User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Time dilation
I'm new to editing wikipedia (or html stuff in general), so I don't know how to set hyperlinks. From the "Gravitational time dilation" article: "the faster the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes". Also from the same article: "Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower." Time passing slower in gravitation fields is also what I remember from my academic education, although it was only a very minor subject. So if time passes slower on the ground (nearer to earth's center of mass), the ground control guys will age less than the astronaut. Hence the astronaut will have aged more, not less. So I think my edit was correct. Maybe you are confusing things with the twin paradox in special relativity which concerns a spacecraft moving at relativistic speed. Sorry for my English, it's not my native language. Greetings. 79.203.73.5 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- What you say is correct for clocks standing still in the gravitational field, but not for clocks in relative motion. The relative motion is more important in the case of low orbit satellites and astronauts. See for instance the GPS article and this sample chapter of a truly excellent book. Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The book's chapter still arrives at the conclusion that the satellites/astronauts clock runs faster (estimated 39000ns/day). Although less faster than it would by altitude effects alone (50000ns/day) with clocks not moving. GPS article says internal reference frequency in the satellites is lower than receivers. This also makes sense only if sat clocks are faster. Seems gravitational effects outweigh speed effects in that case, and my edit was correct. But I guess I shouldn't have made a "gut decision" about stuff as non-intuitive as that. If I ever feel like editing again, I'll check some sources (and figure out how to include them). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.203.72.151 (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thought about it some more. GPS satellites are on pretty high orbits (higher grav. difference compared to ground) and moving pretty slow compared to the ISS for example which is on a pretty low orbit (lower grav. diff) and thus much faster. May well be that the speed is the more important factor then. But does it make sense to include a definitive statement in the article, if it can be both? 79.203.72.151 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I just checked things with the equation [12] of Taylor's book. Typical GPS clocks in orbit run about 39 microseconds fast per day, whereas (at a low altitude of about 400km) ISS astronauts's clocks run about 24 microseconds slow per day. So indeed, most regular astronauts age less. If we can find solid sources for both, we can of course include them in the article, but we can't rely on calculations we make ourselves, per wp:NOR and wp:CALC. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- F.w.i.w, I created this little thingy:
- It shows the daily time dilation (gain or loss if negative) in microseconds as a function of orbit (assumed circular) radius r = rs/re where rs is satellite orbit radius and re is Earth radius. At r = 1.497 there is no time dilation, i.o.w. the gravitational and velocity approximations cancel. IIS astronauts fly below, whereas GPS and Geostationary satellites fly above. DVdm (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note(to self—probably), see fig 2, p 16 of Ashby's Relativity in the Global Positioning System. - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
TRH: What is thought of by readers as astronauts "most" of the time may be the more exotic moon voyages. Here is a reference from an excerpt published in TIME magazine that moon travellers age more; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839785,00.html Going with a time descrepancy per orbit alone may be somewhat illuminating but ignores acceleration periods needed to get off of and get back to the earth. Only a full computation including this could verify if a specific ISS visitor aged less overall. The article clearly should not state astronauts age less, when moon travellers aged more. I do not know why this discussion is not directly on the Wikipedia time dilation web site. 128.244.42.5 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- (moved your signature to the end, hope you don't mind)
- Meanwhile I had added the above image to the article. It fully complies with Asbhy.
- I have now tweaked the lead caption of the article, adding the ISS specification to the astronauts, and moved the Ashby source citation up. I have also added the ref here. Everything seems to be correct and properly sourced now.
- The Time magazine article, which is of course not really a wp:reliable source, is now not relevant, as the caption specifically talks about ISS astronauts. Perhaps it's better not to complicate things, and stick with the good sources, so to speak.
- I agree that this discussion should have been held on the article talk page. Blame in on history :-)
- Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
TRH: Yes, leading caption is fixed. However, the new caption needs work. The primary issue is an irritating tiny detail. From the article, with respect to proper time, satellite clock tick rate is; (ds1/dt)^2 = 1-2GM/(r*c^2)-v_perp^2/c^2, where orbit radial velocity is zero. A clock on earth at the North Pole has; (ds2/dt)^2 = 1-2GM/(Re*c^2) For classical mechanics, equating F=ma for the orbit's circular acceleration and gravity yields v_perp^2=GM/r so the satellite simplifies to (ds1/dt)^2 = 1-3GM/(r*c^2) Now equating the two clocks gives 2/Re=3/r, so r=(3/2)Re. Therefore, in lieu of original research, one should report 1.5 Re as where the two clocks tick at the same rate. But this caption claims 1.497 is a better answer. There is nowhere near the plot resolution to argue about the 3rd decimal place. Is 1.497 even really correct? What mystical effect does the author have secret knowledge about? 128.244.42.5 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- The value 1.497 is based on equation [3] on page A-3 (or [12] on page A-6) of Taylor and Wheeler, setting it to 1 and solving for rs (satellite radius), and using at least 4 digit precision for the numerical values. This equation is directly drawn from the Swartzschild metric in equation [1].
- When we put vEarth = 0 in equation [3], ignoring the fact that equatorial ground based clocks are moving in the Earth centre based inertial reference frame, we get of course the exact value 1.5 that you mention above. That is in essence (almost) what the above analysis does when comparing with a pole based clock. However, when doing that, one should also use the polar Earth radius (6371 km) in stead of the equatorial radius (6378 km), which would reduce the 1.5 back to 1.498.
- Anyway, Ashby's source says that "the effects cancel at a ≈ 9545 km", which of course perfectly corresponds to ≈ 1.497 equatorial Earth radii, so the value 1.497 is indeed backed by the source. Note that we can do this per trivial routine calculation 9545/6378=1.497 (see wp:CALC). So I think it would be safe to leave the caption as is, since "Earth radius" is usually assumed to be the equatorial one is such context, but I have tweaked the caption anyway. Thanks for having drawn my attention to this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
TRH: The sources you quote are expanding expressions into series and dropping lower order terms, but NOT dealing with the earth eccentricity. A-3 Eqn [3] is identical to a ratio of the two equations I wrote for (ds1)^2 and (ds2)^2, and A-3 Eqn [9] gives the identical satellite velocity equation I gave. You are saying 1.497 is derivable from the identical equations that I am showing you actually yield 1.5. Do you agree that the earth equator rotational velocity is negligible, for the 3rd decimal? You indirectly mistakenly suggest that the more precise north pole gravity term is obtained by plugging in a smaller R in the spherical 1/R formula. In the limit of large eccentricity the earth becomes a pancake, the two poles touch each other, and there is no gravity at all (on the surface at the north pole). But for your approach gravity is going to infinity, because you keep plugging in a smaller R into 1/R. The basic reality is a caption, surrounded by Wikipedia equations that point to 1.5 Re, states 1.497 for reasons that are not stated. What is the point in going to the 3rd decimal? Readers are best served by a caption that states (3/2)Re (or an altitude of Re/2) and avoids the complication of new flavors of Re. The equatorial versus average and polar earth radii distinctions are too detailed for the Wikipedia article in the first place, and even the more involved references quoted in this discussion do not cover it.128.244.42.5 (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- If one sets the "earth velocity" to zero in the Earth centre based inertial reference frame (see article Earth-centered inertial), one ignores the fact that the Earth based clocks are not inertial, and one gets 1.5 exactly. Not ignoring this, and thus more correctly applying the general relativistic equations, gives the value 1.497. That is certainly significant in an article about time dilation, and specially relevant in the section about the combination of so-called gravitational and kinematic effects, which are of course in turn both approximations of the originating Schwarzschild metric. Ignoring a significant part of the kinematics would be highly inappropriate in that context.
- But no worries, the 4 digit expression 1.497 in the caption in the article is directly derivable from (and tracable to) the 4 digit expression 9545 in the Ashby source (see policy wp:RS) in the same caption. The rest is just informal chat on my user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
TRH: You correctly point out the earth's velocity is not negligible to the 3rd decimal for a clock at the equator. Assume we stay consistent with the segment of the current Wikipedia article where the caption is placed by NOT resorting to earth eccentricity. For the north pole we get 1.5*Re and for the equator I get 1.4974*Re = 1.4974*6371 kM = 9540 km, and this rounds to 1.497*Re. Perhaps the caption could state "the clocks agree for a satellite orbit at 1.5*Re for an earth clock at the north pole and 1.497*Re for an earth clock at the equator". If sticking to only 1.497*Re, at least specify that the earth clock is on the equator. Note the current caption does tell you to use an equatorial value for Re, but does NOT explicitly tell you the earth clock must be on the equator for 1.497*Re to be correct, which may be confusing. It is a dubious idea to introduce eccentricity with only indirect motivation from a reference that states APPROXIMATELY 9545 km. Mentioning a distinct "equatorial" Re is unfortunate because this references eccentricity and thus gives the false implication that references are taking eccentricity into account to get this 0.003 correction, when in fact it is primarily a rotational velocity effect. 128.244.42.5 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the value in the caption is properly sourced, so, per policy, we don't have to worry about that. Whether we understand it, or accept it, or not, is of no importance for Wikipedia.
- All the above here merely serves to help you understand that the value is correct. We don't have to do that here in Wikipedia. What matters —per policy— is that the thing is properly sourced in the article. If you are not convinced by my additional remarks, then that's okay. No problem and no worries. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I notice that you just significantly wp:REDACTED your previous comment to which I already had replied. Please don't do that - see wp:talk page guidelines#Own comments.
- Anyway, contrary to what you suggested now, we do not have to explicitly tell that the earth clock must be on the equator. The Ashby source doesn't say it either, because the clock can be anywhere. All clocks on the geoid are synchronised. As I have shown before, a clock on the pole is synchronous with a clock on the equator (remember that 1.498 above), and in fact with every clock in between, provided it rests on the ground and rotates with the earth. The one on the pole does not rotate but it is closer to the center. The two effects cancel everywhere. - DVdm (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A non-spinning earth has one unique average sea level at the equator and poles. Adding earth rotational velocity to get its time dilation impact is fine, but this change also must create an elliptical sea level. The caption specifies both an equatorial Re instead of an average Re, and 1.497 instead of 1.5. Both of these corrections are not just spinning earth effects but also equivalently elliptical earth effects. If only the equatorial and polor sea levels are given, the equatorial velocity can be determined. The intent is for the caption to incorporate an earth velocity time dilation correction, but given that an elliptical earth surface gravitational potential was not used, the referenced computation was not accurate enough to assert an earth velocity effect. Using 1.5*Re in the caption drops the pretense of reporting a computation as being more accurate than it may actually be.128.244.42.5 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- If the source had said that "the effects cancel at a = 9567 km", then we could write 1.5, but the source says "the effects cancel at a ≈ 9545 km", so we must write 1.497 instead of 1.5. You suggest that we put wp:original research in the article, which is a no-no in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Stating 1.498*Re (=9544 km) and leaving out the equatorial earth radius (as you point out, anywhere is OK) which yields 1.497*Req (=9548 km) is closer to the source. Handing out 2 or 4 decimals of precision in a caption is partly a matter of discretion, where you look at the source and try to figure out how much precision was intended.128.244.42.5 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The source has 4 decimals of precision. Any deviation from that when using the source would amount to wp:original research. - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Lets go for 5 digits precision. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=articlese3.html Above is a reference where the International Astronomical Union "Terrestrial Time" scale (between Eqns 18 & 19) is given as ds2/dt = 1-alpha, for alpha = 6.969290134*10^(-10). For break even equate this to ds1/dt = sqrt[1-3GM/(rc^2)]
r/Requator = (3/2)*(GM/c^2)/[alpha*(1-alpha/2)*Requator] = 1.4942
Sticking to 1.497 misses the earth rotational velocity + ellipsoidal surface gravity correction by 50%.128.244.42.5 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding "For break even equate this to ds1/dt = sqrt(1-3GM/(rc^2))", see wp:NOR and wp:SYNT. - DVdm (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I concede that one should also properly give a satellite flying over the equator an elliptical earth (GM/r)*(1-J2*(Re/r)^2) correction for J2=1.08263*10^(-3), and this does get even more involved in original looking stuff. When I did this I got 1.493*Requator. The point is not to replace 1.497 with 1.494 or 1.493, but rather to question what value and motivation exists to assigning 4 digits of precision to the original source. The author may have filled in preceding digit places just to get to the "km" symbol, and did so consistent with terms that were ignored along the way, just so that ***a reader who followed through with the same approximations and repeated the computation would not be frustrasted by getting a different answer***. We cannot telepathically decipher the intent of the author as otherwise.128.244.42.5 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding "The author may have filled in preceding digit places just to...": see wp:NOR and wp:SYNT. - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
TRH: Thanks for bearing with me. I think I resolved the mystery of why Ashby's 9545 km result is missing a quadrapole potential correction, which normally must come along with a rotating earth due to the rotation's impact on sea level. Clearly it has troubled me that I could not recover 9545 km when only low order polynomials are involved. Since my last writing,
- I extended all my constants to higher precision (using c=3*10^8 was the primary issue).
- Ashby's equation 85 has the right elliptical correction, but there is a 7 where I get a 5, so I just fudged over to the published 7. When the clock's agree, the frequency shift and time dilation discrepancies go away, so Eqn 85 is better for getting break-even.
- A circular orbit has no eccentricity. Flying over the equator I get 1.4948086*Requator=9534 km, still not recovering the 3rd decimal. So the thought occurs to me; Ashby is much more interested in GPS technology, not esoteric break-even. There is nothing in his orbital time dilation plot indicating a specific satellite inclination, and there is one data point for a GPS satellite. A unique curve needs a unique inclination. What if I plug in 55 degrees since that is correct for GPS satellites?
I got 1.496511429*Requator=9544.955 km. It just so happens that 55 degrees decimates the elliptical potential term. Whether it has a 7 or 5 factor doesnt matter, due to a leading factor of (1-(3/2)*(sin(2*pi*55/360))^2) = -0.006515107494252. So the current caption 3rd decimal is AOK for an orbit tilted at 55 degrees (where 90 orbits the poles and 0 orbits the equator). For an orbit going over the equator, Eqn 85 indicates the 3rd decimal is off (should be 1.495 and not 1.497).128.244.42.5 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work. If we can find a good independent-Wikipedia-kinda-non-original-research-source that backs this, we can modify the caption and let it rest. In the meantime we'll have to settle for Ashby's decimal. Say hello from me when you send him an email ;-) — Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Atom
Hello, sorry, I could have sworn that I read in the same article the well known fact that while 99.9% of the atoms mass is in the nucleus 99.9% of its volume is empty space. I thought since this was well known and we are on a wiki someone would verify this for me. So you're saying that even if something is well known fact, unless I provide the source it doesn't get included? ThanksGeeBIGS (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. Thanks
- Indeed, wp:verifiable sources is the way it works. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Point particle
I did put something on the talk page. But I have done that before and am still waiting for a response. So I figured I would actually get a response on te talk page if I also made a logical edit. Is there a reason that it is difficult to get a response on articles' talk pages?GeeBIGS (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Usually one gets response on talk pages, unless of course nobody is watching, or interested, or awake at the time you are awake :-)
- Anyway, your addition about the spherical volume was wrong and unsourced, so I had to revert it. - DVdm (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- But the two do not act in the same way. The billiard ball would make contact with the billiard table, but the point with all the mass would by this assertion floating off the table at a distance equal to the radius of the ball. How can they be considered equal?GeeBIGS (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, there has been a relevant response on the article talk page - see Talk:Point particle#Spherical objects act like points. That's the place to discuss this. User talk pages are more suited for discussions about user conduct. Good luck over there. - DVdm (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you help us reach a consensus?
