myself a member of Wikipedia even Wikiversity is part of it. So unless you can come up with some real helpful answers then I won't bother you again. I am wise enough to know when my type is not wanted.--Martin Lenoar (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, actually I made only two edits to your talk page. The first edit was this one, where I put two standard templates for newcomers. Nothing personal, no accusations. This is more or less standard routine for new users who forget to sign a talk page message. This is what I wrote in the edit window:

{{subst:welcomemenu}}

==Talk pages==

{{subst:uw-summary|Talk:Introduction to special relativity}} - ~~~~

and you see the result. My second edit was this one, where I gave a second answer to your question here on my talk page. If I somehow annoyed you with any of this, please accept my apologies. It was not my intention to bother you. If you don't like the current state of your talk page, feel free to remove anything you don't like there. It's all yours. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

References for "Theory of relativity"

Hi. I sent you two e-mails, which will help you verify the Groiler references. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Steve, that is very kind of you. Thank you very much :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

I was willing to ignore my qualms about your and John's formatting doctrine over at talk:complex number. Now at logarithm, however, you seem to just override your own rule which I might paraphrase as: don't change an article's formatting without good reason. Even though this is a totally nitpickishy issue, you should still apply commonsense to it. Which means: simply because there are two math markup formulas and 5 HTML formulas nearby, this does not entitle you or anyone else to start changing the corresponding section. Then maybe you do the surrounding two sections, then, ooops, now we have an inconsistently formatted article, let's do whatever we want. I kindly, but firmly ask you to respect other people's work. I invested a lot in logarithms, which does not mean it is a perfect article, but which does mean that quite some thought has gone into this article, including markup. I'm happy to disclose my reason not to use math markup in elementary formulas which can be done using HTML: it just looks inconsistent, cause

$|z_{1}+z_{2}|=5$

will render for most users in this intermediate formate, not the same as

z₁ + z₂ = 5

(which is perfectly consistent with the text font in the main article) nor

$\displaystyle |z_{1}+z_{2}|=5$

which we (regret it or not) have to use for complicated, non-HTML-able formulas.

You were concerned about inconsistencies in complex numbers. I was unwilling to discuss it til the end there, but if you stir it up again, I have to ask you: don't introduce even more inconsistencies. If you have a liking for polish markup, there are plenty of articles which sorely need the work. Logarithm does not need it, IMO. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Jacob, I have copied this to a new section Talk:Logarithm#Formula_formatting_consistency_-_informal_RFC, where I think it belongs. I gave a short reply and (informally) asked for comments from other contributors. See you there. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Galileo

Started a discussion at Talk:Uniform acceleration about whether or not we should include that sentence. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good idea. DVdm (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How is This Vandalism?

Hello, I have been reading Wikipedia for a long time but this is my first time trying to interact and use it, so I hope this is the right place to discuss this edit. It states it is reverting some changes that were deemed Vandalism, and the User was warned not to do it anymore. Vandalism is defined by wikipedia to be:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."

Also:

"Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism."

This edit added information to the article. The original article stated only that "a user" was banned, the edit helped to identify the user in question and put the banning into context. This seems like the very definition of a good-faith effort to improve the wiki. If the edit was incorrect from a factual point of view, that is a completely different reason to remove it. As a result, I'm going to revert the change which obviously does not meet Wikipedia's definition of Vandalism.

Thanks, Bridger15 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bridger15, as far as I can see, this edit, was certainly not vandalism per se. It was a clear case of wp:UNSOURCED information, failing wp:NPOV, and it used wp:WEASEL words and it had information on what we call a "living person" (see wp:BLP). You should click these links and find out how Wikipedia works.

Now, that specific edit could indeed have been vandalism (i.e. "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"), provided it was for instance the second or third time the edit was made and the user(s) had been been warned about this and had been made aware of the policies. I have not looked at the history or at the talk page, but it could be that Aldaron (talk · contribs) had already warned a few contributors that re-adding this kind of unsourced, non-neutral weasel phrases to the article would be considered vandalism, in which case it can indeed be labeled as such. But I have not looked into this. What you certainly should not do, is to revert because you think it is not vandalism. A much better way to go about is to inquire either on the article talk page or on Aldaron's talk page, but not on both - take it one at a time. Anyway, I'm sure you'll work this out. I have left a welcome message on your talk page, containing a large bunch of very interesting links about how things work at Wikipedia. Let me know if I can help...

