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.
Dear DVdm, I suggest you google:TED removes TEDxWestHollywood license: ideas that have 'failed to gain scientific acceptance'. 1 April 2013, There is more information on Targ's TEDTalks available here. Miistermagico (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miistermagico (talk • contribs)
Hi DVdm. You are of course right. While reading "centripetal force" I thought "centrifugal force", because it was the page I meant to visit. Sorry about this basic and shameful mistake, and thanks for catching it!
--Pamdeur (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Have nothing to add. Just wanted to make a reference to a trajectory on a planet being a simplification of a planetary orbit. If you throw a stone it is in a perfect orbit until the two objects make physical contact. Claiming it is a parabola without mentioning it is due to simplification makes people think earth is flat and forget being on the outside of a sphere and the stone thrown is traveling in space.
Radial_trajectory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.24.29 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello DVdm,
News
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
There is a user that post at the ip 213.48.224.56 that keeps on deleting sourced material on that page. He has for four times deleted material that had previous been sourced. Can you help out? Barrydjgummy (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Your article about gravity is slowly getting more even handed but still lags real time. It is a fact that 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 You profess 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. Bengt Nyman (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
A good and honest user does not show his authority over other users. You may be blocked permanently by me or by others in the future for doing so. Somebody356 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a question about the Endgame
We should not spoil the Endgame It should be a suspense
It right
Then give me your answer sincerely what's your opinion Rdjmcu (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rdjmcu: our opinons are of no importance. Wikipedia's content guideline about spoilers is here: wp:SPOIL: "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." - DVdm (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The content is properly sourced and seems relevant to other contributors. You must go to the article talk page and discuss with them. Otherwise you will get blocked. Do not forget to sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
sourced or not its against the rules you don't see that kind of personal or legal information publicly posted. 15:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Acurate1 (talk)
The idea is that you talk about it on the article talk page to find out who disagrees. See the rules about wp:edit warring and wp:CONSENSUS. Calling content that you happen to dislike "contentious, false, libelous or defamatory" in an edit summary, or here on my talk page is not sufficient. You can and must make your case on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no personal opinion about the content. You have put a message on Talk:Ilias Kasidiaris. Excellent. Now you'll have to wait for the other contributors to respond and see what happens. If nobody replies within, let's say, two days, you can remove the content, but do make sure that you mention the article talk page in your edit summary. Example: "Removed defamatory content, see talk page." Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
When you reverted this edit, you said it was a removal of unsourced content. That content had an inappropriate tone, yes, and I'd be willing to grant that there was excessive synthesis, but it certainly wasn't unsourced. Please be more careful in your edit summaries. DS (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven:: Hi Dragon. Have a look at the statement in that edit: "One has to wonder if they've seen all of the aforementioned evidence", and then check the cited source [3]. The statement is nowhere near in that source, so the statement was effectively unsourced. - DVdm (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on your user page,(struck—see below)User talk:Certificatessuccess, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GirthSummit (blether)11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. For the record, that was not my userpage as the above template seems to suggest. It was someone's user talk page, that I had created in order to warn them about their inappropriate promotional edits. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! This is Shuchong. About the mistake on page Minkowski diagram I recently edited, I believe I am right.
First, a few sentences after the formula
\tan(\alpha)=\frac{1}{\beta}, there is a contradicting statement, “This implies that the slope of x′ is \frac {\Delta ct}{\Delta x}}=\beta =\tan(\alpha)”. I believe the first one is a typo. This is a really simple conclusion in any textbook on relativity. But currently I am looking for a proper citation instead of textbook to make my edit more convincing.
Second, I found out that on the same page in every other language, the formula is \tan(\alpha)=\beta. The english page is the only one where the formula is \tan(\alpha)=\frac{1}{\beta}. I believe the English version is wrong.
Hello! I made the edits yesterday to the page on the name Adel because it had a lot of unnecessary information (for example, 20 different pronunciation playbacks) and also included false etymology, with a incorrect list of people bearing the name. The European/Germanic name "Adel" is not related to the Arabic name "Adil/Adel" (as the page for "Adil" itself notes) or the Hebrew name "Adiel." I wanted to remove the incorrect information and examples, as well as the superfluous pronunciation guides.