In Talk:Sagnac effect/Archive 1#To remove: Sagnac effect in translational motion, User:Interferometrist and I are taking opposing stances on whether a section in Sagnac effect needs to be removed or not. User:D.H has adopted an in-between position, both pro and con.
I certainly understand Interferometrist's point of view, and would not be upset at all if you took his side of things. The important thing is that we do reach a consensus.
I'm sending an identical request to User:Srleffler
No matter which side you take, thanks a lot! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Done - See this, probably not entirely what you hoped for, I'm afraid... Sorry for that, and cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, but that's the whole thing about consensus and democracy. Things don't always go your way. My argument with Interferometrist threatened to on indefinitely. Of course, the voting isn't over yet... I'm waiting for Srleffler. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Hello, I'm Gabriël Wolmarans. User:Gabriel.wolmarans, was my previous profile, that I wanted to delete, but seeing that I could not do that I opted for creating a new user 加百利. I'm only doing my part cleaning up. Thank you for protecting pages. You're doing a great service.
Gabriël 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Gabriël Wolmarans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 加百利 (talk • contribs)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Thanks for making good edits. Apidium23 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| You have done Horrible job NOT great job defeating vandalism! Mr.23 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC) |
B Vitamins
This IP address is dynamically assigned, and recently was re-assigned to a different user (me). There's a high probability that the message you sent notifying the original editor of the content removal will not receive it and will most likely attempt to alter the page again. I apologize for the inconvenience.
18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.80 (talk)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- No inconvenience for me. On the other hand, one of the many inconveniencies about editing anonymously is that one can easily get blocked for someone else's puberal behaviour. So you might consider signing up for a username — and at the same time protect your anonymity even more. - DVdm (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
User Mmlov and edits to the Frank Zappa talk page
Hey. I've opened a sockpuppetry case over Mmlov (who I believe has been vandalizing Talk:Frank Zappa through different IP addresses here. If you have any input to give, it would certainly be appreciated. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Reply from gryfin
Dear DVdm
I received your notification on removing my edit.
I thought my edit was perfectly suitable to be included in ‘Criticism of the theory of relativity’, because it is a criticism. And I included images and diagrams to fully explain the piece.
Please reinstate my edit and let the reader make up their mind on the validity of it.
Regards
Gryfin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Alas, your edit does not comply with our policy regarding secondary sources and wp:original research. If in the scientific literature you can find solid wp:reliable sources for this edit, it might we welcome. If you think you must insist, then —per wp:BRD— please use the article talk page Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity for further discussion. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding my edits
Hi, There is no proof that Koliyas and Shakyas were noble blood who only married among themselves. Do you try to prove that Lord Buddha came from a racist background? That's ridiculous attempt 106.51.103.221 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. You removed content without providing a reason in the edit summary, so I restored the content. - DVdm (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: Return of the son of Wisdomtenacityfocus
Good to know he's not causing any problems anymore, though. Though very few of the pages he was editing are on my watchlist, so I hadn't noticed him this time. Still, another name for my secret list of "Obnoxious Blocked People On Wikipedia To Be Paranoid About." Cheers. Friginator (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| For your great contributions on dealing with vandalism. Keep up the great work! T4B (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
Johnmcvight
In this edit I declined to block the user. All of the edits you listed as vandalism were comments on deletion discussion while it looks like they did remove some content while trying to post the message, the user is still entitled to share his opinion in a discussion. And as they only edit a single page where the discussion is closed, no benefit in blocking the user.Jeepday (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. On the other hand the page was protected for persistent vandalism by JohnCD. Anyway, all seems quiet now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins talk page
On the talk page of the RD talk page, you stated, "Sure, he could be a philosopher..." But, he is not a philosopher (even though he dives into the "realm" of philosophy).--Mr.23 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I know that. But I actually said: "Sure, perhaps he is a philosopher, but putting the new term in the infobox, would require the article to prominently mention that he is a philosopher, and that it turn would need solid verifiable sources." Such sources would make Dawkins a philosopher. I said essentially the same thing as Raeky, but I said it differenly, not only trying to teach StylumCEO about sources, but also about what to put in infoboxes on BLP articles. - DVdm (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding my edit
Thanks. I made the changes in spacetime. I have added the theory Of Matrix (2013) by Audrey E Randles published by NowOK Publishing NowOKID: 20130301 at http://www.nowok.co.uk/the-theory-of-matrix.php It is an interesting theory offering a theoretical development of exsisting spacetime models. Please check if it okay. Regards, Stacey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.109.190 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, http://www.nowok.co.uk/the-theory-of-matrix.php it is not a wp:reliable source. Please go to the article talk page if you think it is. - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. I have found that the content "The theory of Matrix" is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License on the web http://www.coresynthesis.org.uk/the-theory-of-matrix.php and probably it may not be published in Wikipedia. It is nice working together. Regards, Stacey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.109.190 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Mass–energy equivalence
I do not believe you had any right to remove my addition to the Mass-Energy equivalent page. I am not Wiki-savvy and I know people like me are routinely abused by more tech-savvy usually establishment protected editors. Olinto De Pretto published E=MC2 before Albert Einstein. All of Europe knows Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/nov/11/rorycarroll 72.192.20.29 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The source that you used ([1]) with your edit, is not a reliable source for our scientific articles. The site's motto is "Your guide to Italy & Italian Culture on the Web. Enjoy as you learn more about the traditions, heritage and way of life that make Italians who they are." Regarding reliable sources, see wp:RS, and perhaps also wp:FRINGE.
- The Guardian article you added here above ([2]) and which I moved in front of your signature, seems to contradict your thesis. Note its conclusion: "De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein." Also note that the author is a journalist, not a physicist, so this seems not to be a reliable source either.
- If you feel that my revert of your addition was not warranted by our policies and guidelines, perhaps a better place to discuss it, would be the article talk page at Talk:Mass–energy equivalence. See wp:BRD. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replaced {{Uw-vandalism4}} with {{Uw-unsourced4}} on User talk:82.47.140.227
Just to let you know, I replaced your {{Uw-vandalism4}} message with {{Uw-unsourced4}} on User talk:82.47.140.227 because the edits were primarily an addition of unsourced material, rather than an intentional effort to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
DVdm, I don't know why
DVdm, I don't know why you think my Edit on Johannesburg requires discussion. It's an urban myth that JHB is the world's largest man-made forest (and there's no citation supporting the myth). It's easy to find out that China has a forest with 50 billion trees planted over 500,000 sq km, compared to Johannesburg's alleged 10 million planted over 500 sq km. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/23/china-great-green-wall-climate
Wikipedia is unfortunately treated as an authority in its own right, and results in perpetuating myths like this very quickly. (Many blogs now repeat the myth, having found the "fact" on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelandsandy (talk • contribs)
196.12.59.12
Hi DVdm, thanks for undoing the vandal's work. In case you didn't notice, 196 is a proxy server. The guy is using numerous IPs via proxy servers to evade a block and Materialscientist and Boing have been among the admins dealing with him. Most of his IPs have been blocked. See Material's and Boing's talk pages. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, looks like another sad case of loneliness. Must be hell in there. - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, yep. These are the ones we know of so far: 99.104.185.17 (primary account), 200.233.70.48, 64.75.159.129, 196.12.59.12, 202.88.225.150. Check the block logs. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed it is quite sad when you are right, so pathetic admins and other users try and take you on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.209.250.1 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, yep. These are the ones we know of so far: 99.104.185.17 (primary account), 200.233.70.48, 64.75.159.129, 196.12.59.12, 202.88.225.150. Check the block logs. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit war using..
Hello, I see you have discovered the edit war too? I think it would be best to block the user now, he/she shows no sign of stopping. I myself have tried to reason with them but they consistently demand on editing again. Thanks Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
What was this?
The user's edits here were not vandalism, still you named them as "un-constructive", please learn to label edits correctly. Faizan (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I should probably have issued a ({{uw-joke}}) warning instead. Good point. - DVdm (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I stumbled in here because of the ANSI C vandal but thought I could help clarify:
- Many Muslims consider it a religious obligation to say "peace be upon him" after every mention of a prophet's name, just like in the reverted edit. So it was almost certainly a well-intentioned edit that went against WP style guidelines. But I can see how it would look like a joke or vandalism to someone unfamiliar with the tradition. Cheers! Rizome (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
hope you don't mind
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
-I undid your deletion. After reading the explanation of why the translated material appears to be copyvio-(but is not), I am satisfied that the editor posted the material in good faith. Also, did you happen to notice the artist's awards section? More information about this artist does not appear to me to be "fluff" or overly promotional.
Is Wikipedia running out of bandwidth? Otherwise, this slashing & burning of content appears to me as vandalism as well. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do mind. This wp:BLP article has a prominent header: "This article needs additional citations for verification". Adding more unsourced material does not help, quite on the contrary. I have reverted your edit. - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If the material was translated and donated wouldn't the untranslated information be the citation? I did not read the original article that was accused of being a translated copyvio since it seemed that there was enough evidence to support that.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a schoolbook issue of wp:RS and wp:BLP, not one of copyvio. If all of this is true, then sources should be easy to find and properly document. That is the only way to get rid of the {{refimprove}} template on Anton Goosen article. Consider it your mission. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- no thanks-I'll take-out the overtly promotional stuff. The source of the info. and citation, with permission has already been discussed on the talk page24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note added at Talk:Anton Goosen. You can continue over there if you like. - DVdm (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Décolletage
An article that you have been involved in editing, Décolletage , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Reply from someone just refreshing their algebra
Hi DVdm,
I am writing concerning your removal of my edit on the discriminant formula.
In the formula the imaginary number already accounts for the discriminate being negative as it is the square root of negative one and by the properties of multiplication under a square root it can be taken outside. I removed the secondary negative symbol before the delta symbol because before it read:
+ or - i[square root(-delta)]/2a
but it should read:
+ or - i[square root(delta)]/2a
because like I said the i already accounts for the negative value in the discriminant.
Please excuse my ignorance if I missing something totally obvious and also my sorry excuse for trying to write mathematical equations online (I probably used all the wrong separators).
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.80 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Trigonometric interpretation of a cubic with three real roots (JPEG -> PNG)
(Re: User_talk:Mikhail_Ryazanov#why_jpeg.3F)
Thank you for your effort, but please read WP:PIFU#Do not save diagrams as JPEG ("do not simply save the JPEG as PNG"). ;-) And when you upload replacements, please make appropriate changes on the original file description page and provide useful description and source information for the new file (like I did now for the original and the new).
Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't really saved the jpg as png, but created a new png from a fresh screenschot op the jpg, which of course resulted in the the same pretty bad looks. I should have put more time in doing it right. Thanks for the advice and sorry for the extra effort.
- By the way, I made another little change for colour consistency. Before: black dashed to A and B, red to C and θ-rotated points. After: Blue to A, B, C, red to θ-rotated points. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, now it looks more evident. :-) If you could redraw it in SVG (using an actual cubic curve instead of wry splines)...
- BTW, as I understand, the vertical line going through the center of the circle should pass through the center of symmetry of the cubic curve. It would be good to show this relation also.
- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism claim incorrect and thus removed
I have removed your speedy deletion stuff because your claim of vandalism is not correct. Please AGF. Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't recall the content of these articles, but it looks like both the articles UNITED AIRLINES and Unite Airline destinations have indeed been deleted by administrator RHaworth. If my warning templates were inappropriate, please accept my apologies. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
reply
|
reply |
| sir
iam new in wikipedia...and dont know much about it...g p pillai is the only malayali who mentioned in gandhijis autobiography...mentioned in 167th pageof autobiography...under the heading ....പൂനയും മദിരാശിയും ...... Stephen jose (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC) |
141.13*
Another one: Special:Contributions/141.136.248.140 Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: Rowenna Davis
My comments on the edit of the Rowenna Davis page reflects the original guidelines for personal profiles on Wiki. Writers, Artists etc who had published / exhibited major works, or published numerous referenced works, Recording artists, major Political figures, and celebreties, were deemed to warrant a page. I have not checked the recent wording for biographies, however I would contend that Rowenna Davis does not qualify.
Admittedly she has appeared as a Panelist of a Sunday Lunch Time Political programme, is a sitting Labour Cancilor, and contributes articles to the NewStatesman (a left-wing party-political journal), however there 1,861 London Councilors, of which a number appear regularly in print, on television, and on the radio. These include professional Journalists, accomplished Businessmen, and high profile individuals. Very few of these people have a Wiki page due to the guidelines, so why does Rowenna Davis?
I can understand that someone decided to create the page, and that without knowing much about the British Political System one might assume what is written about her inplies something of importance, however baring in mind there are 1,860 other London Councillor, with many more County (1,859), Unitary (3,123), Borough (2,445) and Disrict (8,903) Councillors, many of whom have held more senior local office, I think that the page should be removed - otherwise you will see a good deal of similar pages - which adds nothing to the richness of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.236.86 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- If you think the page should be deleted or drastically trimmed, this or this clearly is not the way to accomplish that. I recommend you go to the article talk page (Talk:Rowenna Davis) and talk about it with the other editors. Don't forget to sign your messages. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Godzilla (1998 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
about article sridevi
i have made changes and i have reliable sources, explain to me how to add the reliable sources, iam new here, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.60.0 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- My message on your talk page (User talk:41.182.60.0) contains a pointer to the relevant article: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Take your time to read and understand this, and it's also a good idea to look at other articles to see how all this is done "in the field". Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
senseless removing of links....
i'll have you know, that you removed links that did not violate any rules. the links were verifiable, and accurate, and absolutely within guidelines. who the hell are you the wikipedia police? stop messing with wikipedia. it's people like you that make the information on here not as reliable as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.63.147 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Please stop adding this link. - DVdm (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
no one was advertising.... and you're not the wikipedia police... it clearly is allowable BY ANYONE to add links and edit information on the website, as is mentioned HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.63.147 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Trust me, if you continue to try to add this link, you will probably get blocked. - DVdm (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Are YOU going to block me? as i stated, and you will notice in the Wikipedia:Introduction anyone is allowed to edit anything on here... so we can keep going back and forth all day and night..
- Read the links in the messages on your talk page. There is more to Wikipedia than the introduction. This is a clear case of an inappropriate link. Please stop. Thank You. - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate link in YOUR opinion.... what makes you get to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate? did you go to the university of wikipedia or something? the page linked was CLEARLY information solely about the word that was linked... making it credible, valuable, and appropriate. maybe YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE doing more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.63.147 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI.... by you continuously removing edits... you are guilty of Wikipedia:Vandalism and can also have your account blocked and removed... just thought i would let you know that. maybe if you want to play the wikipedia police someone should play police with you as well.71.42.63.147 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Re. Edit
Sorry about that, I messed up w/ Twinkle.-- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry
Silly edit by me, I posted it due to the absolute cobblers above it which seems to have been taken as fact... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.150.187 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Carl Andrew Spaatz edit.
