— Welcome to my talk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I'll respond here. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check don't hesitate to remind me here.
This user talk page has been vandalizedat least 355 times.
— Canard du jour — Higher beings from outer space may not want to tell us the secrets of life, because we're not ready. But maybe they'll change their tune after a little torture. — Jack Handey
This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 7 months and 19 days.
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 18 sections are present.
What is a 'reliable source' ?
What makes a source reliable, and another source unreliable, and given that I disproved your so called reliable sources which claim GR was experimentally verified, and shown all those experiments were completelly fucked up by idiots who have no clue about basic refraction physics, doesnt that show that they are completely unreliable ? Marvas85 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So no criticism of any theory is accepted by wikipedia, despite using widely known science and formulas ? I did not invent v=c/n, nor f=v/lambda. I just applied them to the Pound and Rebka experiment, and got a blueshift/redshift from this formulas. Marvas85 (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even on the wikipedia article on refraction it says that refraction changes the wavelength. So in Pound-Rebka experiment if they use helium and air guess what happens ? They change the wavelength from refraction. And also by the Compton scattering which redshifts the gammaray. And no, I did not invent Compton effect either. Look it up, its on your wikipedia page too. Marvas85 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marvas85: Assuming you are referring to this revert, resulting in this warning by user Johnjbarton, no, criticism of any theory by any editor is not accepted by Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not criticise. Wikipedia reports what is found in the literature, and which is sufficiently notable to be quoted by sufficiently many others. That is what encyclopedias are designed for. If some criticism of some theory is widely published in the established literature, then Wikipedia can mention that as a fact, not as criticism by a contributor. - DVdm (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a paragraph I wish to make to add to the Daboia Paelestinae page:
"The LD50 of this viper's venom is 0.34mg/kg.[1] The mortality rate of people who were bitten is 0.5% to 2%.[2] The venom includes at least four families of pharmacologically active compounds: (i) neurotoxins; (ii) hemorrhagins; (iii) angioneurin growth factors; and (iv) different types of integrin inhibitors.[2]"
I'm informing you ahead of time to make sure you don't jump the gun and try to block me without warning based on a mistaken assumption that this is original research. The issues that might confuse you are (a) that the LD50 is not mentioned in abstract of the first paper. However it appears in the body of the article in a graph. (b) The name of the snake used in the second article is not Daboia but one of the other scientific names of this snake (which appears in the synonyms tab of the Daboia Paelestinae page). While you might think that concluding that the paper talks about the same snake as the wikipedia entry is synthesis and therefore original research, in fact it isn't.
I read the relevant policy pages many times. I know well that NONE of what I did here is original research according to the policy pages. As regarding this particular case let me quote the following from "These are not original research" page: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources."
But I still feel I need to get your approval because the combined effect of the following facts: a. You seem to have an extreme interpretation of what is original research, much more strict than the policy pages. b. You have threatened to block me without warning if I'll make again what YOU think is original research. c. The incident of the Brooklyn papyrus show that you are not beyond jumping the gun.
Of course I don't know if you really have the power to block me without warning. I see that you have been editor for many years and have made an impressive number of edits, but I don't know if you have any administrative powers in wikipedia. Still, because it is better to be safe than sorry I'm afraid I'll have to continue to check edits with you beforehand, at least until you walkback on your threat.
After the first time that your edit was reverted ([1]), you should have gone to the talk page — see wp:BRD, wp:CONSENSUS and wp:NOCONSENSUS. Re-reverting it amounts to edit warring. It's good that you went there after the second revert ([2]). There you should find the explanation why the content belongs ([3]). - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Spacetime, I read this after the paragraph where I made change:
The squared interval is a measure of separation between events A and B that are time separated and in addition space separated either because there are two separate objects undergoing events, or because a single object in space is moving inertially between its events.
Dans la géométrie de l'espace-temps de la fr:relativité restreinte, on écrit le « carré de l'intervalle d'espace-temps », noté , entre deux événements A et B de coordonnées () et () dans un espace-temps à quatre dimensions (une de temps, soit t, et trois d'espace) sous la forme
(Translation:) In spacetime geometry of special relativity, we write the squared spacetime interval, noted ...
You say: Note: check the cited source, where the interval is defined as a square.
Where is the cited source? If it's the ref 32 D'Inverno, Ray (1992). Introducing Einstein's Relativity. New York: Oxford University Press., I don't have access to it.
In a different inertial frame, say with coordinates , the spacetime interval can be written in a same form as above.
