This is an archive of past discussions with User:DVdm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It may possibly be of interest to note that if content is licensed under a creative commons license requiring attribution, then copying it without attribution is a copyright infringement. However, the relevant content would have been deleted for other reasons even if there had been no copyright problem. JamesBWatson (talk)
Hi. I received a message from you that my edits to the Ladder Paradox had failed to conform to the Wikipedia verifiability policy. I don't understand how this can be: my edits were purely and simply a mathematical derivation, based on the Lorentz Transformation. If the math is wrong, so be it, and call me out for that. But Lorentz is well-known and accepted.
My revisions were reverted by the original author of the page, who claimed that I had not resolved the paradox, since I had supposedly just assumed length contraction. He clearly failed to understand my resolution, which was based on transforming to the ladder rest frame.
Prior to posting, I ran my calculations by a friend who is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Washington, one of the top Physics departments in the USA. I hold a BA and MS in Physics myself.
The experience of editing this page has actually shaken my faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia. The existing page on the Ladder Paradox is not only confusing, but incorporates some discussion (e.g. about rigid bodies in SR) which is irrelevant to the resolution of the paradox. This discussion will mislead students who come to this page, and who may infer that acceleration of the ladder is necessary to resolve the paradox, when in fact it is not.
Hi Lexchis, it's pretty simple. Have a very careful read of wp:reliable sources and wp:no original research. The way to resolve this, is to find a published reliable source (Wikipedia meaning), and propose your addition on the talk page of the article (not on a talk page of a user), to reach some kind of consensus (see wp:consensus) with whomever wishes to respond there. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks DVdm. By the standards you are pointing me to, it seems the current posted article is original research, at least in its Resolution section. It cites an article by Rindler which is actually about the "man falling in the grate" paradox, not about the Ladder Paradox per se. Also, as I read them, the "original research" guidelines exempt straightforward calculations based on a well-known formula, which certainly describes the Lorentz Transformation. That would seem to make my contribution non-original, and, in the absence of a math error, acceptable. Lexchis (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You are not making just a calculation. You use physical quantities, so you are doing physics, and your contribution would still be original research.
On the other hand, if you think there is some original research in that article, then by all means bring it up on the talk page. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
DVdm, I still must respectfully assert that if the current posted article is ok, then my revision is ok. There are math calculations involving physical quantities in both. Suppose I were writing an article on Newtonian gravity, and calculated how far a dropped ball would descend in 2 seconds. That would appear to fit your criterion; would it then constitute original research? Lexchis (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit is a schoolbook example of original research, trust me. If indeed "there are math calculations involving physical quantities in both", then—as I said before—bring it up on the article talk page, not here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Criticisms of the theory of relativity".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So fast
Re:
"You fight vandalism so incredibly fast that you sometimes forget to look at the surrounding Booga Booga ;-) - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)"
Heh. Well, Huggle is quick. I noticed the "mistake" from the diff right after my action. I was about to mend it, when the editing conflict warning let me know that you beat me to it. :-) ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I had added two lines about the property of "parallelism" in a curved surface (space). Those are removed and I was asked to get the source of them.
" We’ve known for a hundred years, since Albert Einstein, that space itself is fundamentally curved. We wrote a bit about this here. Lines and circles in real space simply do not do behave the way Euclid imagined, and so thinking in a non-Euclidean manner is fundamental to understanding the Universe. "
--from http://www.qedcat.com/archive/97.html
On basis of many such reads, I added, "if a space is 180° twisted, any pair of parallel straight lines will intersect each other."
I hope, Math Students will be able to understand this simple relativity.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathematical fallacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congruence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Many of us are fighting the same battles, some with slower connection speeds than others. Please bear in mind that we cannot all solve all problems instantly and, having a little patience with other editors working on the same issues might be more productive. Thanks VelellaVelella Talk 15:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, DVdm. I noticed you reverted the vandalism to my talk page. Thank you. However, after you reverted the vandalism you then added the following: {{db-g10}} to my talk page to have my talk page speedy deleted. Since my talk page never has anything on it, why do you want to delete it? I am truly confused.--NK (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It could have been deleted or made empty again. I see that someone already took care of replacing the template with the original content now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the user you recently spoke to about WP:ENGVAR, 58.8.103.154 (talk·contribs), is a new IP for the same editor at 203.163.103.7 (talk·contribs). He is currently involved in a content dispute with yet another IP, 67.139.40.166 (talk·contribs), on the article Haniwa. They are accusing each other of vandalism and sock puppetry. I would appreciate an extra pair of eyes to track these editors and make sure they do not get into more trouble. Both are prone to belligerency and edit warring. Just a friendly warning. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for that, I thought I was on the www.mywot.com/ Wiki page, just went in to cut the text so I could paste it onto the right page but you'd removed it. Any chance you still have a copy so I can put it in the right place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.82.62 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
(Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.)
If you are referring to this edit, you can copy (some of) it right there, but if you want to accomplish anything with it, I suggest you severely tone it down, propose it on the article talk page, and stick to cold neutral facts, preferably pointing to some wp:reliable sources. Otherwise the message will be removed or, at best, ignored. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a cold neutral fact. I have the email trail from the company themselves to prove it. What proof would you prefer I add to their page? 80.195.82.62 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~).