My recent edit to that article was not unsourced; it was stated at least twice earlier in the article. 
Soda Drinker (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- (Comment from uninvolved editor) However, the nickname itself is also unsourced, so its other entries in the article should be removed. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- True! I will remove them now if they have not already been.
Soda Drinker (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- True! I will remove them now if they have not already been.
Quartics
We need to improve the article on quartic functions. As it currently stands, the general formula for quartic roots obviously fails to cover the special cases when either t or Delta or u + v are 0. — 79.113.242.231 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. What we really need first, is a good proper Wikipedia-policy-kinda-compatible source like the one we found at Cubic function.[1]
- ^ Press, William H.; Vetterling, William T. (1992). Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press. p. 179. ISBN 0-521-43064-X., Extract of page 179
- Without such a source, trying to improve on what is there looks like a nightmare in which I'm not inclined to wander around :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- So the Planet Math article linked in the section (below the picture containing the expanded formulas which I simplified) is not such a Wikipedia complying source ? — 79.113.240.179 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, PlanetMath could be reliable. It is used all over the place: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from PlanetMath - DVdm (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- So the Planet Math article linked in the section (below the picture containing the expanded formulas which I simplified) is not such a Wikipedia complying source ? — 79.113.240.179 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
EastEnders
Hello. I am inviting you to a discussion at Talk:EastEnders#Infobox edit warring. –anemoneprojectors– 08:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. See my 1.5 cents. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The information on this page is cited
Sir, are you in anyway affiliated with this school? If not, may I please ask you to stop deleting information from this page? You continue writing about needing a citation or source for the information. Well the source if from this school’s documentation records. The data that is listed is to stay. It has been like this for years now; even before I signed up to Wikipedia! Now you sir have the urge to remove it all as I add more information? I will report you if you continue onwards with this pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schooliscool135 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- The information is not cited. It is also unencyclopedic. This information could be useful in a flyer or an advertisment, but not in Wikipedia. Please have a look at our policies. See some useful links on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
how to contact administrator
Hi, how do I contact an administrator about problems with another editor? thanks Booklaunch (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit Summaries??
Thanks for leaving me a message, but i still dont get it with your statement about edit summaries, could you please repeat and make more clear that statement, it will be more helpful for me. thanks Politsi (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- When you make an edit, there is a box at the bottom to provide an edit summary, to "Briefly describe the changes you have made". It is explaned in Help:Edit summary. - DVdm (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Omega (King James Version)
Thanks you for erasing what I put. How can I do what you want? How are you doing what we're suppose to be doing by erasing everything that I said and not keeping something? How is that doing what we're suppose to be doing? I thank you that others, you and I spend a lot of time doing stuff here and feel bad when someone erases it all and doesn't explain why. What can I do to help. Thank you. How can we stop people who wrote stuff from losing it when we erase it? Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, you need reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for erasing the 666 one too. How do I add the reliable source when Im knew and someone erases what Ive done before I've put the references on it? Is that what you mean? Are you saying that what Im saying is wrong or I need to include the referrences? Thank you. I see youve been doing this for a long time. I want to encourage you for everyone to find away we can save what is right and sourced without erasing it all. Wasn't there some stuff right I wrote? Someone else said there's already a page talking about what I said. What should I do? Thanks. I'm going to try to put up the referrences, but I'm not trying to undo what you're doing. Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- What you wrote has no source and is original research, based on sources - see our policy WP:Original research. If you continue adding this, you will be blocked. - DVdm (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks
I apologize. I'm not trying to do wrong. Thanks for helping me. Why do you want to block me if I haven't done wrong on purpose? I did include 3 sources. If you mean that that's sources an already existing source, then I don't understand. Please don't block me. Im seriously want to do what you want. I sourced The King James Bible. Do you mean source what the King James writers sourced. I don't think that exists. How is what Im saying different from the other stuff on the articles that says it came from the Bible, and what they said? Didn't I include the Bible verses and chapters? Do you mean you want me to source the other verses that I don't mention the exact verse and chapter it came from? Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) David, I believe you're being disingenuous with us. If you have read the Wikipedia guideline on original research, you should know that sourcing your analysis of the Bible to the Bible itself is not helping. You need to provide a reference to a reputable writer (one who might be expected to know about such things, such as a recognized scholar in the field) who has read the Bible and come to the interpretation that you are trying to insert. And the reference to http://www.scopes.com (a provider of electronic oscilloscopes) is just pointless, and more proof that you are being disingenuous. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Disingenuous and Thanks again
Thanks to both of you helping me. No. I apologize for sounding disingenuous. I'm not very smart. I thought the rules said that Wikipedia was a way for everyone to give their input on what things meant to give a better meaning of it, and that like others, you and myself have changed them are showing that eventually the best meaning will be there and continue to develop over time. I thought that's what I read the founder of Wiki say on Wiki once. I apologize if I got it wrong. I wrongly thought sourcing Scopes was a good way for what I said. I understand. I'm not going to change it anymore like I told WikiDan61. Please don't block me. If I can learn anymore today let me know. As I told WikiDan61, for the rest of the pages on the mark of the beast and the number of the beast being problamatic according to how I was, yes, a lot of the pages would need to be erased then. But again, personally, I'm happy it says what it says either way. Again, thanks for everything. I'll take both your advises. Thanks again.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I Just saw the Qoph change to what I'd wrote. It wont happen again. Sorry.
Sorry. Please don't feel like you have to monitor me anymore. I'm glad you were though so what I'd done is now gone. Sorry I put you thru that guys. It wont happen again. Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Revert Error
Okay. It looks like you accidentally blanked a page in reverting vandalism, and the anonymous editor is now blocked. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Kid president
Hello, it seems you reverted one of the edits to Kid President article. That edit did not represent vandalism; it had a source and was a normal part of the article, but was removed in one of previous edits without further explanations. This is why it was restored. 89.164.132.13 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The source does NOT say that Robby Novak is from that region. Please stop adding that content, or you will be blocked (again). - DVdm (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The source does say it, please do not be rude and note that Google Translator often does things really bad. 89.164.132.13 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Rose Tyler
Rose Tyler is not a living person. I felt a more balanced look at her reception was needed. I gave an example of negative review from a prominent Internet reviewer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.85.169 (talk • contribs)
what are you doing you
what are you doing you It toke me ages to do that what did you put???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsmith670 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Just interested
...in why you reverted the previous message on my talk. It wasn't offensive afaik. I'm not complaining, just wondering, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Beauty and the Beast (2012 TV series)
Hello DVdm, basically my sources are the opening credits from both series, so that's the only source I could state. I thought it might be too obvious so I omitted it. :) KiwiTee (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I've just recognized that my comment on the openings would probably be against the "no original research" aspect. >_< So thanks for helping out and sorry for causing any trouble, I'll pay more attention to that next time. :) KiwiTee (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
HELLO, SORRY I DON'T KNOW HOW
HELLO, SORRY I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE I COULD TALK TO YOU. EXCUSE ME FOR THIS WAY. BUT I JUST WANNA HELP MAKING WIKIPEDIA SOCCER PAGES BETTER, I REALLY DON'T WANNA VANDALIZE. WHAT ARE THE ERRORS I MADE ACCORDING TO YOU? KIND REGARDS, YOU CAN MAIL ME TO staafros1@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.120.114 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your edits all come without an edit summary, are unsourced, and some of them even look like vandalism. It might be a good idea to have a look at how things go around here before you make 60 edits per hour. I have put a little welcome message on your talk page with some pointers. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Can we please discuss this in a mature manner instead of blanking my messages out? I was out of order yes but come on can we please discuss this like adults? --89.243.227.8 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. - Amaury (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- My pleasure, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I notice you have reverted vandalism on my user page also. Thank you. VanguardScot 04:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
As a member of ...
As a member of the Prescott Visitor Bureau I would simply ask that you stop deleting this entry. Dave was born here and is a well known resident. Come see us some time, I'll introduce you to him. Thanks, Sam Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.8.80 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but as a Wikipedia contributor, you need wp:reliable sources for your edits. Continuing to insert unsourced challenged —see wp:BURDEN— content will get you blocked. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)\
After reading the long list of entries above from others trying to add useful information I now see that a little power really goes a long way around here. Perhaps some fresh air would be in order for a person such as yourself. You appear to be heavy handed in your duties. I could see your point if I were adding something incendiary but I simply added a note about a local resident who just set a new speed climbing record and was featured in our local paper today. He is also a regular in our local community performing for elderly residents and those in our hospital. I just don't see how you can dismiss him so easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.8.80 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- It's easy. Get yourself a wp:reliable source that establishes this person's wp:notability, make sure there's an article about him in Wikipedia, and you're in business. - DVdm (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The edits of Mrm7171
Thank you DVdm. I would like to discuss edits with Mrm7171 but it is strange that he/she declines to discuss.Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quite indeed. You did your utter best trying to discuss, but this seems not to work. A different approach is clearly called for here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Are you an administrator? What power apart from an editor, like me, do you have may i ask? Did you receive my warning regarding your undoing of my genuine, good faith changes and you clearly engaing in an edit war, by deleting, blanking vanalising my new entries? Hoping you might reply. Up to you, if you have any thing to add? Mrm7171 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Please ask me for my permission or discuss before deleting my good faith additions. Mrm7171 (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Take this as your final warning before I put a formal complaint in. I;m sorry, but you keep deleting, undoing without discussing. Thanks. "Talk constructively with me, showing me some respect though if you would like." Thanks. Seriously, I have posed some interesting questions here. Are you a Psychologist yourself DVDm Mrm7171 (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Please stop duplicating your messages all over the place. - DVdm (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Just contacting you here relating to your deletion of my good faith work. I noticed you also used some sosftware to this undoing of my good faith work.
Rollback is available to all administrators and can be given to other users on request, subject to the approval of an administrator. A user who has been assigned this right explicitly is called a rollbacker. There are currently 1,448 administrators and 4,850 rollbackers (6,298 total), not including global rollbackers who have been assigned the right across all Wikimedia projects.
Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges to remove those tools.
Do you have permission DvDm ? Are you acting in bad faith here? Mrm7171 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry about my permissions. If one is warned multiple times not to make unsourced edits, but to find sources and discuss them with others, yet still persists adding similar content, then one is considered to either act in wp:bad faith and to refuse to take a point, and/or to have wp:NOCLUE about our policies. In both circumstances one usually ends up blocked. Trust me. Go to that article talk page and discuss, and you'll be fine. - DVdm (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
hmm...i am very worried about you using this software dvdm i ask again..."(for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges to remove those tools." Please respond..rather than avvoid..not sure if you understanbd the proper use of this software rollback i do not believ e you are authorised to use it?> breaking rulesMrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Also please note, any additions i have made are in good faith and you are personally bordering on breaking the three deletions rule in 24 hours. I have already warned you.
This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this undo edit to Occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't make empty threats. Your edits may or may not be in good faith, but you have repeatedly been asked to discuss and to provide sources. You accuse others of having an agenda and engaging in edit warring, but fail to recognize that you have an agenda as well, and your pugnacious attitude has been turning people off. I'm glad that you have finally realized that you need to consolidate the discussions in the article talk page rather than spreading them out across multiple user talk pages. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Stigmatella aurantiaca, for your comments. I'm only a new user. Have listened to suggestions from other editors and made changes according to community rules.
Have asked Itszippy what to do about an editor, ISS246, or in fact any Editor for that matter, who blatantly refuses to accept a large and solid group consensus against posting something signiicant, particularly in an article relating to a profession like medicine, engineering or psychology etc etc. Everyone, way before me, (in fact for 4 years now) has disagreed with him strongly, often very strongly, much more strongly than I have. However it just went ahead and did it anyway, thinking he ius right and all other community members are wrong, as if Wikipedia is his private website! Have you any practical advcice, on top of Itszippy's suggestions, instead of judging me please?
You, like many others here seem to have a lot of experience and know all the rules and regulations. So what do you think? If we could all just go against the broad consensus, and post what 'we' want, what would Wikipedia become? Mrm7171 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Mrm7171
I have a complaint about Mrm7171. He plays a double game. I try to discuss edits with him on his talk page. Then he goes ahead and makes edits without discussing them. And finally writes:
(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology; 02:54 . . (+57) . . Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) (Just made a couple of very minor additions. Did not delete or undo anyone elses edits. Please discuss with me on my talk page to come to consensus.Thanks)
(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology; 02:51 . . (+9) . . Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) (One word added. No deletion of any other editors work made out of respect. We need to discuss. Please use my talk page. Please don't just remove. Thanks)
(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology; 02:50 . . (+25) . . Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) (Please discuss on my talk page iss246 rather than undo my minor edit or engage in edit war. Please don't iss246. It's better to discuss than you delete. thanks)
Meanwhile, he includes text that occupational health psychology is a subfield of i/o psychology when I have labored on his talk page to explain that OHP is not a subfield of i/o psychology just as i/o psychology is not a subfield of social psychology and psychometrics or that health psychology is not a subfield of clinical psychology. I view what he has done as bad faith. This includes his groveling, with purposeful bad grammar, about how he has been picked on on May 26, 2013:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
[[Category:{{unblock| Thats cool. I'm still very unclear abvout talk page and feel administrator may have acted a liottle demeaning. Not sure if new users have difficulty that experienced users should act sartcastically or bullying toieard new experienced userts like myself? I gfeel pretty bullied. Sorry but just a new inexperioenced user. ]] [[Category:[[Category:{{unblock| Thats okay will cop it. and wait fdor the 48 hourts. Feel pretty bullied and didn't need sarcasm or demeaning me by experienced wikipedia user. Could hjabe treated he with more respect. I'm just not sure how it all works yet. Wonderion g why kuru was so demeaning, demoralising of new user inexperien ced like myself. Didnbt need to be put down or fdinger in my chest so much kuyru, just a new user. inexperienced could have been a little more cool about it all though kuriu, instead of tryting tgo put me down so basdly and disreszpect me so badly.....]] |
I've been patient with him. I find him full of bad faith. This sing-song of "let's discuss" and then he goes ahead and makes a bold move without sources that OHP is a subfield of i/o psychology. I think he should be barred from Wikipedia for his double-talk.Iss246 (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- User:Iss246, Hello, and I am sure User:DVdm won't mind me jumping in here. Take a look at WP:DE and read through WP:AGF. Also, sorry to say, that although I empathize with your efforts, and even though Wikipedia does not "require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary", it is best to remain civil and not explicitly say another editor is acting in bad faith. An administrator may say that when meting out punitive action, but editors are strongly encouraged to not accuse each other of acting in bad faith. Yes, I understand your frustration. Those of us who edit for accuracy, and according to guidelines and policies have encountered other editors that are not easy to deal with. Just hang in there and stay the course, and you will do well. It is best to let the Administrators handle the tough stuff. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted the last edits asking the user to join the article talk page discussion (I made two typos in my edit summary, sorry). I also left a little note on the blocking admin's talk page. Assuming bad faith might not be called for yet, but I think we can safely assume wp:NOCLUE here. - DVdm (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was just trying to help out with a difficult editing situation. Now, all I can say is, "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." WP:DUCK (as it relates to WP:DE ). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Dvdm. I strongly request you take the comments I made soon after joining Wikipidia, and you have for some reason directly pasted on your talk page below? I ask you to delete the entire paste you made please. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- (I moved this comment to the bottom of the thread - see talk page guidelines.)
