User talk:DVdm/Archive 2017

Archives by year:

Replied
Hello bro, I've replied to your question and revert. Pls check and respond

regards, Hdaackda (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I replied on your talk page . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
That was definitely a WTF... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

List of wars involving Russia
Galicia-Volyn, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Turov-Pinsk, Polotsk Principality, as well as being Rus earlier than 882 is not part of Russian history. The wars their participation can not be written in this section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.172.114 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * Perhaps. Best to take this to the article talk page. Good luck there. - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed they are a part of Russian history. This is the consesus everywhere, also in Wikipedia. Please stop pushing Ukrainian bias.HunajaOtso (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. In Wikipedia, wp:CONSENSUS is established on article talk pages, rather than on user talk pages. So perhaps indeed 178.94.172.114 could better try there at Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Russia, as I am not even interested in the subject, let alone discuss it here. Cheers and good luck to all. - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your kind welcome message. This is my first attempt to make edits to Wikipedia. I am doing my best to comply with the guidance on Talk pages; none the less I very much appreciate your reference to it. If I am not doing things right stylistically or in terms of mark up, or anything at all, please do continue to message me! Thanks again! Kebl0155 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. You'll notice that there's a lot to learn here . Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

warnings
what the fuck is up with all these unexplained warnings? Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It was explained. Check the edit history of the article, and wp:BRD and wp:edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, so that is where the link went. I thought that I had mistakenly thought I had added it. How is it inappropriate? It is a website of the party?Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Join the Belfast Republican Socialist Youth Movement". Check wp:ELNO. Insist on article talk, not here. - DVdm (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Automatic Huggle
Hi DVdm. I'm here regarding your recent reports to WP:AIV, such as this one. I was a little curious about your description about how the user was "automatically reported by Huggle". To my understanding, Huggle is a semi-automated tool, meaning while it can assist with performing edits and reverts more quickly, the user running Huggle is still in control of pressing the button to revert and report. In this sense, when Huggle reports to AIV, there shouldn't be a risk of a "false positive", since it is still a human user that is doing the reporting (of course, there is a chance of "human error", if that's what you meant). That aside, thank you for your work on the counter-vandalism front! Mz7 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I checked their history and what happened to the page around the time of my (rather fully automated) report, so to speak. It looks like I reverted an edit of this already finally warned IP, but somehow user beat my Huggle click to the revert, where Huggle still managed to file that report. This happens all the time. Sync/async problems, I guess. Huggle 2 was better at this. As for the report message that Huggle3 uses, you might bring this up at the Huggle feedback talk. They (Petr and co) should be able to provide a more appropriate message template, perhaps one that reflects the chosen revert reason. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's interesting. I wasn't aware that Huggle can automatically report users. Thanks for clarifying, and I'll look into the feedback page. Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warriing
Both my edits at Gravity had adequate explanations contained in the edit summaries - clearly explaining my reasons, and as such were not vandalisms. My deletes were based on core content policy eg. WP:V to remove claims long flagged as false on the article talk page.

The reverted claims are EXCEPTIONALLY misleading if taken and presented out of context. An "introductory" remark cherry picked from a Physical Geodesy textbook is insufficient citation per policy for resolving such controverses.

Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources, the WP:BURDEN is on you (as the user who restores the text) to provide multiple reliable sources, especially since the sole citation proferred is from an unreliable (for this claim) classical pre-1950 theories approached textbook which declares itself at the outset as A simple rather than completely rigorous presentation (see p.3).

WP:BRD is only an essay for one method towards achieving consensus. In the face of my edit summaries, simply citing BRD as your excuse for reverting is highly provocative and imputes that you ignored content issues. The singular fact that User:Damoclete's May 14 2016 Talk page objection is still unopposed / undisputed means there was sufficent talk page CONSENSUS for me to delete. Additionally, if you cite BRD, you are expected to be considerate and patient instead of threatening me with blocks for Edit Warring and especially after I assumed AGF on your part. Inlinetext (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:BURDEN explains our policy about having to bring sources for new content, not about having to provide sources to discuss the removal of sourced content. Please read that policy.
 * wp:BRD is an essay that helps new users like yourself to understand the policies about wp:consensus and wp:edit warring. Please read these policy articles. And the essay. Again.
 * If you think that some particular source is unreliable, you must take it to the article talk page, express your doubts, and see what other contributors have to say about it. The article talk page is the place where consensus about article changes is to be established. DVdm (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. FYI I am not a new user. WP:BURDEN must have changed quite a bit since when I was last here if it now applies only to addition of new content and not also the restoration of deleted content. As I have mentioned it had already been flagged on the article talk page as far back as 14 May 2016 by another editor. Seeing no defense of those objections I proceeded to assume that consensus and also BRD were satisfied before I deleted. When the source self describes as "simplistic" and "pre-1950s" I am surprised that anyone can claim it to be still a reliable source. BTW, you may recall from the essay BRD is best used by experienced Wikipedia editors, so imposing it on newbies may lose potential editors. Inlinetext (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding some remark on a talk page resulting in silence, see wp:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I don't think this has changed since when you were last here. Under which username did you edit before? - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Silence is a form of consent albeit a weak one. WP:NOCON would not apply to a case where there is no challenge to a removal proposal and whence WP:SILENCE would take over. FYI, I earlier edited under my IRL name and as a pre-2006 contributing founding editor with full voting rights. Seeing the way WMF has evolved into a profiteering corporation since then I am now loath to connect my IRL to Wikipedia or to attach myself to any community under the new regime which purports to represent me further. BTW, have you located additional multiple reliable sources for those dubious claims you restored? Inlinetext (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can see where the text in dispute might be a bit confusing. However, this discussion on article improvement needs to be moved to the talk page of Gravity where a consensus can be hammered out by multiple participants. DVdm's talk page is the wrong forum. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is not an article improvement in the sense of quibbling over words like "gravity" and "gravitation" but for verifiability. Nowadays the text is highly misleading considering the various ways even elementary Physics or Mechanics are taught at different levels and in different English speaking countries (which you may not have personally experienced). FYI, I was not posting to DVdm's talk page for article improvement but to intellectually discuss civility, AGF etc. Inlinetext (talk)

