User talk:DVdm/Archive 2023

Archives by year:

Deleting VLS Entries You Objected To
My policy is to respect the opinions of others. I deleted my recent additions to VLS page although I believe my short entries derived from references to 7 famous books were appropriate and well enough written. I did not write my opinions or take sides in the arguments that have continued more than 50 years. Astrojed (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this and happy 2023! - DVdm (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DVdm!


Happy New Year! DVdm, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason for removing the edit on the Wave-Particle Duality?
Hi DVdm, I am trying to update the new development on the Wave-Particle duality. Is there a reason why the edit was removed?

Thanks, Hong Hongdusocal (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * yes, hi there. As I explained in the edit summary of my revert, I removed your edit per lack of notability. See wp:primary source and wp:recentism. When this publication is sufficiently mentioned in the relevant literature, and thus in wp:secondary sources, it might be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. See also wp:NOT. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Time dilation
I do want to have some mention of the psychological sense on the time dilation page because people do use the phrase time dilation in that sense. Maybe the see also template wasnt the best choice, but I couldnt think of anything else. Would you be okay with some other type of hatnote, saying something like "for the term used in psychology, see time perception"? Thanks, — Soap — 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there, something that suggests that the term should not be confused, would be okay, as it is done in the article Relativism: So, how about indeed:  or, even better:  And of course, the other way around in article Time perception, perhaps:
 * Afaiac, go ahead. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Van Cittert-Zernike
Literature does NOT decide how to write Dutch names, mister. Dutch language does!!! But yes, it's a fact that you English have NO TALENT at all for foreign languages. And it seems (looking at your own actions) you are too stubborn to learn anything in this respect. So poor. Weaky3 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As an encyplopedia, Wikipedia follows the literature, by design. And I'm not English: my primary language is Dutch. I'm also fluent in French, English and German, and, thanks to my classic education, I can fluently read Italian and modern Greek newspapers whithout a dictionary. By the way, always assume good faith from your fellow editors. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

On the edit on Michelson Morley experiment
This is the source you asked: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

As you can see in the first line,Or even in the title, the experiment was on finding the velocity of earth. They assumed the existence of aether to be a fact.

While the experiment have disproved the existence of aether, it was not their intention. In fact Michelson Morley was a failed experiment. They didn't get what they were looking for.

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophile249 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with just the four tildes ( ~ ), without actually typing the  tags. When you type the tildes, your signature will be substituted, unless you type the tags. — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * According to the literature, the primary aim was to prove the existence of the ether, by measuring the velocity of the earth through it. We must follow the literature.
 * Also, take a look at wp:BRD: when a Bold edit is Reverted, and you disagree, start a Discussion, preferably on the talk page of the page that your were editing. Reverting again as you did here is considered wp:edit warring and is not allowed. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I thought that you may not see my comment, that is why I reverted again.
 * Sophile249 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Gravity
there is an article on gravity in the antiquity section which describes In India, the mathematician-astronomer Aryabhata first identified gravity to explain why objects are not driven away from the Earth by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation but i can't find any sources depicting about his claim please remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have added a source, albeit a self-published one: . - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that source reliable I mean it is given as self published and secondly we need to see whether aryabhatta talk about gravity in his book Aryabhatiya.I didn't find any source about him talking about gravity in Aryabhatiya. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the source looks reasonably reliable (—see —), but, as you can see, I did tag the reference with a template anyway. This invites other contributors to find a better source. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Ppppphgtygd (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have rejected that content outright as disputed and not well supported, based on higher quality sources that contradict or cast doubt on it. Other strong claims of discovery/contribution in that section of the source are also easily rebutted (example: our Aryabhata article has multiple sources that heliocentrism is at best uncertain but more likely not true). For whatever reason, Indian educational materials tend to over-claim Indian contributions in history. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, probably a good call, thanks. I had a closer look at the book. On page 6 it says: It will become immediately obvious that the genius of ancient Bharata indeed forms the basis of world civilization, in contrast to the idea that 'miracles' in Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. influenced India somehow and anyhow from somewhere and anywhere. No wonder I failed to find a proper secondary source in a non-self-published source. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * good, nowadays a lot of articles are been vandalised by a lot of people in Wiki thanks for removing it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