- I haven't pasted anything on my talk page. The above comments that you made, were quoted here by someone else. Everything here will soon be archived automatically. - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me please what the Wiki policy is regarding the placement of other's comments on editor's own talk page when done so in possible bad faith or a means of personal attack?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Also Dvdm, my opinion is that all articles require accuracy, currency, knowledge, and be factual and free from bias and be edited for the benefit of the greater Wikipedia community and readers. This is particularly true, in my opinion, with articles, relating to international professions, like psychology, medicine, etc etc..where accuracy, standards and broad-based acceptance of standards and protocols, within each profession apply. I note you have possibly been working in unison with another editor, to delete 'any' much needed revisions of a couple of articles I have ever attempted. In my still limited experience of Wikipedia, it is the communities resource, and articles needs accuracy and currency and not in any way, be misleading to the community. Also deleting other people's important changes sometimes, and without discussing with them your intention, does no good for the wikipedia community and can lead to unneccessary conflict, when prior discussion about edits could avoid any such unneeded conflict. Based on a quick look at comments from many other editors on your talk page here, you seem to delete a lot of other editors work, in a lot of different areas So, please, for the last time, I ask you to discuss with me, before you for some reason, 'blindly' delete my edits, in future. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- (I moved this comment to the bottom of this thread - see talk page guidelines.)
- As far as I can see, the comments were not made in bad faith or as a personal attack. Quite on the contrary, I think they were made in despair. If you think they were made in bad faith, you need to go to wp:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) and/or to wp:DR (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). This was explained to you before here, here and here.
- When you mess up an article talk page (as you did with this edit), I will repair it (as I did with this edit). ItsZippy already explained that with this message on ItsZippy' talk page. After this warning, again (with this edit) you added off-topic content, which I removed here. If you disrupt a talk page again, I will not discuss it. I will repair it, and then I will report you for continued talk page disruption after multiple warnings.
- If you have a problem with my conduct, you can go to wp:ANI and report me.
- Please do read and try to abide the comments given by ItsZippy, and you will be fine. While at it, have a look at Wikipedia:Etiquette as well. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk-back for your edit on Discrete Cosine Transform page
Hi, You delete my external link on discrete cosine transform page. It is just a tutorial explaining the DCT. You do not delete other external links but just mine. Why? This discrimination is based on what? There is another external link, for example, http://www.reznik.org/software.html#IDCT You do not delete this but just mine? Why? I contacted the user Ktr101 and you can talk to him if you need to do so. He looked at my tutorials and could not see why you make discrimination specifically for my tutorials. It is based on race, religion or ethnicity or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.244.3 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- See wp:ELNO item 11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." You are not a recognized authority, and Wikipedia is not a place to promote our own work: see wp:NOR and wp:COI. So, to answer your question, it is based on Wikipedia policies. - DVdm (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also note that, if you think that other links might be inappropriate, the best thing to do would be to open a little section at the bottom of the talk page Talk:Discrete cosine transform, and propose to delete. These links have been there for a while, so it's best to discuss their removal with the other contributors. Don't forget to sign your messages with the four tildes (~~~~). - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I read your message. You are making discrimination. Are you recognized authority about DCT? What do you know about Discrete Cosine Transform at all? Did you read my tutorial? It is just a resource that explains a topic. It is not an advertisement or a product. You do not provide any scientific reasoning but your personal opinion. I will complain about you to everywhere that is possible because you think something and you decide without any objective reasoning. What you do here is discrimination and this is illegal in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.244.3 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- We put talk page messages at the bottom and we sign our talk page messages — see wp:talk page guidelines. Please read them and try to follow them.
- We don't have to read anything, specially not some contributors' private work. It is your work and you want to add it as an external link. That is a no-no here: see —again— wp:NOR, wp:COI, wp:ELNO item 11, and as far as I know, you are not a recognized authority (yet).
- I do not have to provide any scientific reasoning, and I do not provide my personal opinion here. What I provide is pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just read them. If you like to change them, go ahead, try to edit the policies and see what happens.
- Seriously, do some reading before you accuse people of discrimination or bias based on race, religion or ethnicity. That can be taken as a wp:personal attack and there's another policy about that. Click the link to read it. - DVdm (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- He isn't discriminating against you here. I merely said I couldn't see why he removed the link, but that doesn't mean that I know everything and it keeps open the fact that he may have removed the link with a rationale that I do not know about. If you continue to attack him, you will be blocked (not by him, but by another administrator), as he is not discriminating against you at all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, he is going by a guideline that says that no personal websites can be used, which is designed to prevent information that could potentially be incorrect. Since you do appear to be very knowledgeable about this issue, I would encourage you to see if you can find a substitute on another site or move your material onto your school's page, because our hands are really tied on inclusion if it doesn't follow the guidelines. If you need help with this, I will help to lend a hand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Kevin, May God Bless you. Thank you for your suggestion. I will move all the tutorials to my university page. I prepare those tutorials to share my knowledge with the world, and the wikipedia is a great place for this purpose. And, I hope the other editor starts to do research before s/he deletes anything, or at least he proposes a solution instead of dictating his/her idea without providing any scientific reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.244.3 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Thank you for wiping the vandalism off my talk page. They're definitely cooking up a storm, that's for sure. Here's some strawberries for you! Cheers, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
AN notice in regards to User:Thenightchicagodied
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You may wish to use this link directly to the relevant section Technical 13 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Sambora!!!!
Dear Mr. DVdm Please accept my apologise, maybe I was not clear enough. I just want to reconfirm that information given, here below copied, is genuine and reliable. " On October 9, 2012, before his solo concert in Amsterdam, he was delivered by the Italian Fan Club a Paoletti Custom guitar model "Wine Stratospheric" especially designed for him by the famous Italian luthier Fabrizio Paoletti owner of the homonymous Paoletti ® instruments" You can check it personally on this YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1CC1-pBR4 Also, if was the link to Paoletti Guitars website that caused problems, we can remove it, no issue. Please let me know if and how to proceed. Once again, we apologise for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.223.250 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but first, Youtube is not considered to be a very wp:reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense), and I also think that this particular information is not relevant to the article. In the spirit of wp:BRD I suggest you open a little section on the Sambora article talk page and propose to add the content. I don't think it will be accepted, as some might see it as a Paoletti Guitars advertisement, but good luck anyway. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Quartic equation
Hi,
This is an answer to your last post in Talk:Quartic function.
1/ I have sourced the general formula as derived by a simple calculation from another formula in the page. It remains to properly sourcing this section (and the other ones), which is not difficult. I have verified that this derivation is correct, but this verification would be much easier if the notation would be uniformed through all the page. But it is better to wait on more stability before doing that. IMO, it is not a good idea to use the formula in the French-Chinese thesis, because the latter is intended for a purely real computation, which complicates the formula and could be confusing for the readers. By the way, I was not aware of the content of this thesis although it was defended in my lab and I was the supervisor of the French supervisor of this thesis, and also reviewer of the habilitation thesis of the other supervisor.
2/ Nature of the roots. I have expanded this section partly because of a recurrent wrong edit by some editor, partly because it could be frustrating for the reader to have an incomplete classification. The classification provided in the above thesis, is directly derived from the general methods working for every degree and do not take into account the fact that the degree four may be (and is) simpler. Therefore, I am against to use it there. On the other hand, I am able to source the classification I have provided only for the case of 4 complex roots. However it is a rather simple exercise to deduce the complete classification from this old paper of myself. Thus this classification is essentially WP:OR. But we have to choose between this and an incomplete or unnecessarily complicated classification. IMO, this is a case where WP:IAR applies.
D.Lazard (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi D., thanks for that answer. Phew, it's good to know that the article is in the hands of at least
oneone-and-a-half knowledgeable editor. I completely agree we can IAR here. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Have a beer on me! - DVdm (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
DVdm, In the name of all mathematicians everywhere, please allow me to offer my deepest and sincerest apologies for shattering to pieces the noble and sublime pedestal upon which you have so idealistically and enthusiastically elevated our pristine profession. :-) In the wake of such unspeakable loss and tragedy, as you lie there in the ashes of what was once your childlike innocence, going through the dark, scattered remains of the pure and unadulterated image you formed in the temple of your mind back in the good old happy days, when you still didn't know the whole truth about us, we humbly and penitently offer you this little video, in the hope that you might one day find it in your heart to forgive us, and love us just the way we are... :-) Honestly, we're just a bunch of guys who happen to like numbers, that' all... :-) And sorry for not being able to find any sources: God knows I've tried! It's just that maths isn't exactly Shakespeare: it's not really meant to be quoted... (If this last paragraph upsets you, replay video). — 79.113.238.141 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Get yourself a username and you'll be forgiven — I'll even make it two. Enjoy some real art,(use head phones!) for a change ;-) - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've thought about it, but unfortunately all my usual (nick)names are taken... :-( I usually go by Lvka/Luka or Lucian. — 79.113.238.141 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, off topic: is the "Telcome to my walk page" up there intentional, or the work of vandalism ? — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not the vork of wandalism, just a willy sord game :-) - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uhm... also off topic, but I'm kinda in a dilemma here, and you seem to possess considerable knowledge on Wiki standards: On one hand you can't hotlink to images, on the other hand you can't upload images unless they're to be used in an actual article... So how on earth does one insert an image to one's personal user page ? :-\ — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- First you need to sign up for a username —hehe, not kidding... no username, no upload... bummer!— and then you can upload the image and point to it on your user page. Simple. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uhm... Yeah... theoretically... It's just that I honestly doubt that any article on Wiki is in need of the images I have in mind... :-) — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah... so nice. Both of them. - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah... not so sure the Wiki admins will be just as impressed by such a "reason", though.. :-) But if you like them so much, here are a few more.. :-) — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently you can't even post a small thumbnail of a fair use image used elsewhere on Wikipedia itself on your user page. They can be only used inside an article. — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, I once put a Zappa album sleeve as an image for my archive box. It was promptly removed. Copyright laws are pretty stringent in the US.
- I'm sure you can upload a (self-made) picture of yourself and your cat, and put that on your user page. But that's not likely the kind of image you have in mind, right? ;-) - DVdm (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am deeply insulted by your insinuating allegations about me being a cat person! I don't own any pets! :-| — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently you can't even post a small thumbnail of a fair use image used elsewhere on Wikipedia itself on your user page. They can be only used inside an article. — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah... not so sure the Wiki admins will be just as impressed by such a "reason", though.. :-) But if you like them so much, here are a few more.. :-) — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah... so nice. Both of them. - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uhm... Yeah... theoretically... It's just that I honestly doubt that any article on Wiki is in need of the images I have in mind... :-) — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- First you need to sign up for a username —hehe, not kidding... no username, no upload... bummer!— and then you can upload the image and point to it on your user page. Simple. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uhm... also off topic, but I'm kinda in a dilemma here, and you seem to possess considerable knowledge on Wiki standards: On one hand you can't hotlink to images, on the other hand you can't upload images unless they're to be used in an actual article... So how on earth does one insert an image to one's personal user page ? :-\ — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I am very sorry for my mistake in the Indian crested porcupine article. It was accidental, not intentional.
I am very sorry for my mistake in the Indian crested porcupine article. It was accidental, not intentional. I was pasting very fast.
I added the Category:Mammals of Azerbaijan for mammals which actually live in Azerbaijan, based on sources and also taking the article List of mammals of Azerbaijan into account. If that is not in violation with any rules, I would like to continue to add this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.24.19 (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Nobots
Dear DVdm, please never write me again with any kind of bot or automated script. Thanks.Stenen Bijl (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated personal attacks after warnings-"Wikipediots" and "morons". Heiro 11:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
A Suggestion
Could you change the green text to dark green on your user page ? The contrast simply isn't good. — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Using the {{tx}} templates, I can't influence the text colours, but I lightened up the backgrounds a bit. Better? - DVdm (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now also darkened the math text colours. Even better? - DVdm (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- And now slightly less dark and corrected some typos. Even better still? - DVdm (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. :-) — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mattel. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Persia, Iran, Iraq
With respect to this edit, you just may be interested to know that Persia is part of Iran, and never was Iraq. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, yes of course, I overlooked that — how silly of me. The edits might have been vandalism then. Will keep an eye open. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- See: Achaemenid Empire. DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
Always looking to help out. Thanks for the report to WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC) |
Watch article
Yesterday, somebody edited out part of a sentence, for no apparent reason, leaving something that was ungrammatical and senseless. I put it back, almost but not quite to the way it was. Now I see that you have deleted my wording, restoring the lack of good grammar and sense, on the grounds that it was "unsourced".
Hmmm....
Just take a look at the images of watches on that page. Most of those with analog displays are set to the times of 10:10 or 1:50. Everyone knows that watches are usually sold with their hands at those two times. That's all I said.
If you refuse to include this piece of common knowledge, then at least fix the grammar.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. I should have looked closer. I have undone the evil now ([5]), but I have left out the 1:50 remark, as it is not mentioned in the sources. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Apology gladly accepted. However, I have put the 1:50 back in, and taken the 10:09 out. In reality, the times to which watches (and clocks) are set vary by several minutes either way, so there's no point in our trying to be accurate. However, settings around 1:50 are just about as common as those about 10:10. I guess whoever wrote the sources didn't think about it much.
- (The image close to the text we are discussing shows a watch set to about 1:54.)
- I'm a well-known sceptic about sources. See my user page (not the talk page).
- Cheers.
- DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably, nobody cares.
Do you mind if I ask you a related question? There's an article about someone I used to know, long ago. I stumbled across it, and found that it was pure BS. I did some editing, so it resembles reality, but it was purely from memory, since there's nothing available to cite. (There was already one citation, quoting someone who was lying!) Very few people read the article, so I wasn't worried. But it turned out that the person it is about did read it! She tracked me down a few days ago (we had been out of touch for decades), and e-mailed me. She was quite happy with the article (said it was "astonishingly accurate"), but thought it could do with some extra details. She asked me if there were any rules about biographical articles being edited by the people they are about. I said I didn't know, and suggested she should try it and see what happens. So far, she hasn't made any changes.
What do you think?
DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- If nobody challenges the content, there is no problem. Otherwise, see wp:BURDEN specially for wp:BLP.
Sources, sources, and more sources. Sceptics about sources tend to get in trouble here, specially the well-known ones, so be careful. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you've got a couple of quotations of Frank Zappa above. So maybe you'd like to know that the woman I used to know, and mentioned above, was Suzy Creamcheese. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now that's interesting! What's also pretty interesting, is that she has an article in here. I hadn't seen it before. In order to improve it, I have put a few tags on it ([6]). Looks like you have some work ahead. Happy source hunting and thanks for letting me know. - DVdm (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
No. Sorry. I have a life to lead. I'm not going to waste it chasing sources for an article that almost nobody reads. I fixed it up to make it factually accurate, relying on my own memories of events long ago. (I was sitting next to Suzy in the Albert Hall when she had that exchange with Zappa.) But, if you want to try to find sources, good luck! DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can find something. Otherwise I'll give it a few weeks for others (and/or for you) to find some sources. After that I'll probably remove it. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Be cautious about what you accept. I did mention that there is a citation of someone who was not being entirely truthful. I gather that Suzy and Zappa were not on good terms when she left the group, and Zappa "spun" the history of the Mothers to make it appear that there never had been a real Suzy. The citation is of a radio interview in which he said as much. You may well find similar distortions. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
On further thought, maybe you should just add a tag that says that the factual accuracy of the article is in doubt. I think there's a tag for that. I think it's highly unlikely that you will find really reliable sources to cite. On the other hand, simply deleting the article would be, I think, a shame. This little piece of history deserves to be documented somewhere.
