User talk:DVdm/Archive 2016
A barnstar for you!
![]() | The Civility Barnstar |
Thanks for all your recent work in dealing with a certain troublesome editor - I really appreciate it ![]() |
- Troublesome and a wee bit puzzling
. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Another year down the hatch
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Beer_cheese_soup.jpg/220px-Beer_cheese_soup.jpg)
A kitten for you!
thank you very much for putting that sign on my deleted page i dot think i had enough info yet sorry to make you do that thanks a gain have a happy and magical new year
did you just warn me for attacking myself on my own talk page
bruh, pls, explain, 2A02:C7D:1633:4E00:29D4:F99:B654:C7CD (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
having issues with editing and i have no idea how to fix the blue bar send help 2A02:C7D:1633:4E00:29D4:F99:B654:C7CD (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Someone has just sent help. - DVdm (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Galileo
Thanks for looking out for the Galileo article... I'm not sure if you're going to try to delete my paragraph again, but if you have suggestions on how to improve it then that might be preferable to me. For instance I don't know if my linking the word "sermon" to Caccini's page is correct style, and perhaps the word "famous" should be changed to something which better conveys "a lot of prominent people at the time heard it". If you have another reason for not wanting that paragraph to be there, we could discuss that as well. I wasn't sure if I should add it, but it seems interesting to people reading the "Name" section, and it is backed up by sources. A5 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seems ok now. Thanks and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok cool. A5 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit in Billy Bowden page
I just had 1 question,Sir... Was there anything wrong with the edit that I made in that page?? Actually I thought that was looking better that's why I edited it in that way... So can it stay??? Cricket246 (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but best to bring it to the article talk page and explain it to the other contributors. - DVdm (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sir actually I'm new to Wikipedia... So it would be extremely kind of you if you guide me that what to do... Actually in that page by mentioning 84 Tests, 198 ODIs and so on I thought it looked better and became a bit more informative on 1st glance... So can it stay if there's nothing wrong with it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricket246 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- For info, I've directed Cricket246 to the cricket project for more help. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I can't understand properly what exactly I should do... Please guide me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricket246 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- The best thing is to leave it alone. According to others the text box looks better the way it was, with the units. - DVdm (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Admin's noticeboard
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- Nevermind, didn't see your revert. I apologize. 174.17.192.79 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- No need. I should be the one to apologise. Happy 2016 to you and to Favonian, by the way. - DVdm (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Read my lips: no ethnic galleries
Hi DVdm. The IP did in fact provide a rationale for removing the galleries, to wit a link to the outcome of a recent RFC, now set in stone as WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Favonian (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Favonian: OK, these are indeed ethnic galleries. Shall I undo my reverts? - DVdm (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- It would be the proper thing to do. :) Favonian (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. - DVdm (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly how many wikipedians were involved in "setting it in stone" over the heads of all the individual article contributors without their knowledge? This case is illustrative and should be made into THE textbook example for all the world to see how wiki really works nowadays without consulting editors on a wide scale any more. 71.127.132.40 (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest you bring this up at the proper venue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
AT&T Southwest
Hello I am currently migrating everything from Southwest Bell to AT&T Southwest the company does not use the bell name so the articles name is invalid. FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @FoxNewsChannelFan: ok, but to avoid being mistaken for a vandal, always use relevant and concise edit summaries. Edits like these really look suspect without a summary. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Grosse Ile High School
Ummm, I go to this school. What part of my edits were "disruptive" or "vandalism"?
Everything here is a factual piece of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Ile_High_School?diff=698827542
I even put a summary of the changes and their reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.57.226.50 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oops. I have undone my revert ([1]). My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
World domination, January 8
Dear Mr. DVdm,
Most experts and intellectuals today agree that the United States attained world domination and the main dispute is whether the domination is correct to term hegemony or empire. The reference is to the article Pax Americana, chapters "Contemporary power" and "American imperialism." It is hard to develop article on the fact of world domination having denied the fact from the outset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.248.209 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Re this edit: see wp:CIRCULAR. - DVdm (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!
I just want to say thank you for reverting the vandalism/nonsense on my talk page. I was at school at the time, and therefore unable to do so myself. Chesnaught555 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
1,000,001
This page is about the number 1,000,001, so I added some information about a song called 1000001 by an artist called Shadow Shadow, which seems relevant to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownr18 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- It could be relevant if the artist Shadow Shadow would have an article here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
Which third party publishers are considered reliable by Wikipedia for an article discussing the existence of "Time" and proposing an alternative explanation for the time dilation consequences of Special Relativity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanCollins225 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- See wp:reliable sources, a link that you already have on your talk page. Alternative explanations for scientific subjects can be mentioned in proportion to their coverage in the literature—see wp:FRINGE and wp:DUE. Unless your views are discussed by relevant wp:secondary sources, they will not be allowed here, because Wikipedia does not accept wp:original research. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Where do stepfathers come from?
If you have a better explanation I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, you should abandon your prudish unrealistic view of the world and restore my contribution.67.1.152.13 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed that bad sentence again: [2]. However, the last edit that you had made ([3]), added wp:unsourced content, so, unless you can find a wp:reliable source for it, it has no place in the article. - DVdm (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- My source is common sense. We're not talking about a living person here.
- Get real. 67.1.152.13 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- By policy, common sense is not a wp:reliable source for Wikipedia—see wp:verifiability. - DVdm (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant
Your revert cited WP:ELNO, and I read all 19 bullets there and cannot see which one you referred to! Which one? Thanks. 176.221.76.3 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reverted again ([4]). Take it to article talk page and perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Possibly questionable links at Gravitoelectromagnetism. - DVdm (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You falsely accused me of making a mistake!
At The Drive In has reunited and is playing at many festivals in 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1515398nick (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Sorry, I misunderstood. I have undone my revert: [5]. By the way, please note that Wikipedia needs wp:reliable sources. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Gravitational Potential Edit
Hey, you reverted my edit here https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Gravitational_potential#Mathematical_form
I'm not sure how you think it's incorrect.
Let's consider a unit mass at some distance very far away from a larger mass M. There's a force due to gravity. We wait quite a while, and the unit mass moves closer to the big mass, under the influence of this force. To find work done, we just take the integral F dx, since the force is in the same direction as the displacement, this is positive-definite, which is good, because we know from intuition that the gravitational field has done work on the unit mass to bring it closer.
Let's see what the linked page is saying - it says that the GPE can be defined as the work done by the gravitational field in moving a particle in from infinity to some position. Except that's strange, it has that work as negative-definite. That can't be correct.
But we *know* that the GPE *is* defined as being negative-definite. So what's wrong must be the description that GPE is "the work W done by the gravitational field F bringing the unit mass in from infinity to that point".
That's what I fixed, and I'm not sure why you reverted it.90.195.207.202 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Please look at the equations and the surrounding text of your edit ([6]), and at the rest of the article. If you think there's something wrong, then you'll have adjust much more than just that sentence. You better go to the article talk page Talk:Gravitational potential and propose what you have in mind. Be prepared to have a proper source to support your proposal. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, you're right that it is probably not a quick fix. I'll see what I can put together. 90.195.207.202 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Meanwhile I have added 3 sources for the content as it was: [7]. - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
A doubt
![]() | A doubt |
I had written an article named "Soft Skills". But you had deleted it by saying that I hadn't provided any source.And I actually don't have any source because I had written it on my own.So, I hope you understand. Shriya Kumar (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
Probabilistic Encryption
Hello,
Just let me remove my edits on this page, I will soon make a better improve of this page.