Do have a look at some of the pointers to our policies that I have put on your talk page (follow the blue links in these messages; they point to the relevant policy and guideline pages). If you want to go anywhere with this, you probably should follow the advice I just gave in my previous reply. - DVdm (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. So real life emperical experience doesn't count? Do you think the 'computer geek time spent masturbating' comment was a bit much? I could leave that out. The rest of it was 100% true. 80.195.82.62 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it does not. This is an encyclopedia, and it is built on reliable verifiable sources—see wp:V and wp:RS. If you like to expose a scam, you must find another venue. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps some are based on emperical life experiences, but this one is based on established reliable sources. Having another try is likely going to get you blocked. Try to find some Wikipedia-compliant way to add interesting and valuable information to the article. Anything unsourced with a tone like this will not stick, trust me. - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No deep wounds were inflicted, it seems. By the way, thanks for this. I considered doing it myself, but then I was pretty much expecting that you would do it - DVdm (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I think the text for the article Lottery is not neutral. It is biased towards the "expected value" definition of value. I gave links to the alternative models based on expected utility, though there are still others.
I also think that calling others "mathematically inept" is not the right tone to adopt in an Encyclopedia, especially as the article presents a theory (expected value) that is itself not mathematically sound. I gave the example of Insurance to show that negative expected value decisions can be perfectly rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.65.68 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
You are probably referring to this edit. I undid your unsourced edit with this revert, and left a little message on your talk page. Indeed I agree that calling others "mathematically inept" is not the right tone to adopt here, but then again, I did not call you "mathematically inept". You probably have somebody else in mind.
About the content you were trying to add, please note that we need wp:reliable sources for our edits, and original research (see wp:OR) is not allowed here. You might have a good point, but the best thing is to go to the article talk page and propose your addition, but don't forget to bring a good source for what you have in mind. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Fellow in question seems dead-set on convincing people that the Persians somehow named the place after a goat's penis. Precursory google seems to concur that it's a patent absurdity, but until now I avoided posting a vandal comment on his page in lieu of the welcome/ unconstructive edits template. Zelse81 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, he actually posted a source for Farsi 'boz' being goat and a search for slang in Farsi did return 'kir' as penis, but I still doubt that they somehow tricked the Turks especially given that I did just confirm 'bozkIr' is indeed Turkish for 'steppe.' Still, weird world. Zelse81 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Then please stop making nonsensical or erroneous edits. If you continue doing this, you will end up blocked. - DVdm (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Although the specific edit by the unlogged editor wasn't a disruptive one, apart from this he has the intention to vandalize a wide variety of articles by pushing his pov. In case he shows up again I'll report it immediately.Alexikoua (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think I can help you directly. Normally only the owner of the user page is free to remove the content. Also note that the content will always remain available in the edit history. You can try two things: (1) delete it again with a clear edit summary stating the reason, or, if that gets reverted by someone, (2) post a little message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
Thank you again for helping me edit. I'm a bit of a new, infrequent editor, so I just needed some assistance (and basic arithmetic) :) Origamite (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Tried it. It works, but—as I somehow suspected, dont ask me why—it does not work in logged-out mode. Also, I have no idea how and why this should work in the first place. Frankly, I think I wouldn't even want to have an idea. I don't think I have ever seen an uglier kinda syntax in my entire carreer . I have restored the expensive way. Thanks and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Your suspicion was right. I didn't expect that you wanted IP users to see your custom style. Your user CSS is of course not shown to them, you're basically working against intended behavior. No problem, though. If you still want it, just copy from the top of my user talk. Paradoctor (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I already had seen your solution, but I'd like to keep it template-free, so to speak. And... I have been experimenting with a gradient—the deeper the darker. Nice, no? - DVdm (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have recently edited the page Marius (giraffe) giving necessary citations. However, you continue to remove these, all of which are verifiable, leaving in their place unverifiable passes such as the claim that zoo keepers have received death threats from those who opposed the recent slaughter of a healthy animal. As I stated, there is no evidence or proof of these slanderous claims. Why do you continue to permit them? You have also removed comments (which were direct quotes from cited articles, giving the Url) which contradicted your evident support for the zoo. What does the demand from zoo supporters to remove the page altogether indicate to you? To most people it would indicate a deliberate cover up. Are you colluding with this cover up? It would seem - from your irritation when anyone with cited evidence and information, who does not support the slaughter, that you do.
It is not your business to censor. Remember that. Also remember that, should you exhibit any further bias, by removing contributions from those who condemn the slaughter, you risk bringing Wikipedia into such disrepute that you may, yourselves, be removed. This is a 'cause celebre' in which the vast majority of the population of the civilised world do NOT support Copenhagen Zoo, and will continue to edit the page giving factual information, or put up new pages should you take this one down. Are you going to block EVERYONE? Take notice that, should you continue to edit this article in such a way as to remove further verifiable information such as that which I supplied, or permit libelous, unverified claims, such as that regarding death threats, you will also be tainted by association. And I trust you can understand - given the amount of support and publicity this case has received - that contrary to your apparent opinion, there is a world outside Wikipedia, which is capable of spreading news like wildfire.
Wikipedia may be your world, but don't let it go to your head. You are only one editor of many, with no more authority or relevance than I, and you have, by your actions, already discredited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.15.213 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Thanks for the kind advice you gave me about potentially becoming a Wikipedia editor. It's quite clear that becoming a Wikipedia editor is not as easy as it looks, but anything worth learning correctly takes time. I have reviewed the information you have forwarded to me, and plan to do so several more times to get a firm handle on what would be expected of me as well as digesting Wikipedia's rules and regulations. When I do take the step to sign up and join the Wikipedia community, I would appreciate it if I could query you from time to time on my work. It is clear that your work with Wikipedia is commendable, and that you are held in a high regard among other Wikipedia editors. Although it is not my place to judge, nor am I an Wikipedia editor, it would appear certain Wikipedia editors have gone off the reservation for lack of a better phrase. Thanks again for your assistance, and wish me luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.220.178 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, when you have signed up, you can put {{adoptme}} on your user page or talk page, and then someone will contact you to help you along. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
152.27.31.130
Hello,
I Decided when This IP [[2]] repeatedly vandalized Constitution of South Carolina, I went to his contributions and found that he had made many edits and almost all of them Were extremely Inappropriate, Including Talking Trash about Homosexuals. But I feel that I must bring up the question, Should I take this to Administrator intervention Over vandalism?