Check the Talk page. Several people have referred to other people with the same nickname.
I still know three or four people, besides Suzy herself, who remember those events. But we can't cite their memories.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion. I'll just remove your recent unsourced additions, perhaps. We'll see what turns up. Cheers, and say hello to Suzie :-) - DVdm (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
If you put the article back to the way it was before my recent edits, you will restore its total falsity. It never had any worthwhile sources. I'm not sure what the original author used, but it certainly wasn't what Wikipedia would regard as a citeable source.
My e-mail address is on my user page. Send me an e-mail, and I'll tell you some stuff that I don't want to post publicly.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks, DVdm, for catching the bogus ref before I did. I was trying to tack down the BBC doc about the vortex but failed. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Beeb reporting a black hole? No way ;-) - DVdm (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Quotations from songs
Quotations from songs are keyed to the song titles, therefore cannot be called unsourced. Learn the rules for references before deleting someone else's contributions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MackyBeth (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Already replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Electronic Arts - Electronic Arts Limited the original NAMED company in the UK
Thanks for asking for Citation re: Electronic Arts
The info I posted regarding electronic arts is matter a fact I worked there from 1984-86, it was one of the first full 3d Computer animation studios in the UK. The company was originally founded by the ex director of BBC Dr Who as a effects company, which pioneered 3D animation in the UK.
The company worked from premises in Chalk Farm, Primrose Hill, before moving to the City of London, where in 1987 it changed its name to Amazing Array Productions, as EA brought the name/ registered it in the UK.
I am trying to collaborate dates, but think it would be GREAT to get the facts right:::
I can cross reference, key individuals -
namely:: Jilly Knight:: Head of Animation:: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=5638962&authType=name&authToken=0FqZ&goback=
Phil Mitchell ;; Animator and Founder of MAINFRAME Animation in Canada, Creator of ReBoot http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3786597&authType=name&authToken=FZCS&goback= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBoot http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0593661/?ref_=fn_al_nm_3
You will NOTE that Phil uses the pun = we where not the GAMES Company!!!!
and thats what we have had to say for the past 28 years as the name was brought up by EA
hope this helps, I am trying to construct a timeline and will forward this on to you, as we where Pinoneers in the UK.
speak soonest
Clive / seymor54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seymor54 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note that you don't have to forward anything to me. If you make changes to the aricle, make sure that the changes are properly sourced — see wp:reliable sources. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Musical Survey
Do you think that it's possible for serious Frank Zappa fans to enjoy some famous Andy Williams hits like Love Story ? — 79.113.242.174 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Of course that is possible, by all relevant definitions of serious. - DVdm (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...even the user-made videos, like the one linked above, which accompany said music pieces ? :-) — 79.113.224.23 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
External Links
Hi, This is in regards to the external links on Clocks. I've read through the guidelines before, I apologize if I have overlooked something. My link is both relevant to the topic and rich with information, what else should I consider in order for it to become suitable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.203.81 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Hi, Have a look at wp:ELNO items 5, 11, 13. - DVdm (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alrighty, thanks. I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up! 81.149.203.81 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. The information could be interesting and perhaps even fit to be included in the body of the article, provided of course a good wp:reliable source (from e.g. a text book, or from a technical article) would be available to back it up. The information on that company site probably orginates from such a source, but of course we cannot use that site. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
ANI notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 20:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
what?
What you see is not constructive? It violates several rules of Wikipedia. I told him this many times. However, he does not care. He ignores sources and arranges the war edits. It even changes the quote from the source.--Lori-m (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that your edit consisted of the text "You lie and do not blush!", which did not sound constructive to me. Perhaps I should have issued a warning for personal attacks. Next time, I promise. Let's try to remain civil and wp:AGF. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much that explained. I get it. I will correct. Do you mind if I write "обманывать не хорошо" (spoof is not good)?. If I write something on the Russian'm sure he will understand.--Lori-m (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would still be sort of an accusation of spoofing or cheating. Best to keep it as neutral as possible, and best to write English only here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- According to Russian would be easier to explain it to him. He is trying to deceive readers. I can not affect it. In the article I quoted from the source. It is written: "Matzoon or mazun, originating in Armenia". However Obitauri changes "Armenian" on the "Georgian", and "Matzoon" on "Matconi". Tell me where I can complain about him? P.S. Forgive me for my english--Lori-m (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- First, you must stop reverting each other. I have put warnings on both your talk pages for edit warring. The warning has some links to interesting articles that explain what to do in such cases. Note that after this warning one of you reverts again, I will report at WP:AN3, which probably will result in a block, perhaps even of you both. So try to reach consensus on the talk page, and above all, stick to facts and remain civil. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. Do you mind if I call you for advice?--Lori-m (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- First, you must stop reverting each other. I have put warnings on both your talk pages for edit warring. The warning has some links to interesting articles that explain what to do in such cases. Note that after this warning one of you reverts again, I will report at WP:AN3, which probably will result in a block, perhaps even of you both. So try to reach consensus on the talk page, and above all, stick to facts and remain civil. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- According to Russian would be easier to explain it to him. He is trying to deceive readers. I can not affect it. In the article I quoted from the source. It is written: "Matzoon or mazun, originating in Armenia". However Obitauri changes "Armenian" on the "Georgian", and "Matzoon" on "Matconi". Tell me where I can complain about him? P.S. Forgive me for my english--Lori-m (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- It would still be sort of an accusation of spoofing or cheating. Best to keep it as neutral as possible, and best to write English only here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much that explained. I get it. I will correct. Do you mind if I write "обманывать не хорошо" (spoof is not good)?. If I write something on the Russian'm sure he will understand.--Lori-m (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
war with 8i347g8gl on Mass–energy equivalence
You and 8i347g8gl need to stop reverting one another on Mass–energy equivalence and first discuss it on its talk page! I'm posting the same to 8i347g8gl.DavRosen (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see 8i347g8gl got blocked. I think the biggest problem with what he did was removal of the other content, since he did eventually add sources for the content he added. DavRosen (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- See this edit. The first part of the edit was utterly inadequately sourced (Astronomy Quiz Book). The second part (see near the bottom of the diff) was not sourced at all. See the specific reason for the block. - DVdm (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
please read Mass–energy equivalence talk page and discuss, esp my entries re "convert matter to energy"
Note that SBHarris has agreed in principle that the "convert matter to energy" terminology needs to be changed. I haven't made any changes yet because I'm first discussing so I don't get reverted. DavRosen (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I had seen that. Carry on, but try not to fringe the article, and use sources which are slightly more relevant than some Quiz Book :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Mostly I'm thinking to begin changing some of the eclectic (and unsourced) statements about mass vs matter [non-]conservation into something that relies more on the better-defined concepts (like rest mass) that are already explained elsewhere in the article and are themselves properly sourced there. BTW, I looked at the versions of this article in about ten other languages, and none appeared to have anything resembling the statements about matter that we see in this article. For the term "matter" itself, perhaps we need to rely more on the article by that name; it isn't very good if I recall, but that needs to be improved in that article. Of course I'll source anything new/nontrivial/controversial or that doesn't follow directly from the existing parts of the article. Or at least this is my understanding of how to do things -- I'm new to editing articles :-) DavRosen (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Warning?
You just warned me, yes I got your warning and understood but I just fixed this article, What was wrong? I just put new sources and didnt undone anything? I just edited article with new sources. This gives you reason to report me? --Obitauri (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I talk about edits after you warned me. This edits are not breaking rules. I just wanted to fix conflict and see talk what I say: "Darra Goldstein. The Georgian Feast: The Vibrant Culture and Savory Food of the Republic of Georgia. University of California Press, 1999, p. 51
This totally shows its Georgian. "University of California Press", this is one of most reliable sources. We need to discuss both sources, which says Armenian and other which says Georgian as of this article became battlefield of editing... We need to check both sources... But before we must not say anything about origin in article cause we found 2 sources one says other, 2nd other thing we need to remove origin from article --Obitauri (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC) --Obitauri (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)"
Then I edited article and removed origin of this product cause its discussing right now, I shown Lori-m source he removed it before this edit warring. He removed several resources from this article which said it was Georgian just see history. I just wanted to fix this and did some mistakes in editing (such as changing sources). I fixed them now and just put new source. Here is problem which needs to be discussed: 1 source says that its Georgian, other says its Armenian. We need to find out which is true and if we cant, jsut leave like not writing origin like article looks like now. Do you understand me now? What did you gave reason of reporting me? --Obitauri (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Warnings
Hi, we recently crossed paths at User talk:Cjohnson20001. (I was trying to revert their edits to the Afterlife article, but you beat me to the punch...twice.) Anyway, I appreciate the work you're doing, but it rubbed me wrong when you gave them a level 4 vandalism template for this edit. Yes, it was POV, edit warring, using Wikipedia as a platform, etc., but it seems to have been in good faith, and I would hesitate to call it vandalism. Anyway, I guess I just wanted to suggest that you take a softer approach when dealing with new and inexperienced editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I seem to have hit the wrong button. Note however that after another unsourced addition the result would have been the same: they would have been reported at the vandalism noticeboard. It's what Huggle does after a 4th level warning when reverting again for addition of unsourced content. See my remark and admin Nyttend's reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive799#Mattel :
- ...
- When such edits are always unsourced, they can be removed per wp:unsourced, accompanied by a user warning. When the user refuses to react to the warnings, one similar edit after the final warning is usually considered to be vandalism, and as such reported by wp:Huggle at AIV. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed; this is precisely why {{uw-unsor4}} says that people may be blocked for further violations. Any admin who blocks you for a 3RR violation when you're removing this kind of thing from the article would deserve a pile of trouts — this is the kind of graffiti that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- ....
- Agreed; this is precisely why {{uw-unsor4}} says that people may be blocked for further violations. Any admin who blocks you for a 3RR violation when you're removing this kind of thing from the article would deserve a pile of trouts — this is the kind of graffiti that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- When such edits are always unsourced, they can be removed per wp:unsourced, accompanied by a user warning. When the user refuses to react to the warnings, one similar edit after the final warning is usually considered to be vandalism, and as such reported by wp:Huggle at AIV. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...
NBD
Hi, I added a refernce to an example of such usage of nbd. I dont think there it is formally defined anywhere, but I have seen it around used as such. Kindest regards, JM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.72.208 (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. But on so-called wp:disambiguation pages such as NBD normally only references to existing articles (or perhaps to articles immediately to be created) are to made. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note - I have reverted your second attempt and left another comment on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure
I'm not sure I'm doing this talk thing right... but I see you recently warned the guy that edited Machairodus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machairodus?diff=561560105
I only came to notice this, because I was on the cynodont page, and saw that permian had been changed to paleocene. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cynodont&diff=561561641&oldid=561558487
Is there any way to find out any other edits this guy did? it seems he went active on the 25th of june, and perhaps there is some damage he's done that hasn't been fixed yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cynodont&diff=561558487&oldid=560301304
2001:620:600:3800:226:4AFF:FE0A:3CE2 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're doing fine, but I have moved your text to the bottom, added a subject line, and moved the link with the difference (diff) just above your signature. Hope you don't mind :-)
- Yes, there is a very simple way to do it by going to the so-called diff and merely clicking the user's IP-address in the heading on the right side, immediately under the line 'Revision as of 20:53, 25 June 2013 (edit) (undo). When you click the IP-address, you get the user's contributions, like here. That's how simple it is. When you go to their talk page, you'll also see the other known IP-addresses (with links to contribs) they have been using for the same kind of vandalism.
- Note that you can keep a monitoring eye on various articles by putting them on a so-called watchlist. You need to get a username for that. Anywhere you go and logon to Wikipedia, you get the same settings, watchlist, user page and talk page, and you're still anonymous. Read all about this at Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:User access levels#User groups.
- I also have left a welcome message with some handy pointers on your IP-talk page. If you have any questions, as away! - DVdm (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Complaint
I am writing to you because I want to avoid an edit war. I thought you could intercede. Earlier today Mrm7171 made a wholesale deletion from the Wikipedia entry on Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The deletion was is not justified. The deletion was of a short paragraph on the relation of i/o psychology to OHP, a paragraph that I restored. The paragraph is justified in that OHP emerged out of i/o, health psychology, and occupational health. Each of the encyclopedia entries for those three disciplines has contained a short paragraph on the discipline's relation to OHP.Iss246 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Iss246. I have been away for a few days. It looks like the problem took care of itself by now — at least for a while. Next time, don't revert, but go directly to the talk page of one of the blocking admins whom you see here on the block log. Next block will be longer. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Vandalizing?
I am not vandalizing page. I am just getting back page. Matsoni is not Matzoon. We dont need Matsoni redirected to Matzoon. No source says Matzoon or Matsoni, all says Matzoon or Madzun. So Matsoni is different thing. Also its made with different way compare sources. Also who gave you permission to warn me? --Obitauri (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- You have been sufficiently warned now. Next time you make that change you will be reported at wp:ANI. - DVdm (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- You already reported. Now see what Administrator told you --Obitauri (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Followup: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#User Obitauri undoing redirect to unsourced article. - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
unsolved problems in philosophy--mind body
I added through debate to all referred in mind body problems, sourcing my life experiences; your requirement for sourcing digresses debate to infinite regression, I spoke to that looking for debate; I respect your right to keep unsolved problems in philosophy unsolvable. Philosophy is debate---I am not computer savey how does one log in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.150.68 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- You need reliable sources, not life experience — see wp:reliable sources. Also note that Wikipedia is not a debating club — see wp:NOT. I will put some links on your user talk page that will help you find out how to create a username. - DVdm (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
Hi DVdm. Added some additional reasoning to my edit notes to show complicity with Wikipedia guidelines. This is a wonderful project and I hope it will help bring understanding to many people. Look forward to reading through your page and the many intriguing mathematical theorems that greet my eyes. Hope we can come to a mutual understanding of proper way to represent Buddhism within the Wikipedia project.
Namaste. TheDuinoElegy - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theduinoelegy (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Complex Number page edit
Hi DVdm. I didn't understand why you thought changing to was factually incorrect. It is implied directly from the equations that follow in that section. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anant.sogani (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your expression is ambiguous and thus not properly formed and indeed other than through context there is no way to decide whether the exponent works on the log or on its argument. In mathematics let's not rely on context to allow such ambiguous expressions. But I agree that I my templated warning on your talk page was a bit off the mark. Feel free to remove it altogether. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. I had not put the extra parentheses after correcting the expression since I thought it was redundant. But with what you said, and after looking around for similar notation elsewhere, I realize I was wrong. Thanks. :) - Anant.sogani (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My deleted links on my topics-discoverys.