Good afternoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.5.230 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Please provide a proper edit summary for all your edits. Otherwise your edits can be mistaken for tests, jokes, mistakes or vandalism. See wp:EDITSUMMARY. - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Question regarding "Fedora"
Hello, this is TheFancyFedoraWielder, and I have a question about including Scatman John on the page "Fedora" in the section 'popular culture.' I believe that this person should be included in the section because of his amazing accomplishments and popularity as a musician. He wore a fedora as a part of his public image, and included it in nearly all of his cover photos and public appearances, and there is much evidence of it from photos to raw videos. The only problem is, I don't know a source that can be used for it! This may be considered a bit of a "newbie" question, I know, but I thought that a required source had to be a text article specifically stating that he wore his fedora. Only problem here is, there are virtually no articles written (that I can find) that specifically mention his hat, they show only pictures. Is there any other type of source that I can use that is more of a "visual" source, like a link to a collection of pictures or videos or something?Thanks for your time, --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there. I don't think that the source that you added with this edit qualifies as a reliable source—see wp:reliable sources. I suggest that you open a little section on the article talk page Talk:Fedora and propose to add that (or some) text. So you can see what other contributors think about that. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Richard Feynman's First Wife
I didn't want to edit the content of the Richard Feynman page myself, but offer this for your verification and page modification if you choose.
The page says "Feynman married his high school sweetheart, Arline Greenbaum (often misspelled "Arlene")".
However, Feynman's autobiographical book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" gives her name as Arlene, not Arline.[1]
You would think that Richard would know the proper spelling of his first wife's name, so I suggest that "Arline" is in error.
Harryhef (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's a typo in the book. See Google Scholar and Google Books. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- This source has something interesting. I have added that source in the text: [8]. Thanks for having noticed! - DVdm (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Number26
Hi, I didn't include a source because it would have been https://number26.eu and I didn't want it to be misflagged as an ad. 2A02:2149:8101:B400:206E:E567:599:3FCD (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Better find a wp:secondary source. That would establish the notability of this occurrence. - DVdm (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think notability is of no concern, seeing as this is about disambiguation. But the topic should at least be mentioned at the target article. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed the notability-in-the-Wikipedia-sense is of no concern. I was thinking of notability-in-the-everyday-man-on-the-street-sense. And of course, DAB too :-) - DVdm (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think notability is of no concern, seeing as this is about disambiguation. But the topic should at least be mentioned at the target article. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I guessed so. I was mainly saying it for the benefit of 2A02:2149:8101:B400:206E:E567:599:3FCD. People occasionally get confused. :D Paradoctor (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Maiorana surname
Hi User:DVdm, could you help me out by editing the Maiorana surname article? Such as researching it's origin, country, people (for example Norman people). I'm trying to get it back to a version similar to this: [9], where it says it means Mayor in Anglo-Saxon, unless the current article is more valid as an Irish name. Could you also add categories, such as countries, language, type of surname (for example occupational)and images, such as coat of arms (if possible). Also if you could add more famous people with the name and give it a name infobox. I would really appreciate your help. Cheers
Feel free to remove existing information and categories already there. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you better go to the article talk page Talk:Maiorana. Not much going on there yet, but you'll find a pointer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, where, if you are interested in editing surname articles, you can add your username. You might request for help on the project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Google is another friend
. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Commas, not comma's
The plural of "comma" is "commas". without an apostrophe. It's not a possessive, nor an abbreviation. Agree? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DOwenWilliams: agree 100%. In Dutch the plural is komma's with an apostrophe. Immediately after that string of edits of my old cite templates I looked at my watchlist, and did a
Facepalm. It was too late
. Thanks anyway! - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a rather newfangled idea. SCNR :D Paradoctor (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Proton radius
Hi! I ask your input about proton radius measurement details by scattering as mentioned on talk:charge radius and talk:proton.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Electron (ionic) radius
I ask you a similar input pertaining this time to electron (ionic) radius as mentioned at talk:point particle, talk:ionic radius and talk:electride. Thanks.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sulphur Hexafluoride
I modified this article to correct the reactions of SF6 (which currently does not have any references/citations) and you have reverted it back to incorrect information stating that I need to cite sources. As a chemist working with a very skilled Inorganic Chemist I know that I edited correctly but don't have citations. The current page doesn't have a citation so maybe the entire sentence should be removed?31.205.3.72 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- No, let's find a source for the changes. If you have doubts about the current status, you can add a {{cn}} tag to it. I'll see if I can find a source for either way. Please do so too? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- See, for instance, [10]: "Sulphur Hexafluoride is a very inert gas and is reported to not react wilh molten sodium unless it is boiling.'"" - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I made a slight modification to the text, with source. See [11] - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Crowborough
See my reply on my talk page. Where is your source for the measurement of the area of the common used for golf as it is incorrect.Fragum1 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- The place for you to go, is the article talk page Talk:Crowborough. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you have removed the reference to Conan Doyle being a past Captain of Crowborough Beacon. If so why? I am still waiting for you to tell me where you got the information that less than 50% of the common is used for playing golf. You accused me of vandalism for amending and adding to the article about the club. Your vandalism is even greater by deleting the additional information I gave which makes the post much more rounded,Fragum1 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)factually correct and informative.
- Dear @Fragum1: I have restored sourced content (removed by you), and removed new unsourced content (added by you). As I said, you really need to go to the article talk page with your remarks. You will find other contributors (like Ehrenkater (talk · contribs)) there with whom you can find agreement over what is to be done with the article. Try it, it will work. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- It would be easier if you could just answer the question and not evade the question like a politician, or maybe you have made up the measurements. I cited the source for the measurement yet you still deleted it. The Defra letter source was cited yet you deleted that also. Do you have a grudge against the golf club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragum1 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- You removed sourced content here: [12]. You added unsourced content here: [13]. Sticking something like "<ref>Extracted from archive records at Crowborough Beacon</ref>" to your text, is not even close to adding wp:reliable sources. Read about adding sources here: wp:Citing sources. - DVdm (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK - I will rewrite the article with sources documented for every statement I make. Where the source is CBGC archives then a note will be added to say they are open to inspection on application. Please insert your source for saying that less than 50% of the land owned by CBGC is used for playing golf because I can't find any reference to this. Newspaper articles are often an unreliable source unless the information in their articles is confirmed by all parties mentioned in an article. Let us hope that by adding sourced material the article can be published with reliable facts and provide a source of information for the benefit of all. Several facts are mentioned in the Golf Club centenary book to which the club hold the copyright. If you wish to add any facts taken from that book then application to reproduce them should be made to the general manager. Fragum1 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't open a new section for each message that you write on a talk page, and please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.
- You can write all this on the article talk page and discuss with the contributors of the article. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Govind Singh
I don't know how to talk or reply your message, if it is not right place than please remove it and i'm sorry about it.I removed some information from that page due to that was not authentic, I've mentioned proper references to political career. Private websites or news websites could not always authenticate data.Thanks.122.175.141.231 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, with this edit you seem to have added a reference without having added any content. Moreover, you added the reference to a section header, which is something we can't do—see MOS:HEADER. - DVdm (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() | The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Excellent work! Thanks for helping keep the place tidy :) — MusikAnimal talk 18:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
- My pleasure, so to speak. In turn, thanks for the often blazingly swift responses to some of my reports
. - DVdm (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Inertial frame edit
Please note the difference between the axis of rotation vs angular velocity vector. https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Coriolis_force#cite_note-D.Hestenes-11
I believe my edit was correct. Cmfuen (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's some more of these to be found with Google Books. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh
Excuse me, can I ask you a question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefyrin (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- If you get unblocked, by all means, ask away. - DVdm (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
speedy A7
With respect to Pratap Singh Khachariyawas. members of national or state legislative assemblies are notable, however incomplete or poorly written the article. I'll follow up with the new editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. But I remain skeptic about the future of this, ahem, article. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Huggle patch
Hey, can you please send me your patched version of huggle to benapetr /at/ gmail /./ com? Thanks Petrb (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrb: Gmail seems to refuse the attachment, even without the compiled exe. Email sent and zipped source copied in shared dropbox folder, with an invitation. Let me know when you have it? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrb: I have left a new version 2.1.27.2 in the shared dropbox folder. This one traps the HTTPS warnings at an earlier stage, and thus for all the API-calls.