Spammer
Re, I wonder if an edit filter can take care of this. , you know this kind of stuff, right? Drmies (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not a link, so we might need Cluebot firing upon detection of the string "Vasily Yanchilin" or something and reverting for unconstructive editing. Or, by now, just vandalism.
 * So far we have (at least)
 * - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * possibly, just need to be clear what the rules would be "in English" - example:


 * 'STOP EDIT' WHERE the edit is:
 * BY:NON-CONFIRMED USERS (and)
 * The target is an (main/article) or (article talk) page (and)
 * The edits ADDS the text "Vasily Yanchilin"
 * Is this what you are looking for? — xaosflux  Talk 19:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, that could work, but then again... there is this: Vasily Yanchilin. Perhaps that article should be AFD-ed first... - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule could exempt that one page if wanted - it just kind of needs to be spelled out what sort of patter we would want to block, then we can test to see what kind of false positives may be hit by it. — xaosflux  Talk 20:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks ; I really appreciate your help. DVdm, xaosflux is the brains here; I'm just the beautiful mediator. I know what filters can do and that's about it. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've created a logging only edit filter, watch here for the next day or so (revert as needed) - if the issue is still occuring and it is not getting false positives please ping me and I'll move it from "log" to "prevent edit". — xaosflux  Talk 01:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thx! Keeping an eye (or two) on things... - DVdm (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Xaosflux you rock. Thanks, and DVdm, thanks to you too. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring (2)
I provided extensive references to books, news papers, and I could add more references and journals if Paradox didn't keep disappearing. I have contacted support and we are working to locking it. If there is something missing, it should be noted as CITATION NEEDED, not purged. Purging is ONLY allowed if it has been shown not to be established after a set time when requests are made. Your failure to know about the research does not make it non-existent. You should not be commenting and editing research out of Wiki, when that is what it is for in the first place, without firm belief that what it needs does not exist. You cannot have that unless you have a degree in logistics, which Dr. Sauser does, and a book, as I reference in the article. I will expand on it, but to remove it is offensive. User:mbcopeland —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please open new talk page sections at the bottom of the page and sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * Please bring this to the article talk page Talk:Paradox, where we are supoosed to discuss the article. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I Talked, now do I wait for you to chime in? 47.185.67.134 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not just for me, but for the other contributors as well. Meanwhile I have reported you for edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I commented, and reported you for edit warring as well. I sincerely hope we can move toward a the format that Jimmy Wales is currently working on where scholars own the scholarly pages and lower editors are restricted. Blair Copeland, BS MS (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, we aren't Citizendium. See . - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mahavishnu Orchestra
Hi, i was the guy that removed the "heavy metal" thing from the article and now there's a troll that says that the Mahavishnu Orchestra is hard rock and heavy metal, could you talk with an admin to ban the troll? Thanks! --189.216.112.131 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... see the literature with Google Books with evidence that some authors seem to think that there is indeed a link. Listing hard rock in the wp:FIRSTSENTENCE of the lead and in the infobox was probably undue though, so your undo was ok—apart from the edit summary perhaps: just saying "unsourced" in the edit summary would have been better. Definitely not a troll. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i know who is that IP and it's definitively a troll, please be careful with the article, Thanks! --189.216.112.131 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks (2)
For your anti-vandalism efforts at Michael White (author) and at Galileo-related pages. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * you're welcome. One cannot help wondering what actually drives that kind of people, creating hundreds of sleeper accounts with one single purpose. I don't get it. - DVdm (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes - this particular case is a fascinating, somewhat dark window into the diversity and potential of human neurological pathology. -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Meanwhile, see my RPP. - DVdm (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Update: RPP2. For now. - DVdm (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, thank you ! I guess you were spot on in your prediction. I'm sorry you've had to deal with the vandalism on your own: I've been pretty AWOL on wikipedia with real-life work. Will try to pay more attention to Michael White. I'm also going to leave a note with thanking them for the protection and noting that this has been going on for years. -Darouet (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It is correct
It's not incorrect information. Vyvek (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding and : the cited source seems to support 1684. And in 1884 Leibniz was long dead. Best to take it to the article page Talk:Leibniz's notation and ask what others think about this. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My edit was not wrong and it is sourced, the sources are in the article, did you take the effort to look at the article? Such an article would not exist if there weren't issues. The whole article is about the ethnic issues of Japan. Vyvek (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add a section header for each comment. Please indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.
 * See article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I wont say!
I wont say what my admin account is. Try to find it. You wont be able to find it because Im smarter than you. Vyvek (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nata-Olijeck Bridge
Hello DVdm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nata-Olijeck Bridge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I had nominated it because of the user who created it. See this ANI incident, combined with this edit which was made less than two minutes before they created that article. Edits are likely related. See also section immediately preceding this one. - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's a sock-link, then by all means feel free to G5 it. G3 didn't fit, though, given that it clearly states that it's a bridge and gives the location. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll see if anything happens as a result of the ANI (which is not very likely). If so, I'll G5. Nothing urgent . - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * there we go, G3, G5, A1 upon request by user . Thanks, P! - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Imaginary unit definition
Hi, you are right, there's no positive or negative imaginary number, I made a mistake. But still I have some doubts regarding using x^2 + 1 = 0 equation for defining imaginary unit. I shared my doubts in the Talk:Imaginary_unit, I'll appreciate your remarks.

Thanks!

Arek

89.77.32.175 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I replied on article talk: . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Million award for Featured Article Richard Feynman
Congratulations! Paradoctor (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks. I played but a modest role in this, so don't forget —see User talk:DVdm/Archive 2016. Cheers all! - DVdm (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "A non space-time approach" section edit
You reverted "jump in time" to "jump in simultaneity".

Most relevantly for this article and for this section: What jumps for the astronaut in the new inertial frame is his reading of the time registered on the Earth clock by way of the lattice of clock method. This is, after all, a discussion about the time differential.