Hm, the previous vandalisms are old. It's possible that this was another person. Just increase warning levels each time they vandalise again. Beyond level 4, you can go wp:ANV. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I am Being Bold
I got the trout idea from another who was encouraging me to BE BOLD!!! No offense meant by this. Just Humor.
Hello! Your recent edit to "spacetime", removing the simple claim that space-time geodesics are shortest paths, is an improvement, but it is still incorrect. In the book by Berry you cite, he says geodesics in space (*i.e." a space with a positive definite metric, so not relevant to spacetime, but relevant to spacelike subspaces of it) are shortest paths and geodesics in spacetime are longest paths. The second claim is not unqualifiedly true. Only timelike paths are longest (maximum lapse of proper time between the events). Other geodesics of the spacetime metric (e.g., spacelike paths) are stationary but not extremal. I've added something to the talk page of the spacetime entry, as I do not wish to get involved in edit cycles of the main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.64.18 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 March 2014
Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
You're incorrect. I linked directly to the Swatch Internet Time page, which has all of the information necessary. Please revert your reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudgenet (talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Hi. Please note that Wikipedia is not a proper source—see wp:CIRCULAR. Besides, numbers are not directly related to this Swatch Internet Time, so linking to it would be wp:UNDUE. If you strongly feel differently about this, please take it to the talk page of the article to which you were trying to add the link. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice, and rewarding, even if the replies were—almost alarmingly—short. Yes, if only... but sometimes it does happen - DVdm (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
You removed my addition of the formula for time. The "Time" article did not have this formula. I did not site it because I thought this formula was a given. I tried not to speculate too much about the implications of this formula, but simply pointed out that it presents an argument from infinite regress. I did not cite this observation because I made the observation. I was hoping that others would add on to and clarify the mathematical formulations of time. This was intended to be a seed. Please replant it. If you are the first person with the skills necessary to nurture it, then have at it. If not, please leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwetherow (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Ah, if you are the subject of the article, then I understand the motivation behind your edit. I probably wouldn't want that kind of information in an article about myself either. If you would have provided an wp:edit summary, I might have overlooked the edit. I think the best thing to do, is to go to the talk page of the article and propose to remove that information. Don't forget to sign the message with the four tildes. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
hi
hello, you left msg on my talk page. I am new here. The page i nominated of SD has been deleted. Can you suggest me some usefull links for contribution? Bordan man (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I have put a welcome template on your user talk page. There you will find all you need to know—and much more. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You said about the Valeriy Sbitnev article, "per discussion, still not OK; it's not even a published, and not particularly relevant". It's not published and it will remain out. However, once it is published it will be back in as it is extremely relevant. As far as I am aware, Valeriy Sbitnev is the first to state in terms of wave-particle duality it is the aether which waves. He does this by figuring out "the oil in the bath plays a role of aether for the droplet that moves on this surface". Valeriy Sbitnev will be the first to publish an article stating de Broglie's hidden medium is the aether. In a double slit experiment, it is the aether which waves. Mpc755 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not say "per discussion, still not OK; it's not even a published, and not particularly relevant". User Dicklyon (talk·contribs) did ([3]). Again, adress the article issues on the article talk page, not here. - DVdm (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Correct height for two complete orbits each Sidereal day
Dear DVdm,
I made a correction today about the height of a satellite that need to cover the earth twice each sidereal day. The reference that you added "[64] Samama, Nel (2008). Global Positioning: Technologies and Performance. John Wiley & Sons. p. 65. ISBN0-470-24190-X., Extract of page 65" on page 65-66 says indeed that "The altitude of the satellites is around 20,200 km (with an orbital radius of approximitely 26,00 km), and the revolution period is 12h." However lets see what physics say about it.
The attractive force Fg=m g (R/r)^2 and the centrifugal force Fc = m r w^2. Furthermore, to keep the satellite in a stable circular orbit those two forces must be equal. Thus Fg=Fc. Doing the math you get the equation that gives the distance r of a satellite from the center of earth. So r=(g R^2 / (2 pi f)^2 )^ (1/3) where Acceleration of gravity: g=9.81 m/s^2 , Earth's radium: R=6,370 km and pi=3,14... What is missing is the satellite's spinning frequency f.
So If you want a satellite to pass twice (2) over each Earth's point with inclination 0 degrees (lets say over the equator), if Earth would not spin the satellite should spin 2 times in 24 hours thus the frequency would be f=2/24h=1/12h as stated in the book and in the wikipedia article. However earth is spinning. Thus the satellite would have to spin one more time to pass twice over each point of the earth twice in 24 hours. So the correct frequency is f=3/24h=1/8h=1/(8*3600) sec.
Doing the math you get r=(9.81 * 6,370,000^2/ (2 * Pi * (1/(8*3600)) )^2 )^(1/3)=20298 km from the center of the earth. If you deduct from this value the radius of the Earth then the altitude is of the satellite is h=(20298-6370) km = 13928 km.