- By the way, have you read the email and have you found the folder? - DVdm (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you so much for changing my error greatly appreciated DumaTorpedo (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
03:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs)
A brownie for you!
![]() | Thank you for dealing with all the sports-related vandalism. GABHello! 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
- Yum! Thanks - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
regarding Rook
I don't think we're supposed to include sources on disambiguation pages to avoid cluttering them. Rook is introduced in "The War for Dimension X", more details about this are present on the TMNT wikia, I can cite dialogue from the episode if necessary but thought we were not supposed to add references to disambig pages, just articles. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I actually removed your entry from the wp:DAB because the word "rook" didn't even appear in it. The unsourced warning was a poor choice, sorry. Anyway, I notice that Bkonrad took care of it. - DVdm (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument
Hi
I noticed your correction of a small typo (chance -> change) in someone else's post, and then in your Edit summary write: " just a stray typo, this now largely being off-topic chat per wp:TPG". I'm confused. Firstly according to that ref you gave the thread isn't off topic as it is discussing ways to improve the readability of the article - exactly what Talk pages should be used for. But I'm also confused as to why you should make the claim in such a way, as a byline to such an unusual edit. For me it seems rude to correct someone else's post in that way, or indeed in any way, but to then use doing so as a platform for criticising - what? The thread? That particular post? - seems doubly odd. You didn't think or mark your edit as Minor so that also makes it seem you meant to use your minor edit as a vehicle for your criticism. I'm confused. Would you share your thinking behind your edit. LookingGlass (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @LookingGlass: as you can verify with the signature, this edit was a typo correction of my post
. Yes I know, the thread started as a discussion about how to improve the readability of the article. But after my reply, in my opinion it somewhat slipped into an explanation of the subject, other contributors good-naturedly helping a fellow editor, which alas is not what talk pages are for. On other articles I usually make a little remark about that, or, with unexperienced or new editors I put a friendly formal warning on their user talk page, but in this case I merely stopped commenting. Glancing the thread, I noticed my typo, so I corrected it, and I took the opportunity to let you (and the other editors) know why I had stopped commenting after my first reply to you. That's probably why I didn't mark it as minor. It was not meant as criticism, but as a motivation for my abandoning the thread. OTOH, in my edit summary, in stead of the word "largely" I probably should have used "somewhat", for which my apologies. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for my oversight and thank you for pointing it out. The distinction between improving the account/explanation the article provides and explaining the subject in the Talk page seems a fine line to me as the two seem inextricably linked. If the subject is not explained clearly then the questions raised and discussions that result indicate in what ways the article should be changed to better suit it to its primary purpose: general readers not subject matter experts. The "explanation" aspect of articles is a primary not a secondary feature of Wiki. In this case I have not noticed any exchanges on the Talk page that do not further the article's clarification, but we can agree to differ. LookingGlass (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- A fine thin line indeed. Sometimes it is quite thick though: [15]
. Cheers and happy wikiing! - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- A fine thin line indeed. Sometimes it is quite thick though: [15]
- Apologies for my oversight and thank you for pointing it out. The distinction between improving the account/explanation the article provides and explaining the subject in the Talk page seems a fine line to me as the two seem inextricably linked. If the subject is not explained clearly then the questions raised and discussions that result indicate in what ways the article should be changed to better suit it to its primary purpose: general readers not subject matter experts. The "explanation" aspect of articles is a primary not a secondary feature of Wiki. In this case I have not noticed any exchanges on the Talk page that do not further the article's clarification, but we can agree to differ. LookingGlass (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Tank thingy
So...
What is going to happen to the page? If the page were exclusively on British tanks (i.e. Churchill) then yes, it should be spelled 'armour', but seeing as most tanks across history are American, the default should be American English.
Also, how do I find pages that need work? Most pages on the site don't, and I want to help where help is needed.
Helpingoutagain (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that you will find a wp:consensus to change it, but the current longstanding variation of English on article Tank should of course be discussed at Talk:Tank. As for your other question, I recommend that you take quite some time following the links in the welcome message on your user talk page. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You're fast
;-) fredgandt 10:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Huggle 2 is back in business, at least it is for me
. See above. - DVdm (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really should try. You'd finished while I was looking up the first template name
. fredgandt 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really should try. You'd finished while I was looking up the first template name
- Way back, before I used it, I used to copy the HG-messages left on user talk pages by other users. At the point where I decided to create my own warning templates, I decided to try Huggle first... and I guess that was a good idea. Magnificent tool. Apply for rollback again, pratice a bit, and try HG. - DVdm (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- "again" - mhmm - maybe not. I was just reading about Twinkle, Huggle and ended up reviewing teh rulez; I think there's room for another tool, I have some ideas about building. Larry the Insane went from a 31 hour block to indefinite after appeal; a short and useless tenure. fredgandt 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I admit, that mere 31 hours had made me frown. But apparently he took the rope and tightened it a bit... - DVdm (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thanks a tonne
Hey man I really appreciate how you reverted my edits and left a nice stinky little turd on my page, great job man, two thumbzup 0_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradgalena (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wasn't me: check this. - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
My good sir
Dear sir,
I question your knowledge of doves if you are so quick to call my edit, as you say, "vandalism". Have you heard of dove chocolates? They are actually present on Wikipedia and I ask you to please refer to their page if you would like to learn more. I fail to see anything wrong with the post I made, and I hope you are willing to correct me on these points to better both of our understandings.
1) Doves were messenger birds. True! This happened in many kingdoms, even the Holy Roman Empire. This is also reflected with the television show "Game of Thrones" in the former of ravens.
2) Doves were a source of food. Indeed! While a more regal and expensive meat die to their use as messengers, doves were eaten by royalty as exquisite meals. I ask you to try it sometime. Quite tasty.
3) Dove chocolate. Coming full circle here, we know dove chocolate exists and is present on this very encyclopedia. They are quite rich, like the bird they represent.
Sir, I understand why you were quick to jump to this edit. This is a necessity for you to edit these pages to insure high quality posts. However, rushing to delete an edit without fully reading them is usually frowned upon by most editors, I am told. I apologize for any misunderstandings we have had, and I hope you have a wonderful day today. Spencertmiller (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spencertmiller: I never mentioned "vandalism" in my warning ([16]). With this edit you added unsourced content, so I gave a friendly warning on your talk page. Wikipedia needs sources. If indeed this is true and worth having on board here, then it will be very easy for you (see wp:BURDEN) to find a reliable source for it—see wp:VERIFIABILITY. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnoflannigan/Archive - I'd left this one unblocked, or rather the editor that did the blocks for me did. Now of course blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: too bad for the good sir. Thx for letting me know. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Edits to floor functions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sir, I do not know what you are trying to get at, but there is no way to cite the values given by a mathematical function. It's inherently given by it's own definition. Like you posted a minute ago, in my eyes it is https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. I don't see why you are saying it needs to be cited or exactly what needs to be cited. I was told the only issues I needed to fix were not to disclude htan and other possible functions from the paragraph. Also, that's utter bull to say it's original research. You are essentially implying that I came up with that, which is by all means completely false. I don't know where I heard about it originally. This stuff is all over the place.