Wheeler, in "Spacetime Physics", wrote that the Earth clock “jumps way ahead at turn-around” for the traveler.

He also wrote that the returning astronaut “has only herself to blame for her misperception of a "jump" in the Earth clock reading.” (quotes around "jump" are Wheeler's.)

I went with: "a requisite jump in the reading of the Earth clock time made by a "suddenly returning astronaut..."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteUMD (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * fair enough! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: The theory of special relativity has been disproven
Louis Essen was the inventor of the atomic clock, the man who most accurately measured the speed of light, and one of the two men who decided the number of oscillations of cesium in an atomic second. Essen wrote a scientific paper disproving relativity []. /]]. It was also disproven by Roberto Monti in a paper by the same name (The Special Theory of Relativity, A Critical Analysis) as that of Essen's. [] Considering Essen's qualifications, a letter from Essen on the subject of relativity is worthy reading, regardless of the website it is posted on[]. It is also disproven in the book "Science From A Different Perspective" where the writer dispels many of Einstein's thought experiments and the three classic tests considered critical to relativity, disproving general relativity in the process. Drillstop (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Drillstop Drillstop (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You will find that the scientific consensus is that Essen, rather than having written "a scientific paper disproving relativity", has written a paper disproving his own misunderstandings about relativity. Some—otherwise qualified—engineers tend to do that. But Wikipedia is here to reflect the scientific academic consensus. See wp:PILLARS. - DVdm (talk)


 * When Essen's measurement of the speed of light was released, it was not received with academic consensus, but truth is not decided by popularity. You should read the case against relativity presented in the above references before concluding they are wrong.  Einstein's error in understanding began with his thinking that light waves behaved differently than other types of waves.  They do not, as all waves travel at the same speed until conditions change, such that the waves from a fast moving speedboat travel at the same speed as those from a tug.(Physics, James Walker, ©2002, page 948) Another error of Einstein's can be seen in his "light clock" [] where the light of the stationary clock and moving clock are plotted against backgrounds of different distances, which is not instantly obvious because of the illustration.  Plot both clocks with backgrounds of equal distances and you will realize that both observers reach the same conclusion about each other.  A simple illustration can be done on paper: draw four parallel lines with the top two the exact same spacing as the bottom two.  The top and the bottom represent the background of equal distance.  Draw a vertical line down the center of the page.  The intersection of this line on the two middle horizontal lines represent pivot points where observers a and b are.  Now imagine moving either a or b right or left or up and down and you should realize that both will see the exact same amount of displacement on the top and bottom outside line.  Congratulations. You just disproved special relativity! All of the nonsense theories which are built upon relativity collapse if you really take a closer look at the facts for yourself. Drillstop (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks. I have fixed that.
 * By the way, I have also repaired my talk page header. It looks like you accidentally messed it up with your previous edit. No harm done, as you see. - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Field (mathematics)
Hello DVdm

I came to your page by looking at the contribution history of another user. That user reverted an edit I made to the field (mathematics) article. It could be my imagination but I thought his comment on the talk page was a little aggressive. I just made a new edit taking his criticisms into account, but I am wondering if he'll revert again and try to start an edit war. Which I do NOT want to get into.

With all that said, when I landed on your page and saw your vandalism marker, I couldn't resist :). Cheers! Vincent (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Vincent, no problem. That thing with my counter happened before—an old joke indeed. Good luck with your fields thing! - DVdm (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * When DVdm's vandalism count was still in the two-digits range, he used to keep precise track of the instances to a fraction of an instance. Seeing non-integral vandalism counts disturbed me, so I tried to commit fractional acts of vandalism that would bump the count to a whole number. Didn't work. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Undoing Vincent's edit and decrementing the count, briefly crossed my mind. But crossing it was all it did . - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Geometric torsion integral in special reletivity
According to Evans, Crothers, Eckardt & Pendergast, 2009, Hodge's dual has an antisymmetric tensor in four-spacetime. Do you not like the primary source I used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadchumley (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * What I like is not really relevant, but Wikipedia does not like primary sources. Have you read the policy pages wp:Primary sources and wp:UNDUE to which I pointed on your talk page? If this content is really worth being mentioned in Wikipedia, then some relevant wp:secondary sources should be easy to find. - DVdm (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I misused the primary source. Chadchumley (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem and happy editing. - DVdm (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Bell's rockets
Hello DVdm, I got your message regarding the edit to the Bell's spaceship paradox article. I agreed with the previous user who deleted my edit that this paragraph was undue in the lede, but I fail to see how it is inapropriate in the section "Discussion and publications". I cite a newly released relativity textbook published by Springer with a whole chapter on Bell's spaceship paradox in it. Best, Andune88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andune88 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * As this is a recent primary source with a claim by the author, we better find a secondary source in order to avoid undueness of this content. If you like, you can put a message (at the bottom) on the article talk page to propose and discuss with the other contrbutors of the article. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Opera Magistris
Hello DVdm

Why did you remove the links to Opera Magistris? It is the biggest scientific compendium in a unique PDF existing in the world with the most detailed developments that cannot be found anywhere else even in textbooks? Downloaded more than 10'000 times in English and 80'000 times in French. And by the way it has qualitatively a much better content than other provided links as rendered with LaTeX and peer-reviewed (and qualitatively and scientifically much better than most Wikipedia articles). Thanks for your answer. Daname Kolani