Hello! Excuse me, i speak english badly! You have deleted links on my topics-discoverys. Ok, i agree with you! But my deleted topics-discoverys complemented articles. My discoverys in a mathematics is best!
Vadim Shlovikov. Вадим Шловиков. (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody do not want pay money for our discoveries!Vadim Shlovikov. Вадим Шловиков. (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Our discoveries save money of many countries! Taxpayer do not sleep. Vadim Shlovikov. Вадим Шловиков. (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
We want saved money of many countries from our discoveries come to us!Vadim Shlovikov. Вадим Шловиков. (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding validation of the Twin Paradox
Hi Dvdm
You are right, it was not reliably sourced, according to wikipedia definition. It was true, though, and there was a source reference to a comprehensive, logical treatment. I was almost certain that wikipedia would be inconducive to new truths, but I needed to try it out, in order to determine the exact nature of the obstacle. This is, of course, not a criticism of your removal of my contribution, as another would have done so in your place, given that the regard of 'reliable sources' is a fundamental requirement for wikipedia articles.
Makes you wonder whether wikipedia may not result in truth stagnation, though, however wonderful a site it otherwise is. In this case, my contribution employed correct logic, which does not require any authority's acknowledgement to those able to follow it. But wikipedia, then, will have to wait for such acknowledgement.
Aquarius Philosophicus (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia will have to wait for such views to have become part of the mainstream view. I doubt that it will, as in your edit I found three major mistakes, two of which you seem to use as premises for your logical argument. As you probably know, correct logic on false premises tends to produce useless conclusions. That is of course the reason why Wikipedia strictly requires wp:reliable sources and even more strictly forbids wp:original research. You probably can imagine what this place would look like without such policies ;-) — Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Warning: Your interpretation of WP:DABENTRY is contrary to the policy stated in WP:MOSDAB.
Accordingly, I have reverted some, but NOT all, of your edits. Happy to discuss the matter rather than start an edit war. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I checked the dabbed articles and I agree with your revert. Thanks for the message! - DVdm (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- BTW: Re: Jack Frost (disambiguation) - ALL of the entries you deleted are valid per WP:MOSDAB Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Those who edit with pain, tend not to last here :-) - Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
sorry
sorry DVdm about the edit to the time page, having looked at your profile you are undoubtedly an expert in this field and as i'm unable to provide a citation either I would like to thank you for correcting my mistaken edit. thank you again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.65.218 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Patent source
Hello, My source was the 2004 US Patent application which I created a link to for your viewing. Lajohnson1 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. But that that is not a suitable source for your addition. See wp:secondary sources. See also wp:COI. - DVdm (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
links to headers in articles
Hey - long time no see Do you know how to link to headers further down a page, such as
"Joe Blow has won many literary awards You click on awards and it takes you seven sections down to
""Literary Awards" or even, to the header in another article. Tx bro. Or sis. Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- A construct like [[Some article#some section|some caption]] will do it. For instance this section on my talk page. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey!
Note the article Hezuo. I'm adding the Tibetan name of the temple and replace the broad transcription with a strict one within a "()". And you're with the crazy bot, aren't you?
BTW, the name "Silverweed Pig" (蕨麻猪) is indeed an alias of the pig. --222.35.81.137 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is that (editing without an edit summary) the reason why the bot was triggered? --222.35.81.137 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Help
Can you pls create an redirect frm Amdo Tibetan to Amdo Tibetan language? --222.35.81.137 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
F.C. Steaua Bucuresti
So basically you say that an outright lie should remain posted on Wilipedia while I attempt sine die to discuss the matter with the very same editor who posted that outright lie (and who did it fully knowing that this is an outright lie)? All this in spite of the fact that I provided 5 solid references to prove that the content added by me is correct, accurate and complete? When did the truth ceased to matter? Optimvs (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- No. Basicly I say that controversial edits should be discussed on talk page and that edit warring will get you nowhere. - DVdm (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, the problem being that you said that while reverting to the outright lie, hence my question. Which still stands. I don't understand, is your goal to hide behind technicalities while an obvious and proven lie stays on wikipedia? The edit history clearly shows that the other part has no intention whatsoever to discuss or to act in a constructive manner. This is proven by the countless reverts done by IP's today. Optimvs (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was trying to make you understand that what you actually did is help people who are trying very hard (see the IP reverts trough this day) to keep a lie posted on Wikipedia. Why not stay out of the whole thing if you are not willing to actually READ the disputed material (which wasn't that long)? When you see an edit war in which IP's keep reverting a page 20 times or so during a single day what do you do, make the same revert as they did? Jeez... Optimvs (talk)
- It looks like you have been blocked for edit warring — as I predicted. Do have a very close look at and read of wp:SYNTH, wp:NPOV, and most of all, at wp:CONSENSUS. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for your message :) — JamesR (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Inertial Frame of Reference
Hello. I notice that you keep adding the the line "However, the general theory reduces to the special theory over sufficiently small regions of spacetime, where curvature effects become less important and the earlier inertial frame arguments can come back into play."
This is fundamentally not correct, as it implies that small regions of spacetime have negligible curvature. This is NOT AT ALL the criteria for curvature effects vanishing. Rather, it must be in the neighbourhood of a point in the manifold in which the Christoffel symbols and their partial derivatives vanish. This is the only way that curvature drops out to zero and one has flat spacetime. The two sources you cite are not credible sources for this topic, rather, any standard textbook on differential geometry will tell you this.
You CANNOT construct a Minkowski coordinate system in an open neighbourhood of a general point in a curved spacetime, since there may be cross-terms that do not vanish. A prime example is the Kerr metric, where you simply CANNOT construct Minkowski coordinates in the neighbourhood of a point, for the simple reason that the cross-term (say in t and phi) cannot be eliminated, since the differential rotation of the vacuum is real, and cannot be transformed away. Of course you can introduce Minkowski coordinates in the TANGENT space, because it is by definition flat.
You really have to make these points clear. They seem subtle, but are very much at the heart of the topic in question.
Sincerely, Ikjyot Singh Kohli Ikjyotsingh (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your unsourced edit has been reverted by someone else too. This should be discussed on the article talk page. Not here. - DVdm (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Quadratics
Hello, I think there's some confusion here. There are three articles: quadratic equation, quadratic function, and quadratic polynomial. Which two would you like to merge? Thanks in advance for clarifying.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Commented here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll go ahead later today and merge poly and func. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to M. A. G. Osmani may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- under the command of Lt. Col. A.T.K. Haque (Bengali), 1 EBR won a total of 17 gallantry awards (including two [[Sitara-i-Jurat]] and 9 [[Tamgha-i-Jurat]], the highest number of awards won by any
- Osmani was selected as the coordinator of these clandestine meetings. Bengali Military officers (both retired and serving, alarmed by the buildup of Pakistani forces apprehensive about their own
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dvdm
Did you receive the message that I had left you regarding the AU pair edits
Alljenknows (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC) alljenknows
- Yep. Both repaired. Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Please see HELP:How to move a page on the correct way to move pages. It should not be done using cut n paste as the edit history is lost.
I have corrected this for you. In future you can request a move if the destination page already exists.
Swaping
Thanks for the friendly remainder, dear DVdm. I was try to swap the name of both the article. M. A. G. Osmani, M. A. G. Osmany. Because the actual spelling page is the redirecting page to the wrong spelling. The main page name is M. A. G. Osmany, but in the article, every where osmani was used. How can this problem can be solved?? - Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- A page move might do the job. I'll have a look at it... - DVdm (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done I think I did the job - see M. A. G. Osmani, Talk:M. A. G. Osmani, M. A. G. Osmany, Talk:M. A. G. Osmany. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action.
Is this possible to rename article page? The article M. A. G. Osmani refers to a great national personality of Bangladesh. So the page should contain the full name of him e.g. Muhammad Ataul Gani Osmani.
Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, that is possible, but you'll have to propose that on the article talk page Talk:M. A. G. Osmani to find out what the other contributors think. Just open a new section there and propose to change the name. If there's no objection, I can make the move for you. - DVdm (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Cancelled edits in the List of people by Erdős number
You asked for references regarding people with small Erdős number, which I am providing below.
According to [DBLP|http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/pers/hd/b/Babai:L=aacute=szl=oacute=], Paolo Codenotti (and a number of other people) co-authored papers with László Babai, who is listed as having Erdős number 1. Therefore, Codenotti and others should be listed as having Erdős number 2.
According to [DBLP|http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/pers/hd/h/Hayes:John_P=], Igor Markov (and a number of other people) co-authored papers with John P. Hayes, who is listed as having Erdős number 2. Therefore, Markov and others should be listed with Erdős number 3.
According to [DBLP|http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/pers/hd/y/Yao:Andrew_Chi=Chih], Yaoyun Shi co-authored papers with Andrew Yao, who is listed as having Erdős number 2. Therefore, Shi should be listed as having Erdős number 3.
The current list is probably missing hundreds of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.82.144 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, but these refs belong in the article, not here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Where in the article? - I don't see a single reference there. Perhaps, you can add one of these people to illustrate - Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.82.144 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please ask on the article talk page Talk:Erdős number. The other contributors will help. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
RE:
Did you see the link? Did you hear what he said (and in the l;ast 2 session of the UNGA). Wildly accusing Russia of being wrondg in everythiong and criticiseing all of its history (laughable since hes from the land of Stalin) is Russophobia. What else defines Russophobia then? (and the article would need a concrete definition.(Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)).
Indian and Pakistani celebrities
Hello DVdm, thanks for you help on the Fawad Afzal Khan article. In case you aren't familiar with what's going on with these celebrity articles let me fill you in on some of it. First, I know nothing about any of these people or the entertainment industries of India and Pakistan. As happens I got sucked into these articles following a vandal and discovered tons and tons of problems. Recently the one I've been focused on is where a dynamic IP keeps adding to articles that person X is Muslim and "born into a Muslim family". Every once in a while a source is supplied (hard to tell if these are reliable sources but that's another issue) but the vast majority of time one isn't. Along with that edit are all sorts of other OK looking edits about the person's career. Generally unsourced but also uncontroversial. What I mainly do is revert the unsourced religious claims since I don't want to take the time to assess the quality of the rest of their edit.
Anyway, it's an ongoing problem and any help in dealing with it is greatly appreciated. SQGibbon (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Removal of content at Talk:Length contraction
Regarding your removal of content at Talk:Length contraction: I had recommended to the user who added that content (LCcritic (talk · contribs)) that they open a discussion on the talk page after I had removed their edit to the page itself. The user appears to wish to broaden the scope of the article by including a discussion of the controversy discussed in the material you removed. I don't believe it was this user's wish to open a general chat, but rather to introduce material for discussion prior to introduction to the article. I would like to see the material restored to the talk page so a proper discussion can take place, but I don't wish to step on any toes. I'm not a physicist and will readily claim little understanding of the topic at hand. I also admit that I believe LCcritic is trying to introduce something of a fringe theory, but I thought a proper discussion rather than a dismissal out of hand was in order. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi WikiDan, I just checked LCcritic's message on your talk page. The phrase "I've studied the debate on length contraction for some 18 years now" and the user's username choice make me pessimistic — we've seen this before. Regarding the recommendation that you made, I would advise against restoring the talk page comment, but if you would do it, I wouldn't step on your toes. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Removal of beam inertia calculator link from "2nd moment of area
Could you please explain how linking to a free beam inertia calculator violates the external links policy but the "Calculator for Second Moment of Area" link which is already there does not? Thanks, Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.171.189 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Erik, see for instance wp:ELNO #11. This software not being written by a recognised authority, could be junk or even damaging. - DVdm (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I dont see how the current linked tools are any more of a "recognised authority", I am a published author in applied mechanics and I am just looking to share a freeware tool on the subject of the article with the greater engineering community. I have linked other tools in the past without any issue so I am surprised this is coming up now. What can I do to become a "recognised authority"? Thanks, Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.171.189 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Wikipedia is of course not a place to share freeware tools. There's a lot of things that Wikipedia is not — see wp:NOT. Perhaps you can open a little section on the article talk page and ask whether other contributors would mind your "advertising" these own written tools. Of course, if/when you see other inappropriate external links, feel free to remove them per wp:ELNO. Your best best: the article talk page(s). Good luck and ditto software writing. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok I am still confused about your comment "Wikipedia is of course not a place to share freeware tools" when the page in question already has a link to such tools...85.171.171.189 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps the other contributors judged these links as appropriate. Again, open a little section on the talk page and discuss with the others. Wikipedia is mainly about wp:consensus. Try it, it's fun. - DVdm (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the way to go. Don't forget to always sign talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
DVdm, I am very lame at navigating here, so when I couldn't find my "talk" comments, I thought you had deleted them. Sorry. Just now, replied to your last response to me and then could not find it. (Just my unfamiliarity with the site, I am sure.) Anyway here it is again, and it it is a duplicate, please bear with me as I learn the ropes here. Thanks. You said: "Nowadays (i.e. since a century or so), "physical" and "real" (and even "geometrically") all mean "operationally and reproducibly measurable". Anything beyond that seems to have become what we could call arm-chair philosophy, i.e. wasting one's time on the usage of words. Just like velocity and energy, length is a coordinate dependent property. That does not make it "unphysical" or "unreal" or "merely geometrical". -"
This ignores the present length contraction debate (as in all science forums with a relativity section... before LC critics are banned) on whether LC is a physical phenomenon or not, which is a legitimate question for science. I have given examples of both sides as found in Wiki, and it can not be both ways, so the issue begs for disambiguation. You say, "length is a coordinate dependent property," as if the debate is settled and physical objects have no intrinsic, objective shape, length or distance between them, and it all depends on how you look at them (frame of reference.) It is not just arm-chair philosophy to declare that a contracted Earth diameter (say 4000 miles as "measured" from a frame approaching at .866c as in my example) is not "equally valid" with the its proper diameter length, measured in Earth's frame, just under 8000 miles.
The same applies to the often referenced barn and ladder/pole paradox. A 20 foot ladder will not fit into a 10 foot barn, regardless of different relativistic frames of reference. These are physical objects. A force must be applied to compact them to shorter length, and special relativity does not include such force in its theory. It just claims that varying measurements indicate varying lengths, and this must be generalized to all objects, like Earth, which clearly does not vary in diameter length with all possible relativistic frames from which it might (someday, theoretically) be measured. LCcritic (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer to use article talk pages for discussing articles, and user talk pages for discussing user conduct. What you write here is about your opinions on the subject of some article, and therefore off-topic. If you want to discuss the format and the content of the Length contraction article, you should confine yourself to the article talk page Talk:Length contraction. Do make sure that, with every word you write, you discuss the format and content of the article, not the subject or your personal opinions about it. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Vagans
Re: vagans in "Glossary of Musical Terminology". Fine, I added a reference. But seriously, is this the kind of thing that really requires a specific reference? The whole page is full of translations into English from foreign languages; does each one of them need a footnote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.246.113 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Not really. Normally —de-facto— only challenged content requires references. I did not have a look at the page. I merely noticed your addition. I went to look for a source and couldn't find any in less than a few minutes, so I removed the edit and warned you. Thanks for having provided that ref! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Please read the talk pages of Bengali novels, Bangla rock and Bengali science fiction. You will know who is doing vandalism
Please read the talk pages of Bengali novels, Bangla rock and Bengali science fiction. These articles have huge amount of material on Bangladesh but very less on West Bengal. The article on Bangla rock has been redirected to Bangladeshi rock, a term which does not even exist! This is pure vandalism. If you see the History of these three articles to 2 or 3 years back, say the page as it appeared on 16 October 2010 or 2011, you find an unbiased article. If you are an administrator, please do something. I was forced to add the vandalism tag to the mentioned articles.