If in the formula or r=(g R^2 / (2 pi f)^2 )^ (1/3) you put for the satellite frequency f=1/12h you will get what the authors of your reference are stating. An easy way to realize that this is wrong is to think: If earth is not moving the satellite would need to have a frequency of 1/12h to "scan" the earth twice, since earth is spinning the satellite would need to spin around the earth more than two times to "scan" the planet twice.
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Hi, Christostsiaras. Wikipedia is about about bringing what wp:reliable sources say, and our own wp:original research is strictly forbidden. I have restored—and explitly sourced—the original content ([6]). Whether I agree with the above or not, is entirely irrelevant for Wikipedia. If (and only if) you find a reliable source for your numbers, you can open a section on the article talk page (Talk:Global Positioning System) and propose to replace the current numbers—and their source—with the numbers—and their source— that you propose. Take some time to find out how Wikipedia works by following the links in the welcome message on your talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia World! - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok I hope that this is the right way to reply. If it is wrong I apologize. I understand your comment about a source but isn't a source if the mathematical calculation deliver the right numbers? I mean is science based on formulas and facts is not a debate. It is pretty strait forward what is the right number once you do the math following physics laws. I am not being ironic here but is like we need a source to state that 1+1=2. My correction was a valid numerical correction after doing the math. The way that I found this mistake is that we asked our students on a mobile communication's exercise course about this problem and someone replied that based on Wikipedia this is the right answer! It is not nice if a student find wrong information in wikipedia. The reason of asking for a source on such mistakes, which you might know that is not possible to find it since someone should write a new book, is what makes wikipedia an unreliable "source" itself. Christostsiaras (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is (almost) the right way to reply. I just have added some colons to indent your message .
Mathematical calculations are ok in the most trivial cases only. See wp:CALC. Something like 1+1=2 would be OK. Or, if a source would say that there are at least 52 weeks of 7 days in a year, then per wp:CALC we can write that there are at least 364 days in a year. Now, please do read the entire policy article wp:No original research. What you propose here is a schoolbook example of original research. We really need a solid source for such calculations. That's how it goes here. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well is not a school book example, the formulas that I provided are on a University-level book (c.f. my ref in the initial message on your talk) with the right formulas. Those formulas needed here are Newton's law for circle motion, is not rocket science, is really fundamental knowledge. So since I cannot find a book with the correct calculation, would it make any sense to update the post and also provide all the calculations starting from Newton's law which is undebatable and generate the correct numerical value?Christostsiaras (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't make sense either. See also wp:SYNTH, in the same policy article. If your numbers are correct, then surely you will be able to find a solid source—see wp:BURDEN. Trust me, what you have in mind is indeed a schoolbook example of wp:OR. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
We need your help testing latest huggle
Hello,
I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!
Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i
mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Effect on biological systems of heavy water
Dear DVdm, the text which I canceled is without reliable sources with impact factor. There is additional information in Deuterium-depleted water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium-depleted_water
For this text have not reliable sources. It can be removed. Which is "Institute for the Biology of Ageing, located in Moscow"? "It has been proposed that low doses of heavy water can slow the aging process by helping the body resist oxidative damage via the kinetic isotope effect[clarification needed].[27] A team at the Institute for the Biology of Ageing, located in Moscow, conducted an experiment to determine the effect of heavy water on longevity using fruit flies and found that while large amounts were deadly, smaller quantities increased lifespans by up to 30%.[28][clarification needed]"
--Analiticus (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You wrote: "3600 hits for "FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction", 26000 hits for "Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction". Let's keep the original".
But the original name in science and known in society is the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction.
A quick searce throws up a paper from 1941, in the prestigious American Physical Society, 73 years ago, with the name "FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction", see http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.13.197
for "Relativity, the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction, and Quantum Theory",
in Rev. Mod. Phys. 13, 197 – Published 1 July 1941.
And another in 1920, 94 years ago, from a significant scientist's letter in 'Nature':
"Nature 105, 200-200 (15 April 1920) | doi:10.1038/105200a0
The FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction Theory
and two recent academic articles:
1.University of Oxford's Harvey R Brown with a 2001 paper:
"The origins of length contraction: I. The FitzGerald-Lorentz deformation hypothesis"
See http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0104/0104032.pdf
2. University of Cambridge's Andrew Warwick with a 1991 paper:
"On the role of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis in the development of Joseph Larmor's electronic theory of matter" in http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00375830#
So the correct and historic name should not be changed to suit something to do with Goodle-search statistics. It was known by this name before Google was invented. Google and Wikipedia are there to help us learn about the world, they are not supposed to change things like the name of FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. And anyway, Google will still find it under the correct name (FitzGerald-Lorentz), and the statistics will catch up.
(outside opinion) I'm afraid your argument based on the papers cited would be WP:SYNTHESIS. More importantly, the relevant policy states that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". Extending the search engine test a little, I got:
And that's Google scholar. Yes, Donn300, I guess we better keep the status-quo. By the way, re your remark "It was known by this name before Google was invented", Google books produces books that were written before Google was invented. This one dates 1984, and this one is 1968. Check it out with Google books L-FG c versus Google books FG-L c. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Minkowski and use of matrices etc
Thank you for your note. Minkowski's use of matrices occurs throughout his 1908 paper "Grundgleichungen ..." so just a reference to the paper should be enough but I have added the detailed reference you requested. I was going to add a reference for Varicak but you were so quick to delete I had no time to do so! Varicak interpreted the Lorentz transformation as a translation motion in hyperbolic space and I think this is its correct interpretation (though ignored by everyone). The interpretation you prefer as a "hyperbolic rotation" is very strange apart from being almost unintelligible. It looks like a special invention of the quoted authors ("original research") and we are required by Wikipedia rules to avoid such interpretations. JFB80 (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi JFB80, thanks for having found a source. Meanwhile user D.H has made a little change. Looks very good to me. By the way, "hyperbolic rotation" is not so much my preference. It's pretty common in the literature. Further discussion should of course go the article talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The original reference evidently confused "Feinstein" with "Silberstein" (1914), p. 143. Whatever, I replaced this reference by a more modern one, namely Walter (1999). --D.H (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Eric Clapton
Hi.