https://archive.org/details/OperaMagistris

194.230.159.128 (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The content of this book is not directly related to the article subjects in which you inserted them. See wp:ELNO item #13. This very generic link could be added to every Wikipedia article that contains at least one equation, and that is clearly not in line with our external links guideline. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @DVdm Thanks for your quick answer. So if i provide the direct page like this: https://archive.org/stream/OperaMagistris#page/n111/mode/2up Is it better? You will not delelete all the links again? 194.230.159.128 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not better. If you just add a link like that, it will probably be identified and removed as spam. We can't just post links to a book, unless they are given as a direct reference to some specific content in an article. In that case they serve a source—see the guidelines Citing sources and Identifying reliable sources. . - DVdm (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok so i will not add those references. This is too much work for a >6000 pages reference. I will let other Wikipedia contributors that have time in their life to do that. Have a nice Sunday! Thanks for all your answers. Daname 194.230.159.128 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. By the way, I downloaded the book and had a look at it. It's pretty impressive... but I don't think that it could serve as a reliable source for Wikipedia anyway, given that it is still a draft, and perhaps also given that "The contents of this book are elaborated by a development process by which volunteers reach a consensus."—see wp:RS. Cheers and happy Sunday! - DVdm (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Adieu !
May I being allowed a last remark, ... in cauda venenum. Had you known and accepted my interpretation, you never have written , in the refutation of Dingle that ... rate A/rate B = 1/a    !! Because of course that ratio = 1 ! Since Einstein a lot of physicists have mistaken, in relativity , the rate of the clock with the measured time itself. Nevertheless I appreciated our brief (!) dicussions ,... your warnings, and your knowledge. Cordially --Chessfan (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a farewell message, then... take care, and may your god be with you! - DVdm (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the heads-up, my mistake! Dorintosh (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism barnstar
Hello! I saw your anti-vandalism edit on the Pixel (smartphone) page from June 8, 2017. I really appreciated your work in getting rid of this vandalism and wanted to give you a barnstar for it! :) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - DVdm (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Do your Homework!
Before you roll back what you think is vandalism, how about you actually check what you rolled it back to? Thanks pal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.230 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Homework. - DVdm (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Wondering if i may use some illustrations from here. I was to write my own section on the dimensionality of space time. Blackcat129 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are free to use any illustration you need or want from Wikipedia provided you credit the creator or copyright-holder as appropriate.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Coulomb dipole forces
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)


 * See . - DVdm (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi DVdm, you are spouting a number of non-applicable objections reflecting subjective snap-judgments of your own, but you did not answer my question. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengt Nyman (talk • contribs)


 * "If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it." See . - DVdm (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When your edits become destructive and offensive I reserve the right to use your own talk page: You are referencing and blaming Wiki policies to promote your own untimely and intolerant biases. You still have not answered my question above. Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See - DVdm (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Question?
I have dug into a physics research project for awhile now. My own time. I used a form of logic math instead of the formal math usually applied. I have noticed a strange way things keep realating to a constant? Is thier a page to ask questions? Blackcat129 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, as Wikipedia is not the place for our own research—see wp:No original research. Perhaps an open Usenet forum such as https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci.physics can help. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of bitcoin wallets for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of bitcoin wallets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - DVdm (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking
Hi, I'm sorry we've been reverting each other. If you feel strongly about linking "dictionary" words (otherwise known as "common terms", in linking parlance), you might consider raising the matter at WT:MOSTLINK. On the English Wikipedia, this matter was settled long ago (I think from about 2009 to 2011). I can refer you to the discussions at that time if you wish—but they're voluminous. My best. Tony  (talk)  13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. See . - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Libertas
Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.16.236 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * My pleasure! - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't quite understand
I recieved this message. Thing is I don't edit at all on Wikipedia nor been looking into anything bird related. I just browse Wikipedia.--86.153.233.215 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a warning from some time ago. At that time someone else could have been using the same IP address as you are using now. Some addresses are shared by many people. There's a little explanation about that at the bottom of your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Length contraction
That’s enough! I am scared stiff already to take any initiative. Whatever I did (it would seem for the good!) I have never been praised.

Still, in one article I found doubtful expression. May I propose some clarification? Also, are the Feynman Lectures on Physics either “reliable source” or “original research”? Is it ok to refer to them?83.181.150.84 (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about here. What is enough? Which article are you talking about? - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean that the article Length Contraction starts with wrong statement.
 * It claims that moving observer measures that rod at rest “decreases in length”. It is wrong.
 * If an observer moves, his measuring rod contracts. If he measures length of a rod “at rest” with his Lorentz contracted rod, that the rod “at rest” will appear to be longer, not shorter.
 * If an observer moves himself, his clock dilates. Since he turns into a dawdler and his own clock dilates, a clock “at rest” will appear to be ticking faster than his own.
 * However, SR never takes into consideration “opinion” of moving observer. An observer in SR is “at rest” in his own rest frame.
 * Let’s say Harry and Tom move relatively to each other, but none of them admits, that he is moving. The both think that they are at rest, and measure that they are “shorter” and “slower” one another.
 * But they can agree, who is “at rest” and who moves. Harry may think, that he is “at rest” and Ben may think that he is “in motion”. Harry will measure that Ben is shorter then, but Ben will measure that Harry is longer accordingly.
 * If they choose reference frame, in which Ben is “at rest” but Harry moves, Ben will measure that Harry is shorter (and slower) and Harry will measure, that Ben is “longer and faster”
 * If they choose reference frame, in which the both move with equal velocities, they will measure “proper” length and "proper" clock rate of each other. This was confirmed experimentally by Champeney and Moon in 1961 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0370-1328/77/2/318/meta) although it is so clear.
 * But, in SR we take and combine observations of observers "at rest" from different frames. It leads straight to those well - known wonders like “Ben is shorter than Harry and Harry is shorter than Ben.”
 * Please note that in some cases Ben and Harry will not able to conduct real experiment (measure rate of moving clock) with symmetrical setup, i.e. if each of them thinks that he is “at rest”. They will be able to conduct experiment of that sort only with a-symmetrical setup. If one of them is “at rest” and other must be  “in motion”.
 * Thus, it is desirable to change the first sentence – an observer “at rest” measures that a rod “in motion” contracts. Or rename the article into “length extension” and to say in the first sentence, that moving observer measures, that "a rod at rest increases in length".
 * Do you agree with the statements above or maybe you also think that the rod “at rest” contracts from the point of view of moving observer? 83.191.3.37 (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * It is a well known, documented and sourced fact that a moving rod is measured to be shorter than it is measured in its own rest frame, so I see no problem with the article Length contraction. The opening statement was a bit awkwardly worded, so I made a little change with a proper source. - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Surface Gravity Links
Hello DVdm, recently you removed my link from Surface gravity page. The link provided by me was regarding how surface gravity works on different planets, natural satellites, comets, dwarf planet, asteroid etc and how our weight can vary according to variations in surface gravity of that respected celestial object. Anyone can check his/her weight on different worlds easily. Check this link again. http://antariksha.org/weight-planets-stars-worlds/ Its purely informative content. Here you can not find any kind of promotion. You can revert me here. Kumar Nikate (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, the message you got was a semi-automated one. Indeed that link does not point to promotion, but it is nevertheless inappropriate, as you can verify in wp:ELNO, item 11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." This clearly is a personal website by a non-recognized authority, so we cannot have it. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Calculus, History section
Hi DVdm, You have left a message on my talk page, that talks about an edit I made in the article Calculus in the section of history in the subsection of modern. I have to tell you that if you search in the original source which is http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/calc1/calc1.html then you can see that the only mention of the chain rule, is in the Leibniz section. And in the article Chain rule there is no mention, that Newton have discovered that rule. Also in the sources you have inserted, there is no mention that Newton have discovered the chain rule.Thanks - IJM98 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)
 * Hi, indeed in the original source it says: "In 1684 he gives the power rules for powers and roots. The chain rule is transparent from his notation." and "His method builds into it the product rule for derivatives." so that's indeed not okay. I have removed that source: . The other source that I added seems to back the text in the article.
 * Note that there is no requirement in Wikipedia for a wikilinked article (such as Chain rule) to mention the linking article—see wp:WIKILINKS. These Wikilinks cannot and must never serve as sources in the wikipedia sense (see wp:Reliable sources and wp:CIRCULAR). They are just there to stear the reader around in the encyclopedia. So you never have to worry about that. Having checked your edits, I now understand why you made some of them. So you can safely forget about back-checking wikilinks in articles. If you have more questions, feel free to ask here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi DVdm, I have not changed the article but i ask you to change the sources about the chain rule mentioned in that article, or delete the part in which it is mentioned because there are not sources that say that Newton have discovered the chain rule. If you have the sources I will be happy to read it, but for the moment, all I have read around the internet and on books, doesn't mention that. Thanks. - IJM98 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)
 * I had added a source for chain and product rule:


 * Page 248 directly supports product rule, and if you look at the opening sentence of the section on page 247, under the heading The Product Rule and the Chain Rule, they seem to suggest that Newton had developed the chain rule too, independently of Leibniz. That part might be somewhat open to interpretation, so I suggest that you open a little section at the bottom of the article talk page Talk:Calculus and see what the other contributors think about it. Others may have relevant references. For me it's not very important—I have no preference of N over L or vice versa, even if I am a big fan of Leibniz' notation . So, good luck on the article talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

eprint link
what's wrong with e-print link? Each article in this chapter has this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.129.57 (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See wp:primary source, wp:COI, wp:NOR. Wikipedia is not a place where we promote our own work. - DVdm (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding a link to open repository I have rather reacted to readers request than fiercely attempted to promote the article. it is your right, however, to consider that an article should not be mentioned among others.
 * I have a request. Who are you to command in such a tone like “Stop it”? Could you please stop it yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.129.57 (talk • contribs) 8:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * I will stop telling you to stop when you stop promoting your work on Wikipedia. You were warned about this before. If you feel strong about adding links to your work in an article, then you should go to the article talk page, say who you are, and propose to add that link. See wp:COI and wp:PROMO. - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See also:
 * Articles for deletion/A Relativistic Trolley Paradox
 * - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on in this section. Anyway, I've found the citation of this paper myself as part of a larger project, then I independently found the sandbox when the author mentioned File:Trolley Pic.jpg (which I was surprised to see included in an existing page). I think the sources are sufficient for this kind of content. The title can be changes if necessary, e.g. if somebody disagrees there are sufficient sources to consider it a paradox rather than just an exercise. --Nemo 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But the entire article is based on a single primary source from the author, and the article is written by one of the authors (Olgmtv). I really think that this belongs in user space. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, note that there are copyright problems. The entire definition section is copied verbatim from the source. This really belongs in user space. Please move back to sandbox? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I filed for deletion: . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Great Bible
Not sure what the issue is with the edits, appending, I have provided given that I have included citations ....? (108.51.194.199 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Your sources don't look reliable as in wp:reliable sources. The best places to propose and discuss these edits and your sources, are the respective article talk pages. Good luck there! - DVdm (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mass removal
I'm reverting your mass removal of Category:Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism. Don't try to pre-empt the CfD process – they can be deleted if and when the CfD is successful, not on your whim. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. By the way, I like that painting on your user page. - DVdm (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to self: category was deleted. - DVdm (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And ditto for Category:Converts from Islam to agnosticism or atheism. - DVdm (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks for the reversion on my talkpage, which made clear that it was the IP vandal messing around. The Old Jacobite and I were both pretty puzzled about why I received a warning from him, and when/how he would've posted such a warning; it never even occurred to me that someone else might have posted using his name. Grandpallama (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Special relativity:
I'm confused about the need for references when adding something that is simple logic. Do you have to reference the Pythagorean theorem? I'm sure there are many people who have used the spaceship example in some form or another to explain the of lack of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. I have used it many times in class myself, but I have no idea who first used it--possibly Einstein since he liked thought experiments. The logic, however is straight forward and I'm not sure what to reference. Probably many textbooks have similar discussions, but I'm sure they are not original either. (Just because it's in a physics text does not guarantee it is correct--I've found many mistakes in textbooks.) I added the section because nowhere in the article does it explain what is going on in simple English. Just throwing out the Lorentz transformations does not explain anything. You could derive the transformations from the expanding light spheres as seen by two moving observers, an easy to understand explanation. (I don't know who first came up with that idea either.) If you can find something wrong in the article I would be interested. I also added a section to Bell's theorem, but the watchdogs on Wikipedia do not seem to be interested in explaining physical concepts. Most articles seem not be concerned with understanding ideas. They simply write down the formulas and feel that explains it. There is not a Venn diagram in the whole article, which would explain more than all the words. If someone wanted to understand a topic in physics, I would probably not direct them to Wikipedia. By the way check out "hyperbolic function" I added a section there, but I didn't know you to reference it either since it is pretty straight forward. The original article did not even clearly explain how the functions can be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph C Boone (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * note that I found a serious logical mistake in one of your thought experiments. But we are not supposed to discuss that here on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has this basic policy as explained in wp:verifiability, wp:reliable sources, wp:secondary sources and, finally, wp:burden. Of course, we can always question sourced article content on the corresponding article talk page. There we can discuss the quality of cited sources, but we are not supposed to discuss unsourced content, per our policy wp:no original research. Also note that the phenomena of relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction all have their own well-sourced articles, with well-known and documented thought experiment explanations—without Lorentz transformations. So there is no need to invent new or better explanations and put them in the general article Special relativity - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Property qualifications for voting
Hi,