Good luck - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The first

The first peson who wrote a book on calculus is not relevant? Lorynote (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary: "It is not sourced, and puts undue weight. If someone thinks it is relevant, please find source and propose on talk page." I think that you really should find a wp:reliable source before you do so. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01214b.htm --Newadvent is used in many articles on WP. Lorynote (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Final warning. DVdm (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

USE

Hi DVdm. Thank you for going back and cleaning that up :). I would have done it myself, but doing so would likely have put me dangerously close to violating 3RR. Good job! Happy editing :).  -- WikHead (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. See also this tag and this warning. DVdm (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cubic function and systems of polynomial equations

I totally agree with your last comment on the talk page of cubic function. I agree also to delete the section Alternative solution: It is a verbatim copy of the link named source[3], without adapting the notation to be coherent with the remainder of the page. Moreover it is not really different of the formula in section general formula for the roots and is mathematically wrong as explained in this section. I could do it myself, but I am not enough accustomed with WP policies to provide the right motive of deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will collapse two sections a section at Talk:Cubic function, check whether Cubic_function#Alternative_Solution is no copyright violation, add a proper talk page header, and start archiving the talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk)

Thanks D.Lazard (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen my last comment on my talk page? Cheers D.Lazard (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

could you explain me how is this vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Soldati?diff=401772191 ???! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leghacy of 444 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just find a reliable source for this edit, and it might be acceptable. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi! I noticed you have reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD&action=historysubmit&diff=401988433&oldid=401988380 . What I think happened with the author was that they say the deletion tag so they blanked it to "delete" it themself. Instead of reverting it and warning the user, just tag it with {{db-blanked}} or {{db-g7}} to avoid confusing the editor. Happy editing! --Addihockey10^e-mail 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good to know - Thanks! DVdm (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Articles

You may delete the articles that have been scheduled for deletion because I'm getting wrong information that I thought was right, but I didn't know. It's okay if you delete my articles that have been scheduled for deletion. If there's any suggestions about how I should make or edit a Wikipedia page, please don't hesitate to leave me a message. I'm new to this and I might need a few pointers. (Lilmizangel (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

Tests of GRT

I have been adding a section with a new table 2 to the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity You have deleted my addition without consulting me. You sited WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Neither apply. The addition is fully cited, and in a reliable source. The calculation of the precession of perhelion invalidates the conclusions that are drawn in table 1, so it leaves the conclusion to be drawn up to the reader.

Please do not remove my written material. I do not remove your material. D c weber (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please aquaint yourself with wp:NOR and wp:SYN. I have left a third level warning on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the nor site and the material I added was from a reputed Russian scientist and his paper was published on the Cosmology group site for papers. I read the syn and I fail to see where this applies. I only say that the precession of Mercury's orbital parameter of perihelion is very samall and nowhere close to what GRT predicts. Until we get this resolved, I will add a pov header to this page. Not allowing alternate papers that do not agree with the theory of GR is putting a bias to the wiki article. D c weber (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. DVdm,

Here is an response and edited text user talk:D c weber .72.241.181.142 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. DVdm, Please read the first sentence of the wp:UNDUE that you cited. It specifically mandates "all significant viewpoints". Can we just agree that this viewpoint is needed for this section, so as to comply with NPOV?D c weber (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have left a reply on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. DVdm, Please read the first sentence of the wp:UNDUE that you cited. It specifically mandates "all significant viewpoints". Can we just agree that this viewpoint is needed for this section, so as to comply with NPOV?D c weber (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have left a reply on the article talk page. Please stop duplicating your comments on various talk pages. DVdm (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi there - just a note to say please be careful not to break the three revert rule. You arguably did so at Progress (Take That album) - your reverts may have been justified, but the other editor's additions were not "blatant vandalism", so 3RR applies. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll keep this in mind. Some of the edits seemed to be vandalism. I stopped reverting and manually removed the unsourced content. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The user you were reverting has been blocked now for 24 hours, we do need to take care but trolling repeated no listening additions against policy such as that do imo become vandalistic in nature when repeatedly replaced without effort at discussion in a warring manner such as that, thanks for you contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifying my references

I am sending you several emails, which will help you verify my references pertaining to my most recent talk page response over at "Time". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Kumbaya

Lets all gather into a circle sing kumbaya and debate the philosophy of our mother earth :) Feast on my Soul (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)