I have recently added a little to the School life of Eric Clapton in the Wikipedia section under his name.
All of the information is taken from School Magazines, named "Hollyfield" and School Prize giving pamphlets issued to all prize winners. these documents I have in my possession. (I also attended the same school at the same time).
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.DParlevliet (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Note - I have moved the above message from my user page to here. Meanwhile, I think the problem is solved. I will go and have a look at the entry. - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'm Mongolian man. And about the word Mongoloid, it's true that this word used as Dawn syndrom or idiot in 19th, 20th century. But from 1996 years this word stopped meaning Dawn syndrom and idiot, ok? My country Mongolia is great country with great history. So please stop using word mongoloid as dawn syndrom or idiot.Batka83 (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Blanking pages and removing content is not the way to go. You will have to take this to the article talk pages and discuss with the other contributors. - DVdm (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I will report you as vandalism. Because I explained to you many times that word "Mongoloid" had been stopped as meaning Down syndrome or idiot since 1996! You are outraging whole country Mongolia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batka83 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I epxlained many times that indeed it has stopped meaning Down syndrome since even long before 1996. That is exactly what is explained in the articles. Have you read the articles? By the way, I already have reported you for adding unsourced content after your final warning. - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I AM SORRY
I accept the reasons why you are giving me speedy deletions,i didnt know that by deleting the notices i would get in trouble i did not realise that,sorry...
Lschof4 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but note that the tagged article clearly says:
If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.
Thanks for letting me know about the deletion of my addition to the Spaghettification article. The event horizon at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is a mathematical structure, not a physical one, and applies only to ballistic trajectories. For supermassive black holes where the tidal forces at the Schwarzschild radius are negligible, it is entirely possible for a spacecraft to cross back and forth over the event horizon if it has a source of thrust greater than the local gravitational gradient.
Of course, you'd need a torchship to entirely leave the Hill sphere of a supermassive black hole. But generally speaking, the "unless you have a source of thrust" disclaimer is applicable to any discussion of ballistic trajectories.
Hi DVdm, thanks for leaving me a message regarding to my edit at Eric Clapton biography, even though your message is not a fun thing for me. But thank you.
If you don't mind, Please look at this list List of best-selling music artists, this list is build by Harout72 and me to show the worldwide audience who's the real best-selling artist.
and Eric Clapton is supposed to be one of the artists on the list, because his certifcation sales more than enough for him to gain the 100m-sales claim.
Harout72 and me, are working so hard to get the source for Eric Clapton's 100m-claim
look at the statement inside, (1963 Eric Clapton began his exemplary career as a singer with The Yardbirds . This was followed by sensational performances with countless bands , well over 100 million albums sold and sold out shows around the world)
and Vienna-Concert.com is a quite reliable source, because not made by a bunch of fans or something but by a company.
Hi there. As the source has no author, and just about any employee of the Wiener Stadthalle could have written this, it does not look sufficiently reliable, specially for a wp:BLP. If Clapton has indeed sold over a 100 million albums, then a proper source should be easy to find. Otherwise we'll have to stick to the sales numbers that already are mentioned (and sourced) in the article. Good hunting! - DVdm (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
If you open the link, it is said on the short summary that:
Eric Clapton has sold tens of millions of records, played sell-out concerts all over the world and been central to every significant musical development of his era sold tens of million of records, could be considered as sold 100 million records.
Like you said, the previous source which is given by me before is not reliable. But this time, that claim source came from a very famous author of biography. Which is reliable enough, right?.
I will put the 100m-records with that source in Eric Clapton Wikibiography, and if you still feel that source un-reliable. Please reverted it again.
No, definitely not. It says "tens of millions of records. That is not "100 million", not even close. It could be 60 or 70 or 80 or 90, but not 100. - DVdm (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for bringing your warning for me to your talk page.
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Eric Clapton. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 14 May 201
DVDdm, take it easy please. I'm not doing a vandalism to Clapton's biography. I just try to do my best for bringing a good source for Clapton's claim sales, and he deserved it.
Okay then, please...I need your permission, if you not agree with the 100m-thing, what if i just bring the statement:
Eric Clapton has sold tens of millions of records, played sell-out concerts all over the world and been central to every significant musical development of his era. in his wikibiography using that Sykes's written?
You don't need my permission for this. You just need to comply with Wikipedia's policies about verifiability—see wp:Reliable sources. This statement seems to be adequetely backed by the source, so go ahead, no problem. - DVdm (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course I need your permission, well at least your advice and opinion, i've seen that you've been around 9 years in wikipedia, that's make you one of the most expert editor here. While I still a newbie (joined as editor since November 2012), that's why sometimes i'm still could not separate which one reliable and which one is un-reliable.