Thanks for nominating Property qualifications for voting for deletion; I have deleted this now. Just to let you know though that the more appropriate tag to use was WP:CSD, as that covers new articles that have content covered entirely in existing articles, rather than WP:CSD, which is for notability. Notability doesn't really apply for this article; it's more for people, companies, bands, and products rather than well established concepts. Stephen! Coming... 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I knew there should be a better tag, but alas, Huggle does not provide A10, so I lazily took A7. That was inappropriate indeed. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm not a Huggle user so I've no experience in getting things changed. It might be an idea to go to the Huggle developer and request that they add A10 to the list. Stephen! Coming... 10:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, but you obviously beat me to it . Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello, regarding the message on Valentine Joseph you left on my talk page, I wanted to let you know that I have changed the article with the Einstein bit because I have referenced it now. Regards - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, that looks good, but I suggest you don't add the same content to the Albert Einstein article per wp:UNDUE. It clearly works the way you did it now, but probably not the other way around. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for retracting my FTL article.It needs more comprehension...

K.P.Anastasiadis 06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know who you are and if you have the right to retract my editing rights. However if you are the owner or the master in some way I would not wish to participate in that.
 * The tan(α)=v/c in minkowski diagram is incorrect. Pythagoras and trigonometry suggests that in the orthogonal triangle tan(α)=ct/x=c/v and cot(α)=v/c=tan(α)^-1
 * Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.24.82 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * Actually, usually tan^-1 denotes arctan. But much more importantly, α is the angle between the x and x' axis, or between the ct-axis and the ct' axis. For v=0, the angle is 0, for v=c, the angle would be pi/4. That means that indeed tan(α)=v/c, as you can also read here on top of page 93 and in figure 3.20 on the preceding page. - DVdm (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the source:.
 * also, when you have a username, please make sure you do not edit in logged-out mode. - DVdm (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

regarding this message: Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear DVdm,
 * You say "usually tan^-1 denotes arctan" which is wrong.
 * I agree with the added information refering to the axes of Minkowski diagram, but your deduction
 * "That means...."
 * is also wrong, because your assertion does not mean that.
 * To justify tan(a)=v/c, you reference a figure 3.22 on a web page but what about figure 3.21 on the same web page?
 * Did you account for that as well?
 * K.P.Anastasiadis 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * The alteration is properly sourced. The angle α of the article is the angle between x and x' , or between ct and ct' , as is explained in the text, and shown in the image on the side in our article. That corresponds to image 3.20 on page 92 of the cited source. The images 3.21 and 3.22 on page 93 use a different angle α and do not correspond to the image in our article. - DVdm (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the image in the article is consistent with the definition of the tangent.K.P.Anastasiadis 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Look here:https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/lorentz-transformation/v/introduction-to-the-lorentz-transformation K.P.Anastasiadis 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. If your next message here is again unsigned and unindented, I will remove it without comment.
 * Blogs such as this are not reliable sources for Wikipedia—see wp:Reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are probably right about the tan(α)=v/c but in the image it is not well justified α must be the angle between axes ct and ct' to be consistent with the tangent definition also. Over and out. K.P.Anastasiadis 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs)

Tom Waits genre
Hi, I am inviting past editors of the Tom Waits article to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Tom_Waits. I am in dispute with User:TheOldJacobite, who has reverted even my sourced changes and ignored my appeals to discuss the issue. Please express your opinion on the issue if it interests you.-- MA SHAUN IX 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ether Space-Time & Cosmology
Hey, new here. You said said to me recently on the Lorentz Ether Theory page: //PLease get a reliable wp:secondary source (with pages number) where this claim is supported. (TW)// I don’t understand how a compilation book with PhD physicists in it cannot be reliable. Most of these have given papers at PIRT (Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory) and are Professors or were. Their credentials can be looked up online, for example Franco Selleri even has his own wikipage on wikipedia itself, others like Duffy and Levy who are editors were good friends with H.E. Ives and Jean-Pierre Vigier (who even read and commented and replied on Lèvy's book from Galileo to Lorentz..and Beyond). I don’t see why it needs a page number when all the Volumes are a discussion on Lorentzian theories. That's kinda weird to me. Can you explain more to me why it was unacceptable? Maybe just do to the Publisher?