I should also point out that it's rude to assume that I necessarily saw your post (and give me a second warning) and that it isn't very well probable (and obvious) that I was editing at the same time as you and your edit got ignored by the system. XD TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Partly copying from preceding thread: Wikipedia needs sources. If indeed this is true and worth having on board here, then it will be very easy for you (see wp:BURDEN) to find a reliable source for it. Otherwise it has no place here. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's not really answering my question. I was told that my edit was allowed as long as I fixed the wording. Now you are all of a sudden saying I need "citation" which is ridiculous because how can one cite the value a function returns? You're not being clear at all what needs to be cited. You're being incredibly broad in saying something needs to be cited yet you will not be specific in what I need to cite. It's a simple equation. I don't see where there is anything disputable about it, or what you are asking me to prove. TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever you were told, the content that you want to add, must be sourced, plain and simple. See wp:BURDEN. If you want to write that it is "Worth noting as well is that computer programming language do not generally use floor as their implementation for the comparison operator. They will instead use an algorithm of some kind.", then you need a reliable source to back this up. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TheGreatDuckINH: There are a number of ways that text is deemed appropriate in Wikipedia. One way is a reliable source. Can you find a textbook that gives the formula you are providing? Alternatively, one can establish appropriateness for Wikipedia via another mechanism. You would need consensus among editors to go with the "routine calculations" approach: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Personally, I do not find the calculation to be sufficiently meaningful. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- That isn't even something related to the article. I was just trying to say that I'm not referring to computer science when adding the information, because, unfortunately, someone decided it was a great idea to make the floor function a mathematics and computer science article. That's not even information that I'm attempting to assert or prove. I'm merely saying that this information is not intended to inform about the computer science version and that from the standpoint of this article, we do not know what goes on with it. -_-
- Also, @Leegrc I should point right now that I have yet to see or hear of any textbook that uses floor in any capacity. So, while I have seen that formula used around the internet and things, I can't give you any material containing floor in any capacity. As far as I was aware, everything on that page beyond the most naive definitions is routine calculations.
- TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @TheGreatDuckINH: Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.
- This is now off topic here. We have the article talk pages for this. I tend to reserve user talk pages for discussions about user conduct. - DVdm (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and feedback
Hi DVdm, I just wanted to thank you for your input, edits, and feedback with regards to the Unsourced dyslexia category issue. With hindsight I must conclude that you were right with regards to the cavalier nature of the categorisation additions I made. I am also happy to see it has started a conversation on Village Pump about a related issue on the Village Pump about a related issue. --Discott (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Discott: glad to have been of some assistance, in a way. Verifying the edits, I learned something too here, for which thanks in return. Cheers and happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Discott: by the way, I really liked that picture
. - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just got a little bit weirded out after receiving that weird message on my talk page. Perhaps I will put it back up after I get to the bottom of that.--Discott (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty weird indeed. Probably no reason for panic, but worth keeping an eye on. Good luck with that! - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just got a little bit weirded out after receiving that weird message on my talk page. Perhaps I will put it back up after I get to the bottom of that.--Discott (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
A beer for you!
![]() | Thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
- Will do. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, kind sir!
I noticed this morning that my edit on the Gold Rush (TV series) was reverted by a bot, and that the bot's edit was reverted by you. I appreciate you doing so, I was shaken by the bot's removal of my edit, and I'm happy to see that others agree with it. Means a lot, especially for me, a newbie to Wikipedia.
Cheers, mate! --Hunterm267Talk 16:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Our Cluebot usually does an excellent job spotting vandalistic content removal, with every now and then a false positive. This was such a case. Welcome and cheers back to you! - DVdm (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Entropic force
please see Talk:Entropic_force#MET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterixf2 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delayed boomerang. - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Roberts Cycles / Chas Roberts
Thanks for the prompt; citations now added. I understand the need for objectivity. The rest of the content is on direct observation at the Roberts facility whilst production was still active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.119.180 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Trolls on Xavier University
Hey, thanks for reverting. I already requested semi-protection for it. It is attracting trolls due to some basketball game (see this news report [17]) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, whatever keeps them happy
{{slimey}}. - DVdm (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you mistaken?
I clearly explained why in the edit summary. I deleted those few words because they're wrong. Black holes are stars, and they're the densest, not neutrons. 146.151.96.202 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you read the article about black holes, you will find that a black hole is usually not defined as a star. At best a remnant perhaps. The centres of most galaxies, being supermassive black holes, certainly are not called stars either. - DVdm (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, I have added a solid source: [18]. See https://books.google.com/books?id=cCDlBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, they are "dark" or "dead" stars. Black holes and neutrons are both remnants of star collapsion. The difference is that the stars that collapse into black holes are a lot more massive. I guess due to historical reasons, black holes are not called stars. Stars are known for thousands of years, whereas black holes' existence has only been confirmed in the last few decades. Since I cannot find a source that says black holes are stars. I guess it's fine the way it is right now. 146.151.96.202 (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. Note that neutron stars were conceived perhaps a mere few decades before black holes, yet the scientific community (and the standard dictionaries) chose to define only the former as stars. I think that you will find that, technically, stars are defined as luminous objects governed by forces in equilibrium between graviational attraction and radiation (or "quantum") pressure. Black holes don't satisfy these conditions. Furthermore, as I already said, there are black holes that have nothing to do with stars—see our articles on supermassive black holes and micro black holes. Not even stellar black holes are called "stars". I think that, where many authors would say that a BH has sort-of infinite density, many will argue that their density cannot even be defined. - DVdm (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, here's one such source: section 2.1.2 on https://books.google.com/books?id=XVmKcwcOxYEC&pg=PA12. - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Technically, they are "dark" or "dead" stars. Black holes and neutrons are both remnants of star collapsion. The difference is that the stars that collapse into black holes are a lot more massive. I guess due to historical reasons, black holes are not called stars. Stars are known for thousands of years, whereas black holes' existence has only been confirmed in the last few decades. Since I cannot find a source that says black holes are stars. I guess it's fine the way it is right now. 146.151.96.202 (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
All medical edits
This is a list [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Perhaps this is some some sort of test. We'll see what happens at wp:AIV. - DVdm (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Reverting your reversion to Brian Schatz
Hi, I reverted your reversion to Brian Shatz. I believe the IP editor's changes were valid, & you removed a valid URL that the anonymous editor had place. Peaceray (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Peaceray: see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. Usually they make either wrong or irrelevant edits, to be reverted on sight. Probably a coincidence, this. Thanks for letting me know and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The "lot of properly sourced content" that I removed
I created the entire Depiction of God section, and I accidentally typed in info that I already put because my editing was interrupted. I removed the paragraph doubles, and that was "the lot of properly sourced content". I never committed disruptive editing.Gonzales John (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. See my comment and strikes on your talk page: [20]. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- As for my recent edit on Pseudophilosophy, I was trying to show the views of the people who call certain religions "pseudophilosophies", because those religions lack "an original and genuine religious experience" in their opinions. Sorry about that.Gonzales John (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI
An IP just tried to report you for edit warring. It's clearly the same IP that was recently blocked for making personal attacks against you, so I've reverted the 3RR report as blatant harassment and block evasion. I've also reported the new IP to AIV, but if they've hopped IP once they may well hop again, so I thought I should let you know. Marianna251TALK 19:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Marianna251: more or less what I had expected. Interesting. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Following up through Special:Contributions/2001:4C50:19F:9C00:*. - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
sorry
i am sorry User:WP MANIKHANTA —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Normally I'd use the thanks feature, but thanks for this. I've decided to respond to the IP-in-question instead, since he seems determined to get himself blocked otherwise. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your message about article-Time 's talk page
Ok. if the comments flaut Wikipedia's rules-and-regulations then they're to be deleted.
However, my intention was not to do a 'general discussion'. If I could recall the terminologies, I would directly found-out the pages on WP, & when found, I would link them in 'see also' of the page Time .Since I could-not search them out again for days after days, I tried to display it to other editors.
The terms were not 'unrelated', they are highly related. Though psychological or cognitive,they are 'properties' of time. Moreover I told to include them only in 'see-also'; not on main article.
Understanding of a concept, exists not in isolation. it exists in correlation with other topics. I respect wikipedia's link-features, such as hyperlinks, see-also, disambiguation, not-to-be-confused-with, etc. & I'm very-much benefitted from these also.
No matter, if I find them latter, I would link them in See-also section.
Thanks for informing about wp:Reference desk/science.
Thanks.Rajarshi Rit 14:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs) Rajarshi Rit 14:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome.