And I am not the only person who feels that the above mentioned articles are biased towards Bangladesh while ignoring West Bengal. If you read their talk pages, you can get others' views. I am not making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you just wrote on my talk page. I have been sharing whatever little I know with Wikipedia as an anonymous user since last 2 years and as a registered user since <1month.
AkhilKumarPal (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note that I am not in the least interested in that kind of politics, so for now, in the spirit of wp:AGF, I give you the benefit of the doubt. Still I think that adding the {{tn:vandalism}} tag to these articles is inappropriate. Good luck with your politics. DVdm (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- This was not politics from my side. I was trying to rectify some pages. By adding the vandalism tag, I tried to bring the attention to the actual vandalism going on in those pages. And by the way, if I am to do politics, I can leave Wikipedia and start writing a blog. That way, I can do politics as well as earn some money for extending my political activities. I can make some page on Facebook and do politics. Why to join a free group like Wikipedia? As I have told you, I am not the only one who sees fault with the mentioned articles. If you read their talk pages, you can read others' comments also. I may have done mistake by adding vandalism tag to the articles, but if you see my approach as "politics", its painful. Thank you. AkhilKumarPal (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Morrissey quote
How is quoting Morrissey's statement put up on his official website vandilising the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.149.216 (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- OOPS - my mistake. Didn't look sufficiently close at your last edit. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And what was wrong with the other bit of info I put up there? The source was a news site citing his autobiography, just like in the case of his 'girlfriend', which you don't find questionable. 89.74.149.216 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- See this message on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|
Thanks for removing the vandalism from my user page. Oddbodz (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
Clock angle problem
Obviously you have not even bothered to read the messages that you have been intemperately posting. QUOTE:
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Clock angle problem, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you HAVE made a mistake, so yes, I AM leaving you a message on your talk page. 86.160.219.31 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Right. So read the warnings I have put there carefully. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have special look at wp:CALC. - DVdm (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not recognise your authority to give me "warnings", as you put it. 86.160.219.31 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have no authority here. The policies on wp:original research and wp:reliable sources have all the authority in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then stop sending me messages like you have some kind of right to tell me what to do. 86.160.219.31 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have no authority here. The policies on wp:original research and wp:reliable sources have all the authority in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not recognise your authority to give me "warnings", as you put it. 86.160.219.31 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Its not vandalism if you dont like it
Hello, With regard to the definition of reliable and unbiased source for Fasih Mahmood, I have included the source as twocircles website which primarily deals with isses related to indian muslims accused of terrorist charges and under judicial custody. their website is http://twocircles.net/ Yet time and again I am being told this is not a reliable source. Why? I read the definition of reliable and unbiased source and it completley fits the bill. The onus is on you to disprove it. If you can't then let my edit stay in place. I have the feeling I am being harassed for vandalism. When however it is exactly the opposite of what I am trying to do.
I do not have the time or effort to continue this circus. If people are genuinely interested in knowing more about Fasih Mahmood they can check out the articles at http://twocircles.net/ and decide for themselves. I am sorry but I can't match with an online crusafe hellbent on proving my sources as biased when they are not.
Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.11.162.171 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- With this edit, you brought the article in this state. That is a mess. If it is indeed not vandalism, then please learn how to properly edit an article. As it is now, you are simply ruining the article. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Insofar as the formating of the article is concerned I accept my mistake. I am new to wikipedia and therefore not a pro on editing and formating.
However if you read Neelkamala's comments on my edits, the formating is not the issue. The comments focus on and question the reliability of the source. When in fact a simple proofreading of the article in its current state will show how "Fasih Mahmood has a bachelor of arts" and then "He is an engineer by training". If you are aware of education in India. one doesnot become an engineer by training after obtaining a BA. These are contradictory statements which I resolved to rectify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.11.162.171 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. Your best bet is to go to the article talk page and discuss this matter with the other article contributors to get a wp:consensus over the changes you like to make. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Klooks Kleek edits
I have seen your messages about unsuitable edits I have tried to make to Klooks Kleek page.
I accept what you say about tone and will try to modify further edits.
If its a matter of source all of the material I am trying to publish has been provided by Geoff Williams one of the original partners in running the club. This was prompted by the inadequacity of the page that existed hitherto and a desire to put the record in better historiacl perspective. Michaeltnorman (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Jewish by birth
As a result, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by a Jew to the 613 Mitzvot, or even formal conversion to another religion, does not make one lose one's Jewish status. Thus the immediate descendants of all female Jews (even apostates) are still considered to be Jews, as are those of all their female descendants. Even those descendants who are not aware they are Jews, or practice a religion other than Judaism, are defined by this perspective as Jews, as long as they come from an unbroken female line of descent. As a corollary, the children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother are not considered to be Jews by halakha unless they formally convert according to halakha, even if raised fully observant in the mitzvot.[1]
- ^ Angel, Marc, Choosing to be Jewish: the Orthodox road to conversion, pp.114–117
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F#Halakhic_perspective
Greetings and... AGF
Greetings DVdm. Just a quick note to let you know that I've replied to a note the IP left me regarding the addition in quick succession of links to Military Administration in France in bio infoboxes. I think we can AGF on this. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
link removed - Request for reconsider
Dear Dvd m , I am a tourism lover and like to post various travel destinations article in net. In order to add value to thailand page i posted the link and there is no motive of spamming or driving traffic. Therefore i request you to reconsider
regards Tourist Tiger (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC) gkrishTourist Tiger (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Message for DVdm
- Hey it's me MRivera25, um. Igotta question.I edited FuckWithMeYouKnowIGotIt, because ifelt as if the veiwers would not know how to pronounce the title and i wanted to make the page as accurate and reliable as possible. Send me a message on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRivera25 (talk • contribs)
- This is the English version of Wikipedia. Edits like this do not belong here. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alright whatever you say so but if people start complaining that this source is not reliable enough, dont come to me and thank me later.If you would like to respond to this message go to my talk page on the section that says: "Message left for MRivera25"--MRivera25 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)MRivera25
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. See wp:CIRCULAR. - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Schizophrenic number
Hello DVdm, I am new to editing WikiPedia, but since I found the page about 'Schizophrenic numbers' to be called an 'orphan page', I thought I'd correct that. If you think that is not useful, then by all means leave it as it is, because I'm not going to haggle over whether the link is useful. In that case it is better to just agree to disagree, and both continue what we love to do most.... ;-)
Namaste, André — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorelife (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of my edits from the "Time" article
Hi DVdm,
First off, thanks for sending a personal talk page message that clarifies your issues with my edits.
I do agree that my sources do not qualify as reliable sources by wiki standards; however, I think they are more than adequate given the claims made within my edits. The "identifying reliable sources" wiki page states that "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Since I view my edits as containing "lightweight" claims (i.e., claims that are intuitively credible to any intellect), I believe its fine. I certainly would search extensively for "said" reliable sources if I had more time availability and if it was less time-consuming. Please let me know on my talk page how you now feel about my edits, and if your opinion is unchanged, could you please specify the types of sources you would consider reliable (i'll also check out the wiki page for reliable sources that you sent b4).
Best, Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwratner1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
User: CLOSEDMOUTHISASPAZTICATEDGOON
Hello. I saw you tagged a page for deletion called "The Cosmos Leader". May I ask was it something to do with me because I recently warned him and deleted his page for vandalism. --The Cosmos Master (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of my External Links
Hey DVdm,
collection.qtrax.com is legit lyrics site that is powered by LyricFind. Recently, the legit lyrics site MetroLyircs got an approval from Wikipedia to submit their own links as external links by bot. We, too, are working on that approval - by bot. As long as MetroLyrics are posting their links and in a legit way, so should we. We are licensed publishers and our data is no spam whatsoever. please do not remove our links anymore. Thanks so much. Lilamay2013Lilamey2013 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- See this. - DVdm (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- And this. - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear friend, on Rehevkor's talk, and also on the spam page, you declare that Qtrax is now using a bot. This is an incorrect claim. MetroLyrics, owned by CBS Interactive is a commercial website that uses a bot for external links. Qtrax only added links manually. Never with a bot (yet). Please reconsider your claims, which tends to make other editors think that Qtrax is a spam or pirate service. Qtrax is the only service in the world that has license to distribute LEGAL music for FREE. Yes, music that is licensed by record labels (meaning we do pay the artist every time our users listen or download the artist's song), but provide it 100% for users.
Furthermore, in my opinion, placing and external link on a Wikipedia page of a notable song, that redirect to an official and licensed page, is quite a great service both to Wikipedia's readers, and musicians. Both enjoy.
I beg you to be precise in your claims. Much thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.0.181 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Huggle 3
Hey DVdm! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:
- Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
- Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot
If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Replacement link on Bernoulli Principle web page
Hello, I believe there are two issues here: 1) I updated a stale link on the Bernoulli Principle page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle?diff=581744007) 2) I added new links on other pages
Here are the reasons I think the Bernoulli link should stay: 1) The previous link to home.earthlink.net/~mmc1919 has been on that page for many years (at least six). According to the official policy as I understand it, links to material by known subject experts are allowed. All previous reviewers have kept that link because they agree that I am a known subject matter expert. In other words, everyone was happy. 2) The Bernoulli page was created by myself, a physicist, for teaching a college class. To my students I was an expert 3) The previous link was going to my ancient earthlink account. I'm dropping that account. 4) I still receive messages that people enjoy my animation. You have cited the official policy, but unless you have additional information I would still say the Bernoulli link should stay. Do you have any additional information? I did take the time to read the documentation but there may have been something I overlooked since I am not a regular wikipedia expert. I incorporated what I did find into my argument above.
I am fine with the removal of the non-Bernoulli page links. I am not a proven-expert in those fields. Markonius (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it should stay, per policy. The fact that it has been sitting there for a long time really is not a compelling reason to keep it. But if you feel strong about it, I suggest you propose it on the article talk page Talk:Bernoulli's principle. In any case, if the other contributors think it should stay, then perhaps it can stay, but adding a string of these animations is a definite no-no. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
YQ
Hi DVdm, I made a change to the YQ page, based on the following source from Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-17/queue-jumping-apps-aim-to-boost-buzz-at-british-pubs.html). You've marked it as vandalism, which is not my intention. Thanks. 149.241.216.191 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GiantSnowman 19:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
DVdm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that I have reverted multiple times, but as far as I understood the rules, I was reverting vandalism, which is not edit warring. Note that after the third revert for addition of unsoured content, Huggle automatically assumes and reports vandalism. See also Duoduoduo's comment on blocking admin's talk page
Decline reason:
If, as seems likely, you mean that because Huggle uses the word "vandalism" you feel free to assume that it is vandalism, and not decide for yourself whether it is, then you are completely misunderstanding Huggle. Every time you run Huggle, assuming you have not made some change to the default configuration, it warns you that you are responsible for your edits, and that use of Huggle is no excuse for what you do. (I can't quote exactly what it says, as I am not using Windows and therefore can't run Huggle to check the exact message, but it essentially conveys that message.) It is your responsibility to check what you are doing using Huggle, and if you fail to do so then you are every bit as responsible for what you do as you would have been had you made the same edits without any involvement of Huggle. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Thanks, James. It's not that I put the responsability on Huggle. I was 100% convinced that the user in question was the same as multiple IP-abuser 84.135.*.*¨ who was active on the same article, and with similar edits. I reported this IP for vandalism here, and a bit later I reported user:DavidMichaelFabian here. The user report was left untouched and the IP was blocked a bit later by user:Materialscientist. I assumed vandalism and would have filed the same reports without Huggle. The reason why I mentioned Huggle, is that a fourth reversal for unsourded additions is generally automatically considered vandalism. I still think I was not edit-warring, but fighting vandalism. If admins in general think that this was indeed not a case of vandalism, then de-facto I misjudged, for which I offer my apologies. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just a comment, but I was very close to removing your rollback permissions because of this. It seems overly punitive at this point however. John Reaves 21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Gary Motykie
Given his AfC submission which is mainly copyvio, maybe a paid editor? Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it surely looks like they are paid editors. The template {{Uw-copyright-new}} that you left on their talk page should make them well aware of what can/cannot here and perhaps even help clarify whether they're just fans, or paid, or the subject themselves. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
My last edit on Bioresonance
Hi there, I'm new to wikipedia editing and forgot to add in a summary as to why I edited, however the content I removed was because it was very obviously biased and unscientific. I'm not quite sure how to restore the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.155.250 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Lego Pinball
I would like to know how my lego pinball sentence to the pinball wiki was vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.47.247 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
the shoe shop edit
hi, yeah, it was actually a test to see what happened if we did an uknown link to another wiki page.
- Would it create a new article? i don't know.
- after all, i was gonnna undo it after.
- thanks anyway
- 91.77.144.64 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up. 16:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Which edit are you referring to? Please provide a diff. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The one on Bucher, it was probably good faith but you were right to revert it. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up. 17:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Tidal force
Hey DVdm. I am perecinque. You said: 'I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tidal force, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! ' I cannot readd because i forgot what i wrote. But i would like to add as a reliable source in my next attempt, the same source that is being used now in the article. How do i do that reliably? TY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perecinque (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Kinetic Energy
You recently removed my edit on the page 'Kinetic Energy'. I stated that the correct formula for finding Kinetic Energy is 'KE=mv' and not 'KE=(mv^2)/2' as is incorrectly written in most textbooks and on the current wikipedia page. The problem stems from the misguided 'Work Energy Theoerm' which states that 'Work done is equal to force through a distance'. This statement is incorrect and it can be easily proved that work done is in fact equal to the force applied to an object multiplied by the time it is applied. The proof of the accepted equation involves acceptance of the Work Energy Theorem, and the proof of the Work Energy Theorem involves acceptance of the Kinetic Energy eqauation. It is not hard to see the problem. For some reason unknown to myself, the vast majority of the Physics world has missed this, apart from one or two articles I have found on the internet, one of which I referenced. Please look into this yourself and think about the problem (providing you have a basic physics knowledge), and if possible, prove me wrong, instead of removing my edit without good reason (I understand that many people wouldn't want to accept this as it means they have been wrong for many years). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhenley (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Sean, you have come to the wrong place with this. Wikipedia is about reliable and secondary sources (click the blue links and read what they have to say). Nobody here is interested in proving anybody wrong or right — see WP:GREATWRONGS. You really need to find another kind of forum to convince the world that everybody has been wrong. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate the answer. Could you please give me any links to forums where this kind of post wouldn't be met with hostility(as so far everybody that has posted similar things has just been insulted)? I was hoping that if I change the 'source' that everybody uses (wikipedia), it might be noticed. It looks as if I might have to go back to arguing with my physics teacher over it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhenley (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you can stand the heat, you could try Usenet (for instance through this link: [8]), but I'm afraid you will be met with hostility too. I guess that arguing with your physics teacher—and succesfully convincing him—would be your first course of action. Be prepared to also listen very carefully. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Sleep
I am Rupkatha roy.You have deleted my editing on Sleep.But I have taken those information from Prothom Alo .(World's largest Bengali News Portal.) a few years ago.What should I do then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupkatha roy (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Please see wp:reliable sources. I have added plenty of links on your talk page where you can learn about quoting sources. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback!