So the spacetime interval is or ?
I can understand different convention on different article on Wikipedia on different language. But not different convention on the SAME article.
In short:
what is the name of ?
what is the name of ?
what is the name of ?
On French Wikipedia (fr:Intervalle_d'espace-temps#Métrique), is named: le carré de l'intervalle infinitésimal d'espace-temps (translation: the square of the infinitesimal spacetime interval).
"In this picture, the square of the interval between any two events and is defined by and it is this quantity which is invariant under a Lorentz transformation.Note that, formally, we always denote the ‘square’ of the interval by , but the quantity is only defined if the right-hand side of (2.12) is nonnegative."
So, indeed the phrase "the square of the interval ... is defined by = ..." can be paraphrased to "the squared spacetime interval is defined as ..."
I have undone my edit and put the citation with the link in place in the article ([4]) and struck my comment on your user talk page ([5]). You were correct. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see you have participated in talk regarding the Wikipedia page on Wigner Rotation, (which looks to be well done, BTW.) I have been working for a few years on a simulation environment, and in it, you can easily undergo four equal-sized acceleration bursts in each of four orthogonal directions. The resulting rotation is clearly seen. Please visit http://RelativityLand.org, I have just made it publicly available. I am trying to publicize this work to physics educators, anything you can do to “spread the word” would be appreciated. Thanks. Randallbsmith (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some one had readded the statement about heliocentrism in Vedic scriptures in heliocentrism article the subsection of ancient India talks about is
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres
can you see whether this reference provide is reliable and secondly the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see you've just added two problematic html tags with errors on your sandbox page. <p/> and <p /> are selfclosing tags (a tracked syntax error), and should not be used. If you are testing something here for a short time, that's fine, otherwise I ask that you remove them and use something else, like <p>text</p>, or text{{pb}} text. Thank you, and best wishes. Zinnober9 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, where exactly is this written: When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark."? Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.
Miller wanted, he said, "to create something timeless".
Miller said: "I wanted to create something timeless."
About the External links section of Twin Paradox article
Now that I've checked it out, I agree too.
I followed the line of reasoning without thinking too much, just trusting what was already there. Since I saw the URL as apparently dead, I looked for the most recent archived one I could access and added it (following the example I saw in the first item on the list in the same section). I think that, in this case, removing the entire line (fourth item on the list) may be viable and serve as a learning experience (in the editorial sense) for other colleagues too.
I'll leave it as it is, but my personal wish is to:
remove the first (this item actually denies access to the resource and the archived version serves as a workaround to access it) and the fourth item on the list.
Regarding the second and third items, some resources are not accessible via Android, but work on larger devices with more 'robust' operating systems.
Thanks for reminding me how important it is to trust without failing to verify.
@GKNishimoto: If I recall correctly, the first link was agreed upon by the contributors, perhaps as being written by a recognized authority. In any case, it survived by de-facto wp:consensus, so removing it might need proposing to do so on the article talk page. I personally think it is at least okay to leave it sitting there, since the old Usenet sci.physics.relativity group is no longer alive. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I understand. Once again, I thank you for your attention and guidance.
Hello DVdm! You removed my edit to the Infinity article. It’s the same source as the forgoing text, the Morris Kline book. Here is what the (most) relevant part of the already cited section by Morris Kline says:
“The point O′ corresponds to the imagined meeting point at infinity of AB and CD, but because this point does not actually exist, O′ is called the principal vanishing point. It vanishes in the sense that it does not correspond to any actual point on AB or CD, whereas other points on A′B′ or CD′ do correspond to actual points on AB or CD, respectively.”
@Zyxwvoids: Yes, I have a copy of the book, and indeed, this passage can be found at page 221, but the content that you added does not directly appear in the book. It is an interpretation of the source, We can paraphrase or quote some content from a source, but interpreting the text as you did is an example of wp:original research, which is not allowed, whether your interpretation is correct or not. Hope this helps!
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I merely edited one sentence, removing a not especially relevant portion of the quote and substituting a better explanation for the choice of Frank Zappa for a memorial.72.173.82.128 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Thanks for the heads up/reminder. Sometimes I don't summarize the edit for fear of making a mistake (since I'm not a native English speaker).
This is not the first time I have made an "insignificant" edit and, shortly after, an anonymous "wrong" edit comes along that is later corrected by a more experienced editor. Having lived in Japan, I have a bit of a habit of only talking/responding when asked.