- About the wikilinks: yes, the subjects are related, but these articles are already linked in the article and/or in the infobox. Therefore they should not be mentioned in the Seealso section anymore—see MOS:SEEALSO. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Minimum total potential energy principle
If something seems unsourced to you, use "citation needed" tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.8.55 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- No, not for new content—see wp:BURDEN. And certainly not for nonsense, for which no reliably sources are available anyway. - DVdm (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Without "citation needed" tags, it is unclear what exactly is unsourced. I am ready to provide a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.8.55 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- For your education, mass IS potential energy. It follows from E=mc2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.8.55 (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- In my messages on your talk page you find a few interesting links about reliable sources, and how to add them to the text. Please take some time to read them. - DVdm (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am ready to provide sources. But you should say which particular statement is unsourced. For example, the formula which you keep reverting comes from the lead-in of Gravitational binding energy. I have provided a link to that Wikipedia article. It is just above the formula. 89.110.8.55 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your entire statement is unsourced. And note that wikipedia cannot be used as a source—see wp:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, conclusions that you draw from looking at formulas are wp:original research. - DVdm (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is just one formula. Restating a single formula in verbal form is not OR. 89.110.8.55 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, but drawing conclusions from it, is original research. Meanwhile I see that you have been doing your best to provide sources. But i.m.o. you are still doing original research through synthesis—see wp:SYNTH, so I'm giving you some time to settle down. Your edits were now undone by someone else (ping Izno), 3 times as of this writing. I strongly advise you to stop now, or you will be blocked for wp:edit warring. And note that you are way beyond wp:3RR at this point. - DVdm (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is just one formula. Restating a single formula in verbal form is not OR. 89.110.8.55 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your entire statement is unsourced. And note that wikipedia cannot be used as a source—see wp:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, conclusions that you draw from looking at formulas are wp:original research. - DVdm (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am ready to provide sources. But you should say which particular statement is unsourced. For example, the formula which you keep reverting comes from the lead-in of Gravitational binding energy. I have provided a link to that Wikipedia article. It is just above the formula. 89.110.8.55 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: your edits and possible history are discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Strange things at Minimum total potential energy principle. - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
And spi case filed. - DVdm (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Help.
Hi. You seemed like an experienced user. I would like to ask you if you don't mind, can we cite information from National Geographic website in deceased person's article? Like for page Nefertiti I found some information on the website [1]. Worldandhistory (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, perhaps yes, but it depends of course on the text that you would like to write in the article. Best to ask this on the article talk page Talk:Nefertiti, where other contributors with relevant knowledge of the subject can comment. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Einstein
Hello -- and thanks for reverting that talk page bot revert -- I'm not even sure how it happened; I haven't looked at the Einstein talk page for quite some time. It certainly wasn't intentional! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I hit the wrong button at least twice a day—sometimes even before breakfast
. - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Olatunde olalekan
Hi. This ANI query (Archived here) refers. You commented here that when you "checked the so-called references of the first instance of the article. None of the refs held. They either pointed to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles".
Right. This user is back under a different account. I quickly checked his contributions to Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, see here and I also found the same thing. Essentially a closely worded copy (but not so close as to attract plagiarism)of a single article, but with references pointing to unrelated material. I am now looking at the massive Nitrogen dioxide poisoning and I think I can see the same thing, but hard to tell as I only have access to the abstracts. I am struggling to see how " Exposure to high level of Nitrogen (II) oxide may lead to inflammation of the mucous membrane and the lower and upper respiratory tracts" can be sourced to "Determinants of nitrogen dioxide concentrations in indoor ice skating rinks." Or how "The symptoms also resembles that of pneumonia or viral infection and other inhalational injuries but common symptoms includes Rhinitis wheezing or coughing, conjunctivitis, headache, throat irritation and dyspnea which may progress to nasal fissures, ulcerations, or perforation" is connected to "Is a quantitative risk assessment of air quality in underground parking garages possible?" I don't want to make any allegations without a sound basis, so is there any way of getting access to these articles? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
OK I see what he has done. See this. He copies verbatim from other Wikipedia articles, meaning that the plagiarism detector won't work. Thus in the Nitrogen Dioxide poisoning article he copies bits from the Chlorine and Beryllium poisoning articles, then cites completely unrelated articles. Isn't that a bit dangerous? I mean the Nitrogen Dioxide poisoning article has been copied all over the web, yet probably entirely false. Peter Damian (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian: I recall the somewhat disturbing biography episode with the socks.
- Regarding the poisoning article, it looks like other editors have only made style, grammar and spelling changes ([21]) since Wikicology created it. Not much has changed to the content. That could mean that the content is correct, or that the other contributors, about ten in total, have not verified the content and/or the sources. I have no access to the sources either, so perhaps you could tag the article, requesting expert review ({{Expert needed}}) with the above text (or more) on the article talk page. Example:
- {{Expert needed|Medicine|ex2=chemistry|talk=Doubts about content and sources|reason=Doubts about content and sources|date=March 2016}}
- Something similar perhaps for the Gibbs' surface article. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian:
- It looks like Nitrogen dioxide poisoning has been redirected to a section in Nitrogen dioxide.
- I have redirected Gibbs's thermodynamic surface to Maxwell's thermodynamic surface: [22] and commented at ANI: [23] and [24].
- There might be more.
- Good find. - DVdm (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. There are more. The root causes of this are more disturbing. How was this person allowed back on the project, given the history? Peter Damian (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian: I think that our philosophies of assuming good faith, giving multiple "final" warnings and "second" chances, encouraging anonymity, and allowing incompetence, are overall beneficial and obvioulsy have made Wikipedia into what it is. But honest, well-meant—and some naive or alas downright silly—judgement mistakes have been made and will of course always be made. Then it goes wrong. And then it gets put straight again. Or only partly. Or not. C'est la vie. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is not an airport check-in desk or a subway carriage, where such judgement errors demand lives. - DVdm (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, the problem is that many doctors do use Wikipedia. You may say they are wrong, but what if it's my doctor? Thanks anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian: of course they would be wrong. But yes, it's likely that some indeed do use Wikipedia. After all, some even use this. On your next visit ask your doctor, and tell her what happened here. - DVdm (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, the problem is that many doctors do use Wikipedia. You may say they are wrong, but what if it's my doctor? Thanks anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter Damian: I think that our philosophies of assuming good faith, giving multiple "final" warnings and "second" chances, encouraging anonymity, and allowing incompetence, are overall beneficial and obvioulsy have made Wikipedia into what it is. But honest, well-meant—and some naive or alas downright silly—judgement mistakes have been made and will of course always be made. Then it goes wrong. And then it gets put straight again. Or only partly. Or not. C'est la vie. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is not an airport check-in desk or a subway carriage, where such judgement errors demand lives. - DVdm (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. There are more. The root causes of this are more disturbing. How was this person allowed back on the project, given the history? Peter Damian (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
For reference: two examples at User talk:RHaworth. - DVdm (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Quadratic Formula
Hello DVdm. New to Wikipedia here. I've submitted an external link which links to a module on Quadratic Factorisation on the page Quadratic Equation which you reverted back a while ago. To be sure, I did go through the External Link Guideline and didn't find any apparent conflict of interest. On the other hand, I do believe that the module which I linked to is highly relevant in the topic of quadratics, as it goes in depth into elaborating an alternative way of proving the Quadratic Formula, along with a comprehensive list of additional techniques on factorising any quadratic trinomials - which I think add a lot to the current discussion. With that said, I think it would be great if you can take a closer look and notify any issue if exist. Thanks! Mathvault (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given http://mathvault.ca/about/, see wp:ELNO, mainly item 11. Wikipedia has no guarantee that this site isn't full of errors. Anyone can create such a website. - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- And of course, obvioulsy there is a conflict of interest—see wp:COI. - DVdm (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see. In a sense it boils down to whether our site is construed as a blog (which in a sense it is, since we're using a blogging platform to publish long-form earning modules), or whether we are notable enough (which we probably are not). On the conflict of interest front, I was more thinking from the public-interest standpoint. Wikipedia's Guideline doesn't seem to provide much detail on that front, except that owners should avoid submitting their own links, which, on the other hand, should be judged by the nature of the content rather than the organisations standing behind it. So it's within a gray zone. Mathvault (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, sites such as this pop-up on a regular basis in external links sections. Some manage to stay in some articles, but that is usually on a per-article basis, and after some kind of discussion on the relevant article talk page. Usually a link survives if it is recognised as valuable and relevant by some of the article contributors, and if it has something that is not present in the article itself. But if that is the case, Wikipedia prefers to add content in the body of the article, properly referenced to the site—see wp:Citing sources. That in turn requires that the site serves as a wp:secondary source, in order to avoid wp:original research from a wp:primary source. I had a look at your site, and I don't think that you will find a wp:consensus at talk:Quadratic equation to make an exception to item 11 at wp:ELNO. - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
I can edit or remove any content from Wikipedia if the reason is justified. My edit of the Caesar cipher page is based on the fact that it popularises an organised criminal organisation. Do you agree with that? If not, explain your reasons. Otherwise this back and forth will continue. Theblogger01 (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- @Theblogger01: well, you can remove content from Wikipedia if the reason is justified, by wp:CONSENSUS, which is usually established on article talk pages—see also, for instance wp:BRD. So the best thing you can do now, is to put a little entry on the article talk page Talk:Caesar cipher. I will then make my comment there, explaining why I don't agree, and then perhaps we'll see what other editors say. See you there—and don't forget to sign the talk page message. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for explaining. Theblogger01 (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Theblogger01: um, you can just type the 4 tildes, not the nowiki tags. You can also click the link (marked Sign your posts on talk pages) above the edit summary box. And on talk pages we are supposed to use wp:INDENTation. I know, there's a lot to learn on Wikipedia, right? Go ahead, give it another try here... - DVdm (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good, the tildes did their job. I have now manually corrected the time stamps. Otherwise it would look like I answered before you posted
. - DVdm (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good, the tildes did their job. I have now manually corrected the time stamps. Otherwise it would look like I answered before you posted
Herbert Dingle
You said leave a message at the bottom of page, so here it is:
In the page: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Herbert_Dingle#cite_ref-whitrow_1-2
The following fragments are wrong:
1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct.