Okay then, i will put that statement at Clapton's biography and if you still feel that's statement not reliable enough to be continue as Clapton's biography source, please reverted it but please do not block my IP Wikieditor... thanks Politsi (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good now, although it might me a good idea to change the wording a bit. The sentence is now an exact copy of the text in the source, and that could induce a copyright problem. Try paraphrasing it a bit. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay then, i give up. I will wait and hope until another much more reliable source (from famous Newspaper) will release Clapton's claim sales, because Harout72 and me already calculated Clapton's certification sales and he has almost 63 million (even could support him a 150m-sales claim). Thanks again Politsi (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus for your proposed change. It has been reverted 3 times. Please go the article talk page for this. - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Love that Limerick! IIRC it was in George Gamov's marvelous little book "1, 2, 3 to infinity". Right? I read it when I was 15, my first book in English. Ever since then I have re-read it perhaps four times. One of the best books ever—ever. Wow! - DVdm (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Found it on Google. I have the 8th printing of the 1947 Mentor edition, but recently also bought this Dover edition:
Check it out, specially Gamov's own illustrations. Even if you "already know it all", a must have. - DVdm (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Web integrated development environment :: External link removal
Hello DVdm, thanks for your inputs on the external link. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and would welcome any/all inputs to enable me to contribute in an helpful way to the wiki community. I will try to get appropriate encyclopedic links to substantiate the information that I put up. - JayanthSrinivas (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--JOJHutton23:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:List of best-selling music artists, you may be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk)
Thanks for remind me but i still don't get it. Which one of disruptive editing done by me?. Please, where and which?. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm asking.. Are you the one who's deleted my edit regarding with Bruno Mars at at Talk:List of best-selling music artists? Please... I need to know if you feel have a problem with me. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was reverted by you. I thought he made the edit again, so I accidentally reverted an acceptable edit and gave another warning, for which my apologies. Please don't strike. - DVdm (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
To DVdm It's okay, in fact. Thanks for remind me. I like it, and about Talk2Me, he just a little bit angry on me because i'm right and he's wrong regarding with Mariah Carey's inflated sales. Politsi (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
about the warning
Dear DVdm, you warned me about spamming of functionspace. However, I found those links really insightful and added genuinely. If you think I should not add them, it's okay. I won't add. But those have a lot of conceptual discussions. That's why I was a bit obsessed with them and wanted to share them with everybody. I apologize for the trouble caused. If it's not appropriate, I'll immediately stop doing it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuruMuthal (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Thank you. I am not very familiar for editing techniques. But I appreciate your constructive comment and now I have added references in 'Time'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.193.164 (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a section header for new talk page messages, and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Hello DVdm. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Grange Mutual Casualty Company, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The similar page mentioned, Grange insurance, has been deleted at the author's request. I would suggest a history merge. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs)13:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I gave the final warning for this edit, for which anon 175.38.130.83 (talk·contribs) was already finally warned. I assumed you had made their vandalising edits anonymously, and to avoid being reported, continued with an infrequently used username. If your edit was indeed a mistake, then so was mine. I have removed the warning from your talk page. Sorry and cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Pink Floyd edits
Please don't describe good-faith edits, however poor, as "vandalism", as you did at User talk:78.90.232.207. Please also be more welcoming of new/IP editors who are attempting to build Wikipedia. Consider how you were treated, when you first arrived here, and the effect your comments may have on the likelihood of an editor becoming a long-term, valued contributor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but continuing to add unsourced information when every warning given (see User talk:78.90.232.207) is flatly ignored, is usually interpreted as vandalism, as you can see in the block message. The first 3 messages did not refer to vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, when issuing a 4th level warning for addition of unsourced content, Huggle uses a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning instead of an {{uw-unsourced4}}. If that is no longer the case, then I might have misclicked, for which my apologies.
I'm definitely going to keep a close eye on this in my next Huggle sessions. If this is indeed part of Huggle's behaviour, then perhaps something should be done about it. I'll keep you posted. - DVdm (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Using the Huggle function "Failing to cite a reliable source", I reverted an unsourced edit: [12]. Automatic edit summary: "Reverted edits by 85.31.138.206 (talk): addition of unsourced content (HG)"
This also resulted in a final talk page warning [13]: "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit". As you see, Huggle used a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning instead of an {{uw-unsourced4}}.
Using the same function I then reverted his next unsourced edit: [14]. Automatic edit summary again: "Reverted edits by 85.31.138.206 (talk): addition of unsourced content (HG)",
I did not misclick. This seems to be the standard way Huggle deals with persistent addition of unsourced content. I must say, I have seen this hundreds of times. This is not new to me.