Thanks, Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.86.173 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ), and put new messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * the statement was: "A neo-Lorentzian Interpretation of Relativity Theory is still an active area of research and dialogue." I don't think that the sources that you cited actually say that. Perhaps you concluded this from reading the sources that you provided, but that would be wp:synthesis (aka wp:original research), which is not allowed on Wikipedia, so I undid the edit it: . If you can find a reliable source that explicitly says (—on a specified page—) that this interpretation is indeed still an active area of research and dialogue, then we might take this, but otherwise it would be inappropriate. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So to be clear you are saying it is not enough to reference a book all about Lorentzian Theory and Scientists and such giving their research and dialoging on it but I must quote that exact thing in those words to be able to link it even though that's the whole point of the book? That seems very strange to me. And by reliable source you just mean one of these Physicists saying this or are you saying it isn't reliable to begin with? 173.49.86.173 (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Rick173.49.86.173 (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not the exact thing, but a paraphrase of a passage in a book, on a specific (and specified page) where the statement to be added is explicitly supported—see wp:SYNTHESIS. Can you point to such a page in a book where there say something that can be unambiguaously paraphrased as saying that this interpretation is indeed still an active area of research and dialogue? I mean... that is Wikipedia—see also wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to me since the whole project of the book is in active research and dialogue that finding any quote like that wouldn't be needed since that's obvious since they are Scientists actively discussing it and dialoguing on it (hopefully I didn't confuse with the word active as if it meant common), why would a quote be needed? That's like saying if Scientist's showed in 3 Volumes and with developments from a Science Conference that a certain Theory was better than another but didn't explicitly say those exact words that it was better, it cannot be used if I said they showed it was better. I find that just dumbfounding. The link you gave me before was on quoting. The problem is I wasn't quoting or paraphrasing any particular sentence so is not relevant. I was giving a link about Active Research and Dialogue in the neo-Lorentzian Interpretation which the book was about, so not sure what quote I would need to back up what they are doing. As for burden do I have to quote that it is on the neo-Lorentzian STR? Or Ether? I don't think it is hard to show it is an active of research and dialogue since all the Scientists are actively discussing it and dialoging on it, I mean it explicitly says in the foreword even that they are based on a "neo-Lorentzian ether concept". Just doesn't make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.86.173 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * If it is indeed not hard to show that it is an active of research and dialogue, then it should be easy to find a good source that says just that. Otherwise it is wp:original research. You see, wp:Verifyability and wp:BURDEN are what Wikipedia is all about. Please do read the policies to which I have linked. - DVdm (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First you say it cannot be included as it doesn't have a direct quote, now I give a new direct quote and you now say the publisher Apeiron is a fringe source (which is completely different then your argument from before which seems inconsistent, you mentioned nothing about the editors/authors ironically who have the relevant qualifications). How do you define fringe? And do you think holding a neo-Lorentzian view of Special Relativity is considered a fringe view? I am trying to understand why it cannot be included because you think the publisher is a "fringe" source. 173.49.86.173 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Rick173.49.86.173 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia, fringe is defined as explained in wp:FRINGE. A main-stream wp:secondary source, that refers to "modern science" would be handy. Perhaps you can open a little section on the article talk page and see what other contributors think about it. Ultimately such things are decided on the article talk page through consensus among the article contributors. I'm just a passer-by as far as this article is concerned. So by all means, ask there at Talk:Lorentz ether theory whether this edit would be acceptable. Feel free to add a link to this section here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Неllo
Hello from Ukraine, DVdm Патріот України (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello to Ukraine, Патріот. - DVdm (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you SO MUCH for not removing Scarlett Johansson from Category:Fraternal twin actresses as well as One Direction's Category:Family musical groups reputation! But I want twin paradox and/or twin for them so badly! --2606:A000:4AC8:1100:A8B5:ABD9:14B3:E573 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The article Twin paradox is not related to the subject One Direction, unless you can find a wp:reliable source that establishes a significant connection between the subjects. So we cannot have it. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Latin
The 2/3 of the english words derives from norman (above all the "high" one used by the powerful normans and not by saxons)so from old french and so from latin.Kingofwoods (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You know the drill: take it to the article take pages. See wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Lost time with ignorant people.Kingofwoods (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Gold rush page
I apologize we all have made mistakes of our own in one way or another Tylermax365 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Even before breakfast, I make at least one mistake. - DVdm (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Electron as a 3D Electromagnetic standing wave edits removed
Why did you remove my edit on the Electron Wiki talk page?

My edit was hardly 'inappropriate discussion' as you described it - it accurately describes all the properties of an Electron from both a Classical and Quantum Mechanical perspective. You seem to be against the better understanding and advancement of Physics. It was not even an edit of the actual Electron Wiki page - it was on the Talk page for crying out loud!

Declan Traill (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * indeed, your edit described the properties of an electron. Alas, as was explained before to you on your user talk page, article talk pages are for discussions about improving the article, not for discussions about the subject. On top of the talk page Talk:Electron it says:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electron article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
 * That is why I removed your edit. See wp:talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Surely this would be an improvement to the article! It is not a general discussion about the topic, but a fundamental piece of information about the Electron!
 * Declan Traill (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC):::


 * Please indent all talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * The article talk is for proposing to add something to the article. You did not do that with this message. But more importantly, the source that you gave  is your own original research, and we don't take that on Wikipedia—see wp:NOR. So proposing on the talk page to add something to the article, based on that source, will be a waste of your time. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The NOR clause applies to the main Wiki page, not the Talk page (it says on on the NOR info page). It is a shame that it cannot be added to the main page, but it should at least make an appearance on the Talk page, even if it cannot be added to the main page. 203.27.181.178 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, NOR clause applies to article space, but the article talk space is for discussions about improving the article, which you did not do in your message. If you push your private work to appear on the talk page, you are effectively abusing the talk page. Please have (another) carefull look at the wp:Talk page guidelines. Sorry, but that is, by design, how Wikipedia works. Hyde Park is over here. - DVdm (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Square Root
Hi there.

With regards to your revert of the edit I made on the square root page, no property in the Properties and uses section is currently backed by sources. In my experience, it is common practice on math pages to present such results without citation as they are considered standard, but I could be wrong I guess.

But now wouldn't you agree that deleting the edit I made would then warrant deleting the entire section as it stands? 91.230.41.206 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * No, it doesn't . The content that was already there may or may not be backed by non-inline sources at the bottom of the article, but that content is de-facto accepted by all the past editors. This is new unsourced content, and all challenged content must be backed by reliable sources. It is the responsability of the person who adds the content to provide the sources when challenged—see wp:BURDEN. Removing other (seemingly) unsourced content would be wp:POINTy and thus disruptive. If you have honest doubts about other unsourced content, you can tag it and request proper inline sourcing. Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was content removed (speed of light)?
Dear DVdm

Could you please elaborate why you deleted my edit for the Speed of Light?