I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"!So please remove that statement because it is wrong.
2.) The formulae at link [13] ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β" Blablabla) are given without citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda.
So as you don't provide a citation, don't ask me for citation for removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle!
This is matter of logic and science: if the two systems are equivalent, then their conditions are the same.There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So *your* argument that the "these ratios apply to two different conditions" fails.
So there *is* a contradiction.
And it can't be solved by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "Einstein’sGeneral Theory of Relativity" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book.
174.113.238.66 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- You better bring this to the article talk page Talk:Herbert Dingle, where other contributors to the article can comment as well—see wp:BRD. Don't forget to add a section header. - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
![]() | And something hopefully entertaining to watch while sipping it. ;) Assassin of Relativity Paradoctor (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
- Almost two hours, so I had a pot. Interesting lecture. Thanks. I just did this at Friedrich Adler (politician). (Oops, need a visit to Duluth now) - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- You and your dry humor! :D Paradoctor (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Reverted changes to mass
Hi, You reverted not just some, but all of my changes to mass, asking for a references. OK, except that two of the changes did provide a reference; did you find it to not be acceptable? I think I can find others, for example, Ernst Mach is discussed in Misner Thorne Wheeler and also in Weinberg and probably Resnick and Halliday. None of my changes are controversial -- Statements like "the definition of the Dalton might change" -- there is already an entire WP article devoted to it: proposed redefinition of SI base units, which deals with the matter in greater detail. Do I really need references for something, when there's another WP article that deals with it? The statement about the heat of energy of melting ice is basic undergraduate college chemistry: I can cite some chemistry book; standard books on stat mech presumably state something similar. I also removed the link to the Gell-Man-Okubo formula, its absurd to think that this has anything at all to do with the basic definition of mass; its about flavor symmetry. I mean, if you're going to link that, you may as well link to articles on neutrino oscillations or CKM mixing matricies (since - after all, the mass eigenstates in the standard model are not the eigenstates of the electroweak forces: its a mixture!). None of the existing article even tries to talk about the mixing of mass and flavor eigenstates in the Higgs model, so just dumping the link to the Gellman Okubo formula is just way out of place. The point is that this is inappropriate for a basic article about mass -- its particle physics cruft which is interesting but unrelated to this article. (p.s. I have a PhD in theoretical particle physics, and had homework problems on Gell-Man Okuuo, so feel comfortable in saying this). So, rather than just getting into a bunch of random arguing, perhaps you can clarify what it is that would be acceptable? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, with this edit you added 4 paragraphs, one of which more or less properly sourced, even if some might object to it. But afaiac, feel free to redo the first statement. But yes, for the other three you have to provide wp:reliable sources—see wp:BURDEN. Standard books are usually very ok. If you have doubts about the quality of some sources, you can ask on the article talk page. Or you can add the source and see what happens. Best to use standard citation template {{cite book}}. See Template:Cite book. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I've edited to exhaustion. The section about Ernst Mach now has five references. The section about thermodynamics is rooted in Planck, and there is even an English translation of that, on-line, where he gives the mass of various thermodynamic systems.67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Much better already. Good job. - DVdm (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
black hole information problem
Hi!I don't have references for the solution I gave to the black hole information paradox.It was my own idea- you were right to delete it. It was inspired by an idea I had 10 years ago relating to Bell's theoremand the experiment done in france by Alain Aspect on this theorem using correlated photon pairs. OriginallyI thought that if two correlated photons in space separated and one fell into a black holethen the polarization of the photon outside the hole could be measured and would tell us whatthe polarization of the photon inside the hole was because the photon pair have linked polarizations-Einstein's so-called "ghostly action at a distance". Hence we would know something about an electric fieldin the black hole. However because the universe must have escaped from gravity at the big bang I assume nowthat inside a black hole -also a singularity- matter has escaped the curvature of space timeor curvature is zero in some places allowing matter to exist away from thegeometric centre.This matter could potentially interact with hawking radiation and impartinformation in the form of polarization ,redshift, etc to the hawking radiation.My post was merely my own biased view on what I believe logic says must be happening in a black holeif information is not to be lost.
soopdishSoopdish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
conservation of energy in general realtivity
I once started a discussion of this idea with some professional physicists and they didn't seem very sure.Some said energy was not conserved and that this was not a problem in General Relativity.I thought up my own classical solution: if microwave background photons lose energy as space time advances then the remaining matter in the universe is slowed down less by smaller curvature of space and so galaxies moves further away from each otherand gain potential energy to compensate. Galaxies furthest apart travelling close to the speed of light will not adjust their potential energy for more than 14 billion years because gravity travels at the speed of light.Soopdish (talk)SOOPDISH —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. I have added dates to make sure that the archive bot won't get confused.
- Note that Wikipedia needs wp:reliable sources. I will put an additional welcome message on your user talk page, where you find a lot of pointers to our cogs and gears. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Article Ondo state
I must have made the mistake of not citing the source. I will do that now.. Can you reverse the deletion please? ThanksLaru0004 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am not going to reverse the deletion because doing so would result in addition of unsourced content. The job of adding properly sourced content is really yours—see the relevant pointers in messages on your user talk page, and wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: April 2016
In what part of the world is a Nobel-winning discovery a WP:FRINGE theory? Verify it! The section on aether drift at https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/smoot_lecture.pdf And by what logic is adding to an article one sentence or two sentences about a viewpoint held by practically everyone who works in that field (CMB anisotropy) WP:UNDUE weight? Finally, the citation is not to a WP:PRIMARY source but a WP:SECONDARY source that compiles and synthesises a lot of primary sources. Not only are these primary sources WP:VERIFIABLE, most of them are outright public!-- pretty IittIe Iiar 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- You might bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Jesubalan primary source, fringe, undue. - DVdm (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Help Me
Math doen't need to be researched it is math. I don't know how to publish my work and if I show a source that makes part of the wiki wrong. Can I delete that part of the wiki. (not add anything) Because 0*x=0 doesn't prove that 0/0=x equals anything. It actually allows us to narrow down the answer.