Perhaps. By the time you get to a level 4 warning it's pretty much of a muchness anyway. In this case, it would have been handy to have {{uw-genre1}} and its brethren available, since that would have been a more accurate warning template. Yunshui雲水12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's true for the latter example, but not for the former where no other template than the {{uw-unsourced}} series would be appropriate. It still seems to be baked in that persistent addition of unsourced content and ignoring all warnings is de-facto seen as vandalism. I have had hundreds of such cases and each time they were indeed blocked after being reported for vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editing of this sort genuinely isn't vandalism (Andy's right, WP:VAND specifically excludes this kind of thing), but with IPs, the block messages tend to be fairly non-specific ("abuse of editing privileges" is the wording used on the anonblock template, IIRC), which gives a fair amount of leeway for an admin needing to block a particular IP. Even if the edits aren't technically vandalism, but a block is still warranted for disruption, trolling, refusal to get the point etc., you'll generally see the same block message. Yunshui雲水12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Most reports at AIV claim "vandalism". It's up to the admin to view the edits and see what has gone on. We don't have an "unsourced content" block in the "common block reasons". If it's not real vandalism, I tend to use "disruptive editing" and a plain Twinkle block template - if the warnings above that show the cause of the disruption. If the warnings are varied, I might add an "repeated addition of unsourced data" to the block message. Ronhjones (Talk)20:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed that. I asked for a comment, because sometimes I feel a bit uncomfortable having reverted for "blatant unsourcedness" and then, as happened here, getting a complaint about the reverted edits "not really being vandalism". Afterall, the revert tool reverts with an edit symmary about unsourced, but then creates a final user warning about vandalism ({{uw-vandalism4}}), not even mentioning unsourced, even when there's a perfect 4th level warning for unsourced ({{uw-unsourced4}}) available. Odd, to say the least. - DVdm (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Paleontological Specimen Location Question
I can adjust the captions on the images I inserted yesterday Wiki-linking to the Triebold Paleontology Incorporated article to meet the guidelines. I can understand how reference to a specimen's distributor probably is not the most non-commercial means to cite a source. I see that you also took issue with including in some captions Wiki-links to the museum the specimens the in the images are exhibited in. From what I could tell, this was not an uncommon practice. Do I also need to remove those Wiki-links from the captions? Please advise. My apologies for instigating any commotion.
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Herbert E. Ives, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)}}
Herbert E. Ives is (was) my grandfather and I knew both him and his wife and their three children, one of whom was my mother, and the other two were my uncles. Now all deceased. I do not know who could be more authoritative on this matter than I am. In fact, I wonder how whoever originally wrote this article ever though there was a Herbert Eugene Ives, Jr.
To tell the truth, the removal of edit on the article Time is actually not nesscary because one year is 365.25 days and the saying about the leap year is actually incorrect. The reason that people say that leap years exist is becuase they did not count the extra 6 hours at the end of the year. Because of this, the errors that you removed will be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.y.ma (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
To claim that a year lasts 365 days and there are leap years, you have to prove that it only lasts 365 days and leap years exist. To view the evidence that a year actually lasts 365.25 days, click HERE. Also, I have put a discussion on the talk page of the article Time, so if you have any comments, post it there. If you oppose, post the evidence there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.y.ma (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not trying to be mean, but why do you keep deleting my references on these pages: MassWeightSpeed? Also, when I said "it", I made a mistake and should've put the name of the physical quantity there. Thanks! Note:I am about 3 months new into editing on Wikipedia. I've edited and created pages before, but wanted to reference some things I saw in a book. Thelogoontherun (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I found the additions irrelevant. In the case of Weight you merely repeated the opening sentence. If you would like to discuss this further, you can go to the article talk pages and propose the additions—see wp:BRD. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Your edits to Mass didn't make much sense to me either. As I said (and see wp:BRD), the article talk page is probably the best place to propose that change to the article. - DVdm (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo some of your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! 71.82.112.140 (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the unreliably sourced content again and warned you on your talk page. If you feel strong about it, then, per wp:BRD, propose the addition on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the reason that I made that edit is because that my understanding about a common year is the actual length of the year, which is 365.25 days, which is also the length of a Julian year. But to most people, a common year is 365 days, which is the actual year simplified. Gerry.y.ma (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I suspected that this is your understanding, but Wikipedia doesn't care much about our personal understandings . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I had removed a link to article Troll Face (meme) from the article Troll (Internet) when that article got deleted—in fact, I had waited for the deletion. However, I accidentally also removed the appearance of the image from the article. User McGeddonrestored that, and I did not object, because as far as I'm concerned it can stay in the article as long as the image survives. I'm not sure either, but I don't particulary care either way, i.e. keep or delete. - DVdm (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's at FFD if you're still interested. I really don't care enough to wade too deeply into NFC-land, figured others who really do know would sort it soon enough. DMacks (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon
Hi DVdm, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members). It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting http://tools.wmflabs.org/huggle/files/huggle3.1.0beta.exe and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggleconnect!
Major changes:
Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
Right, I don't own your talk page. Remove all you want from it, but do not change my comments on it as you did here, here, and here again. You are also advised not to call a request not to change other people's comment disruptive, as you did here. . - DVdm (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not change your comments. That first link is an addendum, not a change, the second is part one of a two-part undo process (I do not have rollback privileges), and the third is the same as the first. Advise me all you want. If I consider something disruptive, I will call it disruptive. Muffinator (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The section title is part of the comment. I find your change repulsive. What would you say if I would change the title of this section here to "Please stop being an asshole"? Please undo this change. - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would say the sentiment is very strong and a little uncivil. It may be confusing if a third-party is called upon to review the content, in which case the fact of which editor added "please stop" and which one added "being an asshole" would need to be clarified.Muffinator (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, that is exactly what I think of your change to the title of my comment. You changed a neutral request into an extremely uncivil one. I would never open a section to another user's talk page asking "We're Disputing Content On Talk Pages Now? Are You Kidding Me?". So again, please undo that. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes it was by mistake, I was trying to clear my sandbox where I had created the article and I had the wrong tab on! :D Thank you for restoring it - I got scared for a moment! :D --Cmagnet (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
How is the permutation is more related to variation (in math) than the variation itself, [16]? Who told you if you know the correct place to put comment you should revert? Is it personal attack or mere vandalism? If you do not want to contribute to wikipedia just go away. Do not revert the connections that other people do. Why does everybody considers Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary rule as the one which needs to be violated? Does it makes you the owner of wikipedia when others turn away? --Javalenok (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Discuss what? I see that the place to place the comments was already decided, as well as variations have noting to do with variations, as opposed by permutation. The fact that this question is solved and there is nothing to discuss is your behaviour to revert without discussing anything. Do you expect that here are idiots around that you can scorn them as you like? --Javalenok (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you might have a problem expressing yourself in English. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps someone else understands what you have in mind. Please go to the article talk page to discuss article changes that you might have in mind. - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I blocked the account for 24 hours and I'm thinking about revoking talk page access since they seem to have moved there. You seem to be keeping up with this user, so if you think further admin action is needed, ping me and I'll see what I can do. Hopefully the user got the hint! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Nicely done on the House of Cards revision of edits. You actually surprised me because when I read your message I thought "What? I don't recall editing House of Cards..." Then I saw I was logged out of my account and just happened to be the current holder of the IP address the poster had been using. DavisGL (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It's odd that you told me I should cite a source for saying that 0 is equivalent to 11 p.m. UTC in Swatch Internet Time, when I linked directly to the Swatch Internet Time page which says so. OK, sure, it doesn't contain the result of the calculation, but it's simple math. I shouldn't provide a citation that 1+1=2, if the rules for addition are provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudgenet (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Frankly
Hello there.