Hey DVdm, how are you? I am Petrb, one of huggle developers, and you are currently subscribed as a beta tester of huggle on meta (meta:Huggle/Members. You may not have noticed, but this week I released first beta precompiled installers for ubuntu and microsoft windows! Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta has all the links you need. So if you can, please download it, test it and report all bugs that is really what we need now. Don't forgot that as it's just a beta it's unstable and there are some known issues. Be carefull! Thank you for helping us with huggle Petrb (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Fine structure constant
Hey its bpoojary, you removed my content for Fine structure decoded, what do you mean by secondary post? My manuscript is published here http://www.ijapm.org/show-32-144-1.html. What else proof you want, its very easy to delete other contents, but not easy to write on your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.36.65 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- I assume that you are referring to this edit. Wikipedia is not interested in our own work. It needs secondary sources, as is explained in wp:secondary sources. Please have a careful read of all the articles that are linked (blue font) in my message on User talk:113.193.32.191. Everything is explained there. - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- My manuscript location is http://www.ijapm.org/papers/102-P018.pdf
- Conference video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtA6W7KkEp0
- Can you please guide me what approach should I take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpoojary (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Wikipedia is not interested in our manuscripts. Wikipedia needs secondary sources. In short: your publications must be cited in other relevant main-stream reliable sources. See wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Qantas
you removed some of my edits because I did not include the source? I was on the plane at the time of one of the incidents and have access to a lot of info regarding others, SO I AM the source. however, I cannot be bothered to go through this everytime I wish to help keep info up to date. goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info878 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Posting Material
where can i find rules on posting material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drahc88 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Hi. I have put a big welcome message on your talk page. You can read about getting started through the first links under the heading Getting Started. There's no rush, so take your time. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the prior discussion. If you cannot show me the prior deletion discussion, I will decline the speedy. Dlohcierekim 21:58, 1
- Article was speedily deleted by admin RHaworth (talk · contribs). See [11]:
- "18:54, 1 December 2013 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Olatunde olalekan (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)".
- "18:54, 1 December 2013 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Olatunde olalekan (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"
- The time stamp may vary between our locations. - DVdm (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Outcome: [12]. - DVdm (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I left a message on the creator's talk about using links to W. articles that do not support the article. Dlohcierekim 22:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear DVDm, thanks for your immense contributions to wikipedia. I just discovered that you previously deleted the article:olatunde olalekan. The article is a stub about a notable biochemist and only needs an expansion .it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Read more about criteria for speedy deletion. Please kindly restore the page:olatunde olalekan so as not to seem insensitive . Thanks(Biomolecules (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC))
On cis
Hey, please replace what I wrote. There are loads of entries on that page without any references. If you want entries, ask. Don't just censor what I have written. This is not Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Article leads allowed philosophical bias
DVdm, *Please* help me understand and reconcile the following statement from the Philosophy of Science article with relativity's insistence on observer dependent measurements yielding valid differences in whatever is observed and measured: ["Objectivity of observations in science... It is vitally important for science that the information about the surrounding world and the objects of study be as accurate and as reliable as possible. For the sake of this, measurements which are the source of this information must be as objective as possible."] Yet the observer-dependent basis of relativity (subjectivity in the broadest philosophical sense) prevails, and no philosophical criticism of its observer-dependent basis is allowed. The lead of every article is written by Wiki editors, and each reflects the *philosophical assumptions* underlying each article. This is most obvious in the field of relativity, in which the standard of objectivity cited above is clearly disregarded in favor of observer dependence. The results then negate the objective (established fact) and affirm the latter, as in my last example. The relativity of simultaneity would insist that the two beams strike their respective targets at different times (as differently observed)rather than a the same time, as factually established by the situational parameters. The same applies to my previous (and, yes, persistent) example of the diameter of Earth, which *does not in fact change* with changes in frames from which it might be measured. Since personal opinions and such criticisms as mine are not allowed, please explain why the article leads I have criticized are allowed to favor the philosophy of observer-dependence and disregard the most basic scientific intent to be objective, as above. Thanks. LCcritic (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- As I more or less said here before (at User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013#I am very lame navigating): I prefer to use article talk pages for discussing articles, and user talk pages for discussing user conduct. What you write here is—again—about your opinions on the subject of some article, and therefore—again—off-topic. If you want to discuss the format and the content of the Relativity of simultaneity article, you should confine yourself to the article talk page Talk: Relativity of simultaneity. Do make sure that, with every word you write, you discuss the format and content of the article, not the subject or your personal opinions about it.
Also note that I honestly have no desire to discuss any aspect of the subject with you, as it is obvious—to me—that you have no idea what the subject is about. It has been explained many times by many contributors, and it looks like you are not interested—see the section wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in our guideline about wp:disruptive editing. I cannot help you and I am not here to educate you, and, I guess, neither can and are the other contributors that you have come in contact with on the relativity talk pages. I think it's best that you go elsewhere with your philosophy, as Wikipedia definitely seems not the place — see wp:NOT. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- This will be my last "talk" addressed to you. I criticized the stated *editorial opinion* (which Wiki claims to not allow) in the lead of the article talk page... that there is no such thing as two events happening at the same time, that it all depends on 'who sees what and when.' You gave me another warning that it was inappropriate and disruptive, even though that talk page was discussing the conditions required for confirmation of simultaneity. Then I asked you how the Wiki piece on "Objectivity of observations in science..." reconciles with relativity's absolute insistence on "subjective" frames of reference as all 'equally valid." Now you say that too was inappropriate. I know that you personally dislike me and believe that I am an uninformed crank. ("... it is obvious—to me—that you have no idea what the subject is about.") I did in fact teach philosophy of science and have studied relativity in depth. You are obviously biased against anyone who criticizes relativity, so you are about to "block" me as a contributing editor. You refuse to address my examples of objective science, including the fact that Earth's diameter does not change with how it might be observed or my example above of a case of established (by the parameters set for the "experiment") simultaneity, not dependent on various observers. That was part of the discussion in the article talk page, which you said off topic. In other words, no criticism of the dictum of observer dependence is allowed, even in the talk page dedicated to discussion of the relativity of simultaneity! "Power corrupts"... LCcritic (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- You say:
You see, that is what you don't seem to understand even after explicitly being told several times by several people and having been pointed to our wp:talk page guidelines so many times. Read the guideline. Among other things it says:"In other words, no criticism of the dictum of observer dependence is allowed, even in the talk page dedicated to discussion of the relativity of simultaneity!"
That talk page is not dedicated to discussion of the relativity of simultaneity. Not even close. The talk page is dedicated to discussion of the article about the relativity of simultaneity. - DVdm (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)* Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
- You say:
- I must change my mind about “my last ‘talk’ addressed to you.” First, Wiki editors wrote the article and Wiki editors discuss improvements to it. That means that the lead emphasis on observer dependence denying simultaneity independent of observation is in fact a philosophical point of view, albeit mainstream relativity. It should not be presented as absolute fact, i,e., that simultaneity depends on observations, which disagree, therefore negating that any two events can happen at the same time independent of observation. The 2nd Paragraph Illustration section discusses the requirement for two events separated by distance as pertaining to the relativity of simultaneity. The car crash illustration was discussed as being one event occurring at one location, therefore not relevant to the simultaneity discussion. You agreed, specifying the situation requiring “...whether two distinct events occur at the same time..., and then remove the car crash sentence altogether.” My contribution set up such a situation in which the simultaneity of beams striking two separate targets could not be denied by observers seeing them happen at different times. Finally, after participation in the previous discussion, you declare such discussion “off-topic chat” as per the guidelines as you interpret them. Then you ‘slam-dunk’ my participation in the above conversation, saying, “Alas, on article talk pages we are not allowed to discuss our own philosophical, psychological, or even scientific views and musings about the subjects of our articles.” Iow, you and those above are allowed to bring up examples and discuss them for relevance to simultaneity, when it suits you, but then it becomes inappropriate if one should introduce an “iron clad case” of simultaneous events (see parameters of my example) which actually criticizes the assumption made by the article lead editor (and mainstream relativity of simultaneity.) I ask you to consider the above objectively, setting aside your apparent hostility toward me as a critic. LCcritic (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, your "contribution set up such a situation in which the simultaneity of beams striking two separate targets could not be denied by observers seeing them happen at different times." That is, starting from your own wp:original research, discussing the subject, not the article. We are not allowed to do that.
- I feel no "hostility toward you as a critic". I try to explain to you how Wikipedia works. So have others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Criticism of relativity not allowed. It looks like we cannot help you understand how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have not explained how Wiki works such that you and other editors can discuss the parameters required for simultaneity and give examples in illustration and I can not. If indeed my example of simultaneity can not be denied, and it can't, it stands as a criticism of the concept that simultaneity depends on 'who sees what when' as the editors, including you, were discussing. Your reply totally ignored that issue... another example that criticism of the article is really not allowed. Rather it is for editors to simply "rubber stamp" approval of the dictum that simultaneity depends on observers, and no example to the contrary is allowed. Do you not hold yourself to the same standard you demand of me? LCcritic (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your example of simultaneity as a "criticism of the concept that simultaneity depends on 'who sees what when'", is wp:original research and not allowed in Wikipedia, so it has no place in articles or on article talk pages. It is also of no interest to me, so it has no place on my talk page. - DVdm (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
So you refuse to explain why you and others were allowed to discuss parameters, examples and requirements for simultaneity in the context of relativity but I was not. You also refuse to address my title for this discussion with you, i.e., under what rule editors are allowed to endorse a specific philosophy when writing such an article, i.e., that simultaneity depends on observers... even though my example proves otherwise. You are not only not interested in real criticism in this discussion but you will not allow my criticism of the article (in the talk page) addressing the observer-dependent philosophy/assumption upon which the whole article is based. This is going nowhere. Please disabuse yourself of the pretense that there is no hierarchy of authority here. You bend the rules to suit yourself, threaten to block me for protesting/criticizing and will not address any of these criticisms. Done. LCcritic (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that I cannot block you. All I can do, is explain some of the rules, warn you, and eventually report you for (article) talk page disruption by repeatedly using such talk pages as soapboxes for your own original research and ideas about the subjects. Such reports can result in being blocked for disruptive editing. See wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
I am sorry, but nobody here seems interested in your criticisms. You will have to learn to live with that, and I cannot help. - DVdm (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Correcting information on Alderney Week
Hello! We edited information on Alderney Week earlier today and received a message from you saying that I should not add unsourced information. However, the information that is on the page is incorrect. If you look at http://www.alderneyweek.net/?pid=thisyear you will see that the Daft Raft race took place on a Thursday in 2013 and the Man Powered Flight and Duck Race were held on the Saturday. You will also notice that tide times are given for each day of the programme because this has an impact on the events that are held on any given day. There was no Battle of the Bands on Thursday or any other day of Alderney Week because this event has not been part of the programme for a number of years. We fully respect the fact that Wikipedia needs to be credible but it would have been helpful if you had asked for sources rather than threatening to block us. As the organisation with responsibility for tourism on Alderney (and as employees of the States of Alderney) our primary purpose is to make sure the island is represented accurately on a valued resource such as Wikipedia. Please can you advise us on the best way for us to get our edits reinstated? Many thanks--21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Visitalderney (talk) --Visitalderney (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, your best bet is to go to the article talk page Talk:Alderney, and explain there to the other contributors and reach some consensus—see wp:consensus. If after a few days nobody has responded to your proposal(s), feel free to make some properly sourced changes to the article, making sure to mention the talk page in your edit summary. Please do note however that, as "the organisation with responsibility for tourism on Alderney", you might have a conflict of interest—see wp:COI. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Many comments suddenly removed
Why did you unilaterally remove the comments I made on several talk pages? Speling12345 (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I replied on your talk page. See [13]. - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- You, replied on my, talk page? However, you replied 2 minutes after I posted. Besides the timing issue, did you obey Wikipedia guidelines? Speling12345 (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC
- I had put the comment there before you posted here. Please keep our conversation on your talk page. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- What? Speling12345 (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I had put the comment there before you posted here. Please keep our conversation on your talk page. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- You, replied on my, talk page? However, you replied 2 minutes after I posted. Besides the timing issue, did you obey Wikipedia guidelines? Speling12345 (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC
I am leaving a remark at your talk page
I am leaving a remark at your talk page regarding the counter you have installed, "This user page has been vandalized 83 times." Speling12345 (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
King vs Magnate
Hi I would like to ask why you would refer to James Drummond Dole as a "pineapple magnate"? I wonder because the Wikipedia article refers to says "Also known as the Pineapple King" Master Troll Rocks (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Master_Troll_Rocks Ps Merry Christmas!
- See this edit summary. Such a list page is not meant to provide that kind of content. It's a subtle thing, and certainly not worth edit warring over. - DVdm (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note - See also this edit summary. Meanwhile it looks like you were blocked for this. When your block expires, feel free to go to the article talk to try to establish a wp:consensus for your point of view. Keep cool. - DVdm (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Re:Tesla DAB
I was actually editing to match his primary notability, re:electrical engineer and inventor, not all his sub-monikers. I actually see no problem with nationality, its settled at the main article and any sniping around DAB pages and the like can be referred to the main article. He has a referenced national description so no need to dumb it down on Wikipedia. But left it for now ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Olinto De Pretto
Hello! why did you delete my changes? Maybe I put the sources in a wrong way, but I guess you are better than me and you can write again my lines. Here the sources. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Albert-Einstein-Olinto-De-Pretto-1967039.S.223356547 http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/fis/depret-bombay.htm Thanks for your help and happy new year!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.209.77 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- See the reason in my edit summary ([14]). Neither source qualifies as a reliable source — see our policy wp:Reliable sources. Further discussion should go to the article talk page Talk:Olinto De Pretto. Cheers and happy 2014! - DVdm (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- You write: "http://www.cartesio-episteme.net is not a reliable source". Just for curiosity, where did you read that the link is not a reliable source? Professor Umberto Bartocci is a serious scholar, the same about (deceased) professor Omero Speri and dr Piero Zorzi. Dr Dhananjay Khadilkar is a science correspondent for DNA, Daily News and Analysis; columnist associated with The Indian Express; writer for Scientific American and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.23.165 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- It is someone's personal webpage. Anyone can create a webpage and write anything on it. Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
How was yours? Your CHRISTMAS. No bad feelings about before. Edit wars happen, to people like you and me. As for me, even I had a splendid Christmas with the people in my family. Where do you live? Christmas has already happened hasn't it? Speling12345 (talk) 6:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- "...and the judgment of others." - Take care. - DVdm (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Im sorry about the errors on the pages, im not real proficient at computers yet, I have tried to get accurate numbers for the albums on here, but since there is no real way of getting them have to go by what numbers have been given on certain websites. These albums haven't been recertified for a long time and trying to give them accurate numbers has been a nightmare, thanks for fixing things I will get better at this the more im on here, happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardrock 4171 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)