Why? In algebra you need to do the same thing to both sides of the equation. They didn't.They did this0*x=00/0*x=0/0x=0/0In doing this you gave a value to the object in question. 0/0=1This is like me saying x=-1 in the equation x^2-x-1=0 because the first x=0.Well x can't be both 0 and -1 so which is it.If you did the math the right way you would have found that x=1.6180339887498948420
Basically you guys said that phi is -1. 1=2. 2=pi phi=-pi/2 And they aren't.Math is now useless because you made a mistake in algebra.
The correct way of doing it is0*x=00/0*x=0/0 This equation loops in itself forever luckily all it does is multiply by xx*x*x...0/0=0/0This makes 3 equations where x<1, x=1, and x>1. All should work because x is any number by definition of 0*x=0.
For (x<1)^infinity=00*0/0=0/0For (x>1)^infinity=infinityinfinity*0/0=0/0
This gets tricky. 0/0*0=0 Unless 0/0=infinity then it equals to infinity.0/0*infinity=infinity Unless 0/0=0 then it equals 0.Both redefine the equation making themselves the answer. (and it is still undefined)
If 0/0=0 then0^0=0infinity^0=0infinity/infinity=0infinity-infinity=00*infinity=0if 0/0=infinitythen all of those are infinity
why0/0=0^1*0^-1=0^0infinity=x/0 infinity/infinity=x/0*0=0/0infinity^0=infinity/infinityinfinity-infinity=1/0-1/0=0/0
Also this should have been obvious.
Also distribution of (1-1)/(1-1)makes 1-1-1+1=0EmpCarnivore (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Also I tried to say this on the talk page, but it was deleted. Without a real reason.0/0=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpCarnivore (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- I can't help you. If you have something to add to, modify in, or delete from an article, you should go the article talk page, and explain what exactly you would like to do. Note that all additions of modifications must be backed by reliable sources, and that it takes a wp:consensus to make a change to an article. Don't forget that an article talk page is not a chat forum where the subject or some aspect of it can be discussed. It is a place to discuss changes to the article. That is why your comments were deleted—and will be deleted again, unless you have a concrete proposal for a change to the article. - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Realistically all you need to do is delete all of the algebra section. Because if your going to have a algebra section it needs to be right or else it isn't algebra. 0/0=x can't be taken from 0*x=0. x isn't all numbers. I am seriously trying to help in changing the page but no one will even consider my words. They just delete what I right. EmpCarnivore (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.
- They also have explained why they deleted what you wrote, as have I. - DVdm (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Time dilation ... another explanation.
Very sorry. On 27/04/16 made an editing error. I initiated Talkː Time dilation ∕ Archive 2016 ǃǃ
That is not a tentative to cheat ǃ
But I cannot revert that.
I suppose you can.
By the way , a well know quantum physicist like Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond is not a reliable source for Wiki ?ǃ --Chessfan (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Chessfan: no problem. I have requested deletion. You also could have simply blanked the page. Someone else would then tag it for deletion.
- As for the source and your edits to the talk page: please note that the source is not a published work, but just a set of slides, and that the article talk page is not for discussions about the subject of the article, but for explicit proposals about additions or changes to the article. - DVdm (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- The archive has been deleted now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Your changes on the talk page Pantheon Mail
Hi there. I see you reverted my removal of the topics discussed on the page Talk:Pantheon Mail. Just to be clear, I was not removing the discussion page, but just closing old topics that have been merged into the mail article I maintain. Are you using a bot or something like this that has been triggered by my edit, thinking it was vandalism? Wget (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Wget: We never remove old topics from article talk pages—see wp:Talk page guidelines, and specially WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE—unless of course in cases of vandalism or soap-boxing.
- I use wp:Huggle. It can be configured to highlight all kinds of removal as candidates of vandalism, tests, errors, or even good faith cleanups. I noticed that your action was in good faith, so I manually undid it, and put a little msg on your user talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Leibniz quote
Hello. Please see this. Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Omnipaedista: I'll have a look later today. Have to go now
. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Your message
Why are you threatening to block me? I was not the person who put the word "fucked" on the main page. I was the person who pointed out the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.197.226 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- See wp:NOTCENSORED. - DVdm (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Song title capitalization
Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles before correcting any more song titles. The Zappa web page, or indeed any other web page, does not supersede the Wikipedia MoS. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I assumed that an official website would take precedence over MOS. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Dayton Miller
Regarding Dayton Miller edit:Please provide the exact edits that need a reference. Seems to me that replacing "small" result with specific value that is cited other places in the article is more accurate. I was in the process of going back and providing citations that already appear in the article when you removed all the edits. Surely citations that already appear in the article are credible. Rww4truth (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)rww4truthRww4truth (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- The current references to www.orgonelab.org are not source citations, but they serve as footnotes with dissidents examples. Adding content from such self-published sources is against our policies about wp:primary sources and wp:secondary sources, combined with wp:FRINGE and wp:UNDUE. I have removed the statement that was accompanied by a ref to ether.wikiext.org, because (1) the source did not back the statement about urban cities, and (2) the source is another Wiki with an article written by a single anonymous author, which can never qualify as a wp:reliable source. - DVdm (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Do not use capitals for emphasis
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Normal number, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Re [25] edit: Your edit summary is emphasized in no use. Please follow this. Thank you.--Takahiro4 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Takahiro4: note that this manual of style guideline is about using capitals in article content, not about using them in edit summaries. In most cases capitals for emphasis in edit summaries are a bit uncivil, but they can be useful to effectively get the attention of editors who tend to overlook edit summaries. You apparently failed to see my message in this edit about spaces after full stops, after which you made this edit, making a new spacing error. So in my next edit I used capitals and explicitly added "Shouting". The standard user warning template that you used here to notify me, is not applicable and therefore inappropriate. - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also I just didn't use space on talk page. I thought only about edit of normal number at that time, I didn't know that "full stop" is meaning of period. So, not that I failed to see your message, you failed to communicate that message for me. Sorry I am non-native. It is written on my profile. --Takahiro4 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that on your userpage you say that you can communicate with an advanced level of English. I hope you don't mind my saying this, but looking at your article edits, talk page messages and edit summaries, I think that perhaps you shoud replace that {{Babel||en=3|ja-5|zh-2|de-1|es-1}} with {{Babel|en-2.5|ja-5|zh-2|de-1|es-1}}. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- He should use en-1 198.39.100.21 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I create a few spaces and some message at your recent edit. Of course you aware, don't you?----Takahiro4 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- He should use en-1 198.39.100.21 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that on your userpage you say that you can communicate with an advanced level of English. I hope you don't mind my saying this, but looking at your article edits, talk page messages and edit summaries, I think that perhaps you shoud replace that {{Babel||en=3|ja-5|zh-2|de-1|es-1}} with {{Babel|en-2.5|ja-5|zh-2|de-1|es-1}}. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also I just didn't use space on talk page. I thought only about edit of normal number at that time, I didn't know that "full stop" is meaning of period. So, not that I failed to see your message, you failed to communicate that message for me. Sorry I am non-native. It is written on my profile. --Takahiro4 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Question about your comment
"I have never seen you formulate a single sentence in proper English". Is this correct fact? Are you blind man?--Takahiro4 (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Where is Babel:en-2.5? 11 years old wikipedian, teach me. You are the worst patroller in people which I know. I congratulate that. --Takahiro4 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not one of the seven sentences by you in this section is grammatically correct. A look at your edit history bears out that impression. That is not an "advanced" level of English. I'd rate your English competence a weak en-2. It certainly suffices for talkpage discussion and some kinds of edits, but your English copyediting needs to be corrected every time, AFAICT. That does not mean you shouldn't edit, but please do listen to other editors when it comes to grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and spelling.