Just wanted to mention that the Zappa edit (apart from simplifying the "On commenting on" [which seems clunky] to "Commenting on") was intended to give a balanced view to the Barry Miles and David Walley points, in which they reference Frank's own mythologising of his music, and fall into the realm of 'fandom'.
I'll try to dig up a reference next time I wade in.
Hallo DVdm,
thanks for your revert on the Ottoman Empire page yesterday. In your comment you got the point: it is a problem of RS. In the article there are three sources which state the the Empire was born in 1453. I am not against reconsidering the birth date of the empire, but this should be supported by solid sources. A discussion thread was opened here, but unfortunately the edit war is continuing. If people don`t agree to discuss and look for sources, and don`t comply with WP:BRD, at the next revert I will be forced to open an incident. In this case, my I cite your revert? Thanks again, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro57 (talk • contribs) 22 November 2014 9:38 (UTC)
Thanks! As you know, an incident has nothing to do with a subject, but is a problem concerning an user`s behavior with respect to Wikipedia policies. Alex2006 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
I haven't made any threats. I gave you one warning about adding unsourced content and then kindly asked you not to change other people's comments on talk pages. Please follow the links in the warnings to learn about how Wikipedia works. Cheers and good luck! - DVdm (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"However the total energy of an isolated system, i.e. one in which energy can neither enter nor leave, does not change in whatever reference frame it is measured..........But the total energy of the system, including kinetic energy, fuel chemical energy, heat, etc., is conserved over time, regardless of the choice of reference frame. Different observers moving with different reference frames disagree on the value of this conserved energy."
Appear contradictory. Perhaps I misunderstood something here? It is not clear what the meaning is.
If the total energy of an isolated system does not change in whatever reference frame it is measured (1st sentence), how can different observers in different frames disagree on this conserved energy(last sentence)?
Conservation means that it does not change in time. That means that in any reference frame the total energy of the system remains constant. But that contant differs from frame to frame. Consider the total energy E_obj_before of a flying canon shell in its own frame, versus its enery E_gnd_before in the frame of the ground. At a moment in time the shell explodes. Consider the total enery E_obj_after of all the fragments after the explosion in the original shell frame, versus the total energy E_gnd_after in the frame of the ground. Then by conservation of energy we have
E_obj_before = E_obj_after and E_gnd_before = E_gnd_after,
but clearly
E_obj_before # E_gnd_before and E_obj_after # E_gnd_after.
In words, the total energy does not change in whatever reference frame it is measured, but the reference frames disagree on the value of this conserved energy. - DVdm (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes it crystal clear. But I feel the way it is put in the article is rather ambiguous and could be improved. Perhaps it could be made a little better thus:
"However the total energy of an isolated system, i.e. one in which energy can neither enter nor leave, does not change over time in a (particular|given) reference frame it is measured..........But the total energy of the system, including kinetic energy, fuel chemical energy, heat, etc., is conserved over time, regardless of the choice of reference frame. Different observers moving with different reference frames would however disagree on the value of this conserved energy."Drnoone (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my edit and sorry to put you to the trouble. I was discussing with my physics class that the common impression that "Wikipedia is unreliable" underestimates the reliability of Wikipedia (certainly in the well-trodden areas) and overestimates the reliability of everything else. I said, offhand, that if you try changing the laws of physics for example, they will be reverted extremely quickly. They challenged me to prove this to them and, as it's Christmas, I indulged them. You were the unfortunate person whose time we've taken up, but thank you for helping me teach my class a lesson.
paddler (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. Note that Pokemon related articles probably are even more quickly restored to accuracy than physics related articles - Cheers and MC! - DVdm (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Shawn Drover uses triggers
You may not like it or agree with it but the fact is Shawn Drover used triggers and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and hush this information up even if you are a fan of Shawn's it is no shame for a drummer to use triggers in fact almost all of them trigger their drums nowadays it's a sad fact of modern music but there's no reason to try and hide it. As it happens I am a big fan of Shawn Drover too in spite of it. 77.98.189.103 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
If you have no idea who or what I am talking about then I suggest you do not take it upon yourself to revert edits regarding them and proclaim them vandalism! 77.98.189.103 (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You can do what you like; it will make you look all the more foolish to keep proclaiming authority on a subject which you admitted to know not a jot about! 77.98.189.103 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't proclaim authority on any subject. I do have some experience on Wikipedia policies, so I clean up some mess and issue some warnings. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