When to use TeX/inline math?
As a new wikipedian I am struggling to understand where and where not to use  within articles. Is changing an inline equation into TeX generally frowned upon if it doesn't otherwise improve the quality of a given article? DekuNut64 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See MOS:FORMULA and the second section of Help:Displaying a formula, and, in general, MOS:MATH. One of the basic style related rules here is MOS:STYLERET and MOS:RETAIN, which says that when different styles are possible, changing one style into another is not a good idea. Also note that consistency within an article is important, so it can be a good idea to make style related changes to improve consistency — within a single article, not within the entire Wikipedia.
 * There's a lot to learn here. Best is to read parts of some of the guideline articles, and to have a look at the edit histories of math related articles. Then gradually go ahead, making changes. Don't worry if someone reverts your changes. When that happens, inquire, ask or discuss, don't re-revert — see wp:BRD. It's all part of a learning process . Enjoy! - DVdm (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Irrational numbers
OK, there are, unfortunately, many books that attribute the concept of "irrational number" to the Pythagoreans, as I have known only too well since the 1960s, and such is Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" that you can use those to justify your change to the article. So be it. However, nobody who has actually studied and understood the relevant literature can believe that "number" is a reasonable description of the concept which they introduced. On the contrary: it was the cause of their moving away from using number as the defining concept in mathematics, and shifting to a view which considered geometrical magnitudes themselves as fundamental, rather than numerical measures of those magnitudes. JBW (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, but note that the artlce says: "The discovery of irrational numbers, including the particular case of the square root of 2, is widely associated with the Pythagorean school". I mirrored that in my edit summary, "The Greeks found a number that cannot be written as a ratio of integers, which we call an irrational number." I could have been (but had decided not to be) even more precise and careful, saying "The Greeks found something..."
 * But I decided to check the literature and get some some sources either way, and it looked like a great majority in the literature agrees that indeed they discovered the rational numbers.
 * And indeed I think we can easily argue that they did discover them, without actually calling them numbers. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Relativistic Doppler effect
Thank you for pointing out the guidelines. I was not aware of wp:CALC, and you are absolutely right that I cannot include the derivation. It has never been my intention to break or bend the rules. The Wikipedia guidelines wp:OR state that the information should be from ”reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic”. Therefore, I would argue that the references are not limited to textbook examples only. Would it help if I provide an additional credible article? Aside from Einstein’s article I can provide other peer reviewed papers that confirms that the amplitude transforms as $$ A'_E = \gamma\left( 1 - \beta cos \theta \right) A_E $$. I personally think the information is relevant to the article, and that it should at least be mentioned, if the guidelines allow it. What is your opinion? MadsVS (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, if the peer reviewed papers are not just wp:primary sources, and thus are referred to elsewhere in wp:secondary sources, the latter can be used as a valid reference. You see, the idea is that the secondary sources demonstrate that the content is actually notable. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your guidance is very helpfull. I will give it another shot, so let me know if you see any problems. Thank you. MadsVS (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of my Zappa edits
Could you please explain why the edits I made to several Frank Zappa album pages were reverted? I know you have given info regarding wiki rules on the use of long type, but the reason I made these particular edits were that two albums (Bongo Fury and Sheik Yerbouti) were already using this "Studio album with live elements" or "Live album with studio elements" categorisation (not put there by me, they have been there since before I even had a wiki account) and I simply wanted to make this consistent across the discography, esp given that some of FZ's albums can't be neatly categorized as studio or live albums. Aaw1989 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yes... just make sure that everything is solidly backed by sources. For example, if the most important source of all says that Jazz from Hell is the 47'th album, let's make sure Wikipedia doesn't say that it is the final (or last or whatever) studio album with live elements. You might go ahead doing what you intended, but keep the "official" discography in mind. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, i'll take more care in the wording of info moving forward. Aaw1989 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)