I have, as you request, put sufficient references to make my text valid.

Thanks in advance

Darkch2 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See the edit summary of my removal. See also this reply by user . Please do take this to the article talk page - DVdm (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

One needs a paragraph/section link to the Einstein paper in question, already linked in the article?
Hunh!? (LOL.) The source was algebra. The content of the deleted edit was an insertion of: multiply both sides of (Einstein's) equation, and a "Looky there!" No new source material was being added? Eleaticus (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * All new content, when challenged, must be sourced—see wp:verifiability and wp:BURDEN. Besides, even if it was just algebra, it would be a case of wp:original research, which is also not allowed in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please
Please read the official IMF list in the article referred.Italy has a very high level of development.Kingofwoods (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As expected: Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets. - DVdm (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

AGE OF AQUARIUS
you are probably a auto-bot computer editor and not even a human. i just read about other edits you have made to other people that are also incorrect. you just deleted my edits to the "aoa". i am an astronomer(that is my reference-citation).the edits-additions i made are "common knowledge" to follow astronomers. you must not be an astronomer, however you are lame- that i do not need a citation to prove.i also saw that you are a "registered editor", wow you should start a family, or attend a university and become somebody in reality(planet earth).prove your a man, and interested in the truth and dont delete my comments. 172.58.46.216 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.46.216 (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * Here on Wikipedia, you do need a citation to prove—see wp:verifiability and wp:BURDEN. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Herzog
I am a certified and verified source SunMoonStars (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alas, you are not. See wp:Verifiability and wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Hello, I'm Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Hollyfield School— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Samf4u (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. - Please check the edit history. - DVdm (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi DVdm, you are correct. Thanks for fixing that. - Samf4u (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting to Philosophy game
Hi DVdm. Thought you might like to know (if you didn't already) that this edit, which you reverted is related to the "Getting to Philosophy game" mentioned here. It turns out that, as described at Getting to Philosophy, most Wikipedia articles have the property that:
 * "clicking on the first link in the main text of a Wikipedia article, and then repeating the process for subsequent articles, will usually lead to the Philosophy article."

where the "first link" is defined to be the first link which is neither in italics nor in parentheses.

However some articles' link paths end in "loops". Currently, for example, the following loop exists: Knowledge -> Fact -> Knowledge. So any article whose link path ever enters such a loop, stays there and so never "gets to philosophy". The edit you reverted was intended to "fix" that loop so that more articles will "get to philosophy". Paul August &#9742; 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. Now the edit summary makes sense. Yes, I recall a topic about that on the radio some time ago. Good grief - DVdm (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

RE: Changing colours
I changed the colours to match the dominate colours of the DVD/release covers, it's standard on Wikipedia. Your best asking users like User:AlexTheWhovian or User:Drovethrughosts, who can explain in detail. Theo (edits) 00:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ok. Next time, please use an edit summary where you say what you do and why. That will help avoid patrollers have to guess and to go and find out whether perhaps you are testing, or fooling around, or adjusting to your personal taste, or vandalizing. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

RonMaimon (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * See your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

RonMaimon (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, see your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

 * Thanks. Requested here. - DVdm (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello DVdm. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Purgy's concerns
While we had a small, friendly exchange on my talk page in August 2016, which I enjoyed very much, I lately perceive an extent (continuous function) and style (fraction (mathematics)) of turning down my suggestions that I perceive as sort of offensive. Honestly, I can't interpret "if you don't understand it", with "it" being some obvious triviality, as an appropriate remark in reverting an edit of mine, especially, since an other editor re-reverted yours. In the proximate controversy, a wholesale reversion of a few minor imprecisions and layout variants, you yourself corrected the same wrong content in two places in an equivalent, maybe even better way. So why the claim that it "was better before"? While I am quite sure that my actual 4. step is an improvement in the consistency of the layout, I am prepared to argue the typesetting of the constant "c" in roman, in contrast to the italics for the variable "x". I think that contrasting the two notions is valuable, and using "x=c" may be even better than the also often used "x=x0". The remaining points from my edit concerning the "ending graph" and the "continuity of the square root" are, imho, definitely weak points in that paragraph, deserving improvement.

I am absolutely inclined to discuss in an unbiased climate all this at the talk page of the article, but I do not want to partake in a discussion governed by troublesome hostility. I am not aware of having started any intentional hostility, and humbly ask to tell me, if and where I gave any perceived reason of assuming such. Friendly regards, Purgy (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies for having been bitey. Probably just a bad day, nothing personal. I'll be more careful in the future. - DVdm (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

G-force page
Regarding your edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#cite_note-28, I am not very experienced... I just wanted to update the links with correct ones. Why do you think the links are not good ? Thanks, Gabriel aka. Sokoban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokoban (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * The links are not very good because they read like advertisements from manufacturers. They are also wp:primary sources, whereas Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources. But I will leave them alone now. Don't be surprised if someone else removes them. If/when that happens, don't revert again, but start a new section on the article talk page—see WP:BRD. Also, avoid adding these same links to other Wikipedia articles. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Sokoban (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Orient versus orientate
In reverting my edit of the Millikan oil drop experiment Wikipedia article, you pointed out that this is a difference between British and American usage. Could we agree to replace the word with “positioned,” which is synonymous and removes the issue of whose English we are using?

Thanks for raising the question.

Cieljaune Cieljaune (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * to me "positioned" has a slightly different meaning. "Orientated" and "oriented" relate to direction, whereas "positioned" does not. Anyway, meanwhile it looks like someone changed it to "oriented" again. I really don't care about which variant is used. The message that I had put on your talk page was just to let you know about the wp:RETAIN guideline. Imagine what would happen if users were allowed to change variants according to their whims . - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And happy holidays to you, ! - DVdm (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)