- Finally, please do not get so WP:PERSONAL. Nobody is perfect, disagreements happen, but without WP:AGF, this place can't function. Paradoctor (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Deprodding Dual q-Hahn polynomials
Hi DVdm,
Sorry, I had to revert your proposed deletion. Once an article has been deprodded, a proposed deletion is considered controversial, so per WP:PROD, cannot be prodded again. You may take the article to AfD instead. --Mark viking (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. - DVdm (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mark viking:
Done: [26], [27], [28]. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. --Mark viking (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
HG
Hello, did u find a way to upload ur Version of Huggle 2.1.27? --Traeumer (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Der.Traeumer: no response on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126357. As you can see above, I have sent one to user Petrb, but I have no idea whether he got it. Meanwhile I have a version 2.1.27.4 that's preforming pretty well. Perhaps you can ping Petr about it. Anyway, if you send me a valid email adress, I will invite you on that shared dropbox folder. You'll find a zipped source, plus a compiled exe. Whenever I have a new build, I will put it in there. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thx, my Email is der.traumer /at/ gmx /./ net . Regards --Traeumer (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Invitation sent. Please let me know if/when you get it? Thx. - DVdm (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Im sry, spelling error. der.traeumer /at/ gmx /./ net. Pls try it again. --Traeumer (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Invitation sent to new address. - DVdm (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, its working on german wiki too. I will test it later more. Greets --Traeumer (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Im sry, spelling error. der.traeumer /at/ gmx /./ net. Pls try it again. --Traeumer (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thx, my Email is der.traumer /at/ gmx /./ net . Regards --Traeumer (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Petrb and Der.Traeumer: new version 2.1.27.5 in shared dropbox. Caught another bug: stripping of html diff table is corrected. The original program counted on finding single quotes in result, but API returns double quotes. Removed a few dirty error traps. - DVdm (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrb and Der.Traeumer: there's one thing that I really have great difficulty with: in H3, when new entries are added to the queue, the user warning level (1,2,3,4) is correctly shown in the coloured blobs in the queue (not in the strips or in the user windows, but that's an H3-problem). Since quite some time, this does not happen in H2 anymore. I have tried to trace the reason for this, but I really can't find it... - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I never note it, so i can life without it. --Traeumer (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Petrb and Der.Traeumer: new version 2.1.27.6 in shared dropbox. Caught bug reading resources file WarningSummaries.txt. Separator char CRLF was used instead of vbLf, resulting in a corrupt lookup table. I made the config reader try both split schemes. User warning levels (1,2,3,4) correctly appear in the coloured blobs in the queue. Please try it out. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Petrb and Der.Traeumer: new version 2.1.27.7 in shared dropbox. I also did something with a pull request at Github, but I have no idea whether I did it right. The Github logic and interface are a mystery to me. - DVdm (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry I am extra busy but I will eventually merge it Petrb (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrb: no problem. There seems to be a problem too with expiring tokens or something: after some 30 minutes I get "'Invalid token" and I'm forced to logoff and logon again, losing my tabs and history. With H3 as well, it seems. Take all the time you need :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrb: I know you're busy with H3, but do you think there's any chance of somehow quickfixing that 30 minutes token problem in H2? Becoming very annoying, this. Cheers and tia. - DVdm (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Petrb: no problem. There seems to be a problem too with expiring tokens or something: after some 30 minutes I get "'Invalid token" and I'm forced to logoff and logon again, losing my tabs and history. With H3 as well, it seems. Take all the time you need :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Please let me know, if you ever are able to fix H2. --Traeumer (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Der.Traeumer: I will, if I ever. But don't hold your breath...
. See also Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback#User status not updated in Huggle 3. Feel free to weigh in there. DVdm (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Geoff Wilkins
Just to check - any reason not to take HW70s80s to SPI for this, if there are overlapping spam edits? (User:GeoffDandridge also added the same link to the Alan Turing article last week.) Would press the button myself, but am curious if there's a good reason not to. --McGeddon (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @McGeddon: I was on my way to SPI
. Do you, or do I? - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to pull the lever, I'll go ahead and make a post. --McGeddon (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @McGeddon: ok, If I see something to add, I will. Master = Geoffw1948 no doubt? - DVdm (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's all I'm seeing so far. Will post momentarily. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help there. {{linksummarylive}} is a handy template for listing spam URLs, if you've not met it before. --McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @McGeddon: ah yes, seen it before. It's a bit like {{spamlink}}. Thanks.
- Perhaps this one is worth checking because he lists it as one of his web sites (although he does not put his name in the footer):
- bbohp.org.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bbohp.org.uk
- - DVdm (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Although that link was added to some articles by IP-sock User:80.177.4.109 in 2013, it doesn't seem to be breaking WP:ELNO, at first glance. We should be cautious about penalising an organisation who hired someone as their web developer, simply because that developer took up spamming their personal projects years later. --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. - DVdm (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Although that link was added to some articles by IP-sock User:80.177.4.109 in 2013, it doesn't seem to be breaking WP:ELNO, at first glance. We should be cautious about penalising an organisation who hired someone as their web developer, simply because that developer took up spamming their personal projects years later. --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
He's at it again? Talk about persistent. Given that Wilkins has been spamming Wikipedia again and again for a decade now, I think it is time to blacklist his sites. Paradoctor (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Geoffw1948/Archive. His (current) black backgrounded sitelist page is listed there. If/when one of these turn up, I'll go for the blacklist. Feel free to beat me to it though... - DVdm (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I try to keep away from WP these days, except for the occasional minor edit. Being me, I might beat you to it regardless. :P Paradoctor (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding LTA
I think that once an LTA page establishes a pattern of behaviour using existing SPI reports that admins will be able and willing to act on AIV reports without the formality of an SPI each time. A good example is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP who is seen and blocked about 10 times a week. I am not an expert at either process but this is my impression. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I had a look at this example. Next time I will go for AIV only, and will keep a private record. We'll see how it goes. We can then decide to go for LTA. - DVdm (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you hadn't noticed, I've got 2 thank yous in a day (from two users to be precise) since you stopped being disruptive. Be sure to mention those in you LTA case. I'm ready to reference all my contributions, not just ones that I leave for you to see trough my contributions page. 141.136.254.128 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23, Favonian, HighInBC, Materialscientist, MrX, Widr, and Some others: as this user (Asdisis) clearly needs less effort to continue than I need to report, explain and revert, and as I want most of his targetted articles off my watchlist, I'll leave him in your hands. Unlike you, I need more than a few clicks to have him stopped for a few hours
. - DVdm (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23, Favonian, HighInBC, Materialscientist, MrX, Widr, and Some others: as this user (Asdisis) clearly needs less effort to continue than I need to report, explain and revert, and as I want most of his targetted articles off my watchlist, I'll leave him in your hands. Unlike you, I need more than a few clicks to have him stopped for a few hours
Regarding my comment on continuity, and you stating there is no difference
You only mentioned the left hand side limit must exist, here: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Classification_of_discontinuities
No! That's the example of a jump discontinuity. Left hand side limit exists, and right hand side limit exists, but the L- does not equal the L+. Therefore, I propose to add:
", and the right hand side must exist, and the left hand side limit = right hand side limit". Why was the change rejected?2602:30A:C04D:830:DD6C:EEE5:DF3E:9B14 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit was rejected because:
- the first part of your added condition ("the right hand side must exist") is already stated in the first condition: "f has to be defined at c",
- the second part of your added condition ("and the left hand side limit = right hand side limit") is nonsense, because the right hand side is not a limit. It is a function value.
- This is a definition. If you see limits at both sides of the equation, then your clearly don't understand what this is about. It also looks to me that you are confusing "left and right limits" with "left and right hand sides of an equation". You might try getting help understanding this at our wp:Reference desk/Mathematics. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Divine view aka theory of everything
Hello DVdm, please review the work on theory of everything and decide for yourself if there is truth to what I put forth, the work is not cited in any popular journals, if you concur with the truth i request you to kindly put it back on the page it belongs for the world to see it.The divine view aka theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but universal singularity of i, expressed mathematically as zero = i = infinity [1]172.74.114.35 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)