User talk:Bengt Nyman

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Gravity because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Bengt Nyman/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. The Sandbox is simply a good place to for safekeeping. Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * User:Bengt Nyman/sandbox may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * www.dipole.se belongs to the undersigned. It is my own homepage for more complete dipole science which is the result of my own work. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

July 2017
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Physics beyond the Standard Model and Gravity. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: you were warned about this before. - DVdm (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello DVdm,
 * www.dipole.se presents a valid, contemporary theory about the role of Coulomb dipole forces in strong force and gravity. It is not spam. The problem might be that the scientist who spent 20 years substantiating this theory is also a Wiki editor with over a thousand edits. Since you label this self promotion, would you prefer that this contemporary theory was listed under modern theories by somebody other than the author, and if so, what difference would that make ? Bengt Nyman (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Bengt, see wp:NOR, wp:Secondary sources, wp:FRINGE, wp:UNDUE. And of course, see WP:LINKSPAM and wp:Self-promotion: promoting our own work in external links is considered spam in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi DVdm, you are spouting a number of non-applicable objections reflecting unsupported value judgments of your own, but you did not answer my question. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I showed you were you can learn about Wikipedia policies. They all qualify, but I guess I forgot the most important one: wp:ELNO, item 11: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. - DVdm (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are referencing and blaming Wiki policies to promote your own intolerant biases.       Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am showing Wikipedia policies that prevent us from promoting our own work and linking to the work of "not-or-not-yet-recognized authorities". Please try to wp:AGF. If you feel that I am "promoting my own intolerant biases" and that my "edits become destructive and offensive", then you should report me at, for instance, wp:ANI. - DVdm (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have still not answered my original question. Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As is outlined in the policies and guidelines to which I pointed: "no", and "no difference". - DVdm (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * DVdm, you have now invalidated your original accusation about self promotion. It seems that when you don't have other peoples guidelines to lean on, you have no sensible answer other than to expand your own bias beyond its initial references. Have a nice day. Bengt Nyman (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Coulomb's law. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am posting indisputable consequences of Coulombs law. It belongs in the article about Coulombs law. Bengt Nyman (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please bring it to the article talk page and see what the other contributors say about it. See wp:BRD. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Fuerteventura into Pájara. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Diannaa. Could you please cite or pinpoint the text in question. Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it. Bengt Nyman (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with Thomas Townsend Brown‎, Biefeld–Brown effect, and Electrogravitics. If you want to make claims about Biefeld–Brown effect dealing only with ion drift or ionic winds you will need to source that or bring it up in talk. Also do not change "Since" statements to "despite" (see WP:EDITORIALIZING). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. You choose your words, I choose mine.
 * 2. There is a clear difference between the Biefeld–Brown effect and Electrogravitics. I say that because I have 22 years of particle-physics research behind me. Even the two separate en.wiki pages on the two separate subjects acknowledge that the two subjects are different. There is no reason why the page about Thomas Townsend Brown should retain a greater degree of ignorance than that of the two pages about those two separate subjects. Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. We do not chose words, we cite other peoples words.
 * 2. We do not cite our own experience. Wikipedia is not work created from the best knowledge of its editors, it is created from the reliable sources you can cite. If there is a clear difference between the Biefeld–Brown effect and Electrogravitics then you can clearly cite that to reliable sources. Also note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source - just because there are two articles on the topic can not be taken as reliable source telling use there should be two topics. Both articles have been tagged for deletion and/or merger for various reasons. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not true. You can not write a wiki page by simply pasting together words from references. Your own words and formulations can make the difference between a modern, factual description and a confusing or even misleading jumble of references. Bengt Nyman (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See the policy wp:BURDEN: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor also has a social obligation NOT to perpetuate errors, distortions or manipulations whether once cited or not. Bengt Nyman (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the Wikipedia policy that supports that? - DVdm (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the subject of Electrogravitics presently has no cited scientific explanation I suggest that the page be deleted and parts possibly merged into other subjects.Bengt Nyman (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Bengt, I received an email from you. You better bring this to the article talk page. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Done ! Bengt Nyman (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Dipole gravity moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Dipole gravity, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Bengt Nyman (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

House Sparrow
Dear Bengt Nyman,

I just wanted to let you know that I removed the image you added to the page House Sparrow because the bird in it is actually a tree sparrow. You may want to consider adding it to that article instead.

Thank you,

 Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  11:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dipole gravity


Hello, Bengt Nyman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Dipole gravity".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Image spamming
Images are meant to accompany text not stand on their own.. slideshows and galleries are not quite appropriate for most articles..WP:GALLERY "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." ...."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article"....that links to WP:DUE that says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"....that links to MOS:ACCIM that says "Avoid indiscriminate gallery sections because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display".--Moxy (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, this discussion was held at the pump. Most contributors there do not agree with you. What is your intention behind raising the subject here? Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the discussion of this subject at the pump and consider modernizing your opinion about what is appropriate illustration of an article. "A gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." I agree. However, additional imagery in proper form can add some of the information that a reader is looking for. You can not assume that the text is all and exactly the kind of information that a reader wants. If it was, why Wikivoyage? Also, Wiki has thousands of one liner, robot generated articles with essentially no information and you want to keep throwing out slideshows that at least give the reader some information. Please Wiki, don't fall hopelessly behind times. I will continue to add illustrations of quality and value to Wiki articles. You will probably continue to do your thing. Fine, maybe we will meet somewhere in the middle. Take care. Bengt Nyman (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by the pump. But our policies are clear on this as seen above ..... One Thing Wikipedia is not is a place for "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons"from ...WP:NOTGALLERY. Also be aware of WP:SANDWICH issues.

...--Moxy (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your repeated citations are out of context and do not reflect your colleagues opinions expressed at earlier, thorough discussions. I have heard you. I respect your opinion but I think it is untimely and borderline destructive. I have nothing more to say in this case. Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit in the gravity article
Hi, please don't write nonsense in articles. --mfb (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Gravity.

Note: you were warned about this before. Three times now. - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your article about gravity is slowly getting more even handed but still lags real time. It is a fact the Standard Model does not recognize time dilation and its consequences in form of spacetime, spacetime gravity, special relativity and general relativity. It is also a fact that the Standard Model tolerates Newton's mathematical treatment of gravity without announcing it as part of the standard model. Since Mfb and DVdm professes to possess the required wisdom about this subject, why don't you update the article to closer reflect what is known and recognized about gravity today. P.S. Please Mfb, your "nonsense" is very unspecific and borders on unfriendly. Please specify your objection in terms of facts. Bengt Nyman (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me be more specific: Nothing what you put in the article or wrote here in terms of physics makes any sense. It is not even wrong. There is nothing to update because the article is fine, you just have some severe misconceptions about physics. May I suggest that you read the article - or a textbook if you don't trust the article? --mfb (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you don't see anything wrong with the information I added, but you continue to respond to reasonable questions with insults. But that's ok, because you reveal your subjective possessiveness when you say: "There is nothing to update because the article is fine." Bengt Nyman (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)