Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Gravity because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bengt Nyman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Bengt Nyman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Bengt Nyman/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Bengt Nyman,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
www.dipole.se presents a valid, contemporary theory about the role of Coulomb dipole forces in strong force and gravity. It is not spam. The problem might be that the scientist who spent 20 years substantiating this theory is also a Wiki editor with over a thousand edits. Since you label this self promotion, would you prefer that this contemporary theory was listed under modern theories by somebody other than the author, and if so, what difference would that make ? Bengt Nyman (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, you are spouting a number of non-applicable objections reflecting unsupported value judgments of your own, but you did not answer my question. Bengt Nyman (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am showing Wikipedia policies that prevent us from promoting our own work and linking to the work of "not-or-not-yet-recognized authorities". Please try to wp:AGF. If you feel that I am "promoting my own intolerant biases" and that my "edits become destructive and offensive", then you should report me at, for instance, wp:ANI. - DVdm (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DVdm, you have now invalidated your original accusation about self promotion. It seems that when you don't have other peoples guidelines to lean on, you have no sensible answer other than to expand your own bias beyond its initial references. Have a nice day. Bengt Nyman (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Bengt Nyman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Fuerteventura into Pájara. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. There is a clear difference between the Biefeld–Brown effect and Electrogravitics. I say that because I have 22 years of particle-physics research behind me. Even the two separate en.wiki pages on the two separate subjects acknowledge that the two subjects are different. There is no reason why the page about Thomas Townsend Brown should retain a greater degree of ignorance than that of the two pages about those two separate subjects. Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. We do not chose words, we cite other peoples words.
2. We do not cite our own experience. Wikipedia is not work created from the best knowledge of its editors, it is created from the reliable sources you can cite. If there is a clear difference between the Biefeld–Brown effect and Electrogravitics then you can clearly cite that to reliable sources. Also note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source - just because there are two articles on the topic can not be taken as reliable source telling use there should be two topics. Both articles have been tagged for deletion and/or merger for various reasons. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. You can not write a wiki page by simply pasting together words from references. Your own words and formulations can make the difference between a modern, factual description and a confusing or even misleading jumble of references. Bengt Nyman (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the policy wp:BURDEN: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the subject of Electrogravitics presently has no cited scientific explanation I suggest that the page be deleted and parts possibly merged into other subjects.Bengt Nyman (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that I removed the image you added to the page House Sparrow because the bird in it is actually a tree sparrow. You may want to consider adding it to that article instead.
Hello, Bengt Nyman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Images are meant to accompany text not stand on their own.. slideshows and galleries are not quite appropriate for most articles..WP:GALLERY "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." ...."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article"....that links to WP:DUE that says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"....that links to MOS:ACCIM that says "Avoid indiscriminate gallery sections because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display".--Moxy (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this discussion was held at the pump. Most contributors there do not agree with you. What is your intention behind raising the subject here? Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the discussion of this subject at the pump and consider modernizing your opinion about what is appropriate illustration of an article. "A gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." I agree. However, additional imagery in proper form can add some of the information that a reader is looking for. You can not assume that the text is all and exactly the kind of information that a reader wants. If it was, why Wikivoyage? Also, Wiki has thousands of one liner, robot generated articles with essentially no information and you want to keep throwing out slideshows that at least give the reader some information. Please Wiki, don't fall hopelessly behind times. I will continue to add illustrations of quality and value to Wiki articles. You will probably continue to do your thing. Fine, maybe we will meet somewhere in the middle. Take care. Bengt Nyman (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by the pump. But our policies are clear on this as seen above ..... One Thing Wikipedia is not is a place for "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons"from ...WP:NOTGALLERY. Also be aware of WP:SANDWICH issues.
Images make Wikipedia more informative, accessible, and professional.
Your repeated citations are out of context and do not reflect your colleagues opinions expressed at earlier, thorough discussions. I have heard you. I respect your opinion but I think it is untimely and borderline destructive. I have nothing more to say in this case. Bengt Nyman (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Gravity.
Your article about gravity is slowly getting more even handed but still lags real time. It is a fact the Standard Model does not recognize time dilation and its consequences in form of spacetime, spacetime gravity, special relativity and general relativity. It is also a fact that the Standard Model tolerates Newton's mathematical treatment of gravity without announcing it as part of the standard model. Since Mfb and DVdm professes to possess the required wisdom about this subject, why don't you update the article to closer reflect what is known and recognized about gravity today. P.S. Please Mfb, your "nonsense" is very unspecific and borders on unfriendly. Please specify your objection in terms of facts. Bengt Nyman (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me be more specific: Nothing what you put in the article or wrote here in terms of physics makes any sense. It is not even wrong. There is nothing to update because the article is fine, you just have some severe misconceptions about physics. May I suggest that you read the article - or a textbook if you don't trust the article? --mfb (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you don't see anything wrong with the information I added, but you continue to respond to reasonable questions with insults. But that's ok, because you reveal your subjective possessiveness when you say: "There is nothing to update because the article is fine." Bengt Nyman (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