Thanks for your note about leaving an edit summary. I thought I had left a clear enough one, but I haven't been doing this for very long so I'm still learning what the conventions are. 50.255.144.29 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it's best to open a little section on the article talk page first, and see what the other contributors think about removing that content. If nobody replies within a few days or so, you can probably go ahead and remove the content. Cheers and good luck! - DVdm (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU16:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Satwik76875, please start by reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines and editing practices. Thus far, you have only added unsourced commentary and forum links, neither of which is acceptable. You may start at WP:TUTORIAL. Lordtobi (✉) 18:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Help
Hi again, I need your help. Could you please give me the exact steps on how to permanently remove my Wikipedia account/profile or tell me where I can find out? Repent.The End is Near (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi DVdm. Thanks for the deletion, at Ischia, of something that seems to be hardly relevant. As I tried to suggest in my edit summary, I was assuming it was ""Salvatore the Fisherman", July 1924, in Cosmopolitan" listed at List of works by W. Somerset Maugham. Your own edit summary comment seems to suggest that "Salvatore" is missing from, or may be mis-titled at, that article? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Martinevans123: I have here Maugham's "Collected Short stories", four volumes, Pengun Books. In vol 4 (ISBN 0-14-001874-3) there's one short story, "Salvatore", that just has that line about looking at the island. I don't know about Cosmopolitan, perhaps they had it with another title. In the story, Salvatore is a fisherman indeed, but the Penguin collection title is just "Salvatore". I don't think it's all that important, but I do think that mentioning it in the Ischia article is a bit undue. Feel free to amend the Maugham list article, or just add a little note about the Penguin edition . Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for peacefully giving your reason for removing the edit. My issue with this is that calling intelligent design is a prejudiced point of view & I will explain why. The best way to determine if a science based statement or theory is correct, is that the one who verifies it must look at it objectively if there isn't evidence for or against it when investigating. To put it into perspective, think of belief as a scale of 1 - 11. On (11) you have the side that has concrete evidence and on (1) you have faith. When one does research they must see to it that they are open to either side of the argument that has proof & presents all findings on (6) level so that others may interpret it for themselves.This (6), in terms of theistic belief, would be agnosticism because unlike atheism (11) it does not assert that there is no God, it does not assert that there is & it also doesn't call the argument of intelligent design an "illusion" (11). You seem like a reasonable person & I'm sure you understand my concerns. I didn't come to represent a religion but I almost became an atheist until I looked for convincing scientific evidence for the existence of God & now I am a theist because I put my religious belief on the line by searching for scientific evidence. Multiple modern non-religious scientists state that Evolution is unscientific, in fact, Charles Darwin himself never claimed it to be true. He only formulated this theory & gave his own reasons for it. I will no longer make any edits on this subject before consulting other users but I ask that you & other users revert to (6) at least & be open to new findings as this is what science is, a self correcting system. PLEASE consider this. Repent.The End is Near (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I too would have removed the scare-quotes from illusion because the relevant question, in context, is not whether Intelligent Design is an illusion or not but whether or not it's accurate to say that Dawkins called it one. —Tamfang (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
i see your message
i see your message regarding specific relativity. article is not self-promotion but belief that the synoptic nature of the article would be interesting and helpful to anyone looking at this topic page. I can eliminate the reference to the author, which makes it seem self promotional. looking for your comment.Catalog1 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
@DVdm: Yes this article was published in established literature: Journal of Applied Mechanics. It is not original research but is a secondary source condensing and commenting on Einstein's Theory and Lorentz' work. The article includes references and publication detail. Do you need further information before I request to post this article?Catalog1 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
With this edit you tried to add an external link to someone's work—yours, of from someone with whom you are affiliated in some way? Anyway, Wikipedia is not the place for that—see pointers to various articles regarding our relevant policies and guidelines in the message on your user talk page. Specially wp:ELNO. Further information is unlikely to make the link appropriate. You can always propose on the article talk page to include it, but the chances are very small that the link will be accepted, and I think it will turn out to be a waste of your and the community's time. As you can see, in the mean time two three editors have edited the article, and they are likely to have seen your edit and to have approved my revert. - DVdm (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello DVdm,
WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors.
The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
current image is incorrect and poor. The subject is complex and requires a detailed image. please change it back. The old image has cosine labled wrong.
Apeiron is a reliable source. So is Stowe. To see them as unreliable is a subjective view based entirely on orthodoxy. And there is no OR. The conclusions are from Van Flandern, not from me. Also, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have truly unreliable sources and OR and that are entirely biased and there are no reverts for them and not even any disclaimers. In fact, this article is biased and without any disclaimers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt. Ciel (talk • contribs) 15:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
@Capt. Ciel: note that Wikipedia is actually about scientific orthodoxy — see wp:FRINGE and wp:DUE. Best practice (see wp:BRD) is to open a little section on the article talk page and discuss with the other editors of the article. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
It's the edit you reverted and I was logged in, but I found it. There was definitely NO OR in it. Also, I think you know putting it in the Talk page won't do any good (altho I might try it anyways) because the system is rigged--most or all of the administrators are orthodoxers. And it makes artificial and arbitrary rules in favour of supposition-based orthodoxy, like orthodox science does, to exclude enlightened and progressive dissidents, who are based on empirical evidence. Capt. Ciel (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dvdm, I feel confused when I get a message from you on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.78.116.212 because of an act of vandalism, because I never edited the article and never even opened it, but I found that the vandalism was written from my ip. The ip address was only used by my family, and I did not get a history from my family device that showed the existence of such vandalism. So what really happened to my IP address that was registered on Wikipedia? can give me any solutions?
I have created a Wikipedia account. btw, sorry for my bad english, I'm not native and i new in wikipedia editing.
Risesia (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not very sure whether you have added on my talk page as a administrator. I agree that we can discuss anything on my talk page, but I am not comfortable with on my talk page, if you are adding to my page, not as an administrative role. Could you please help to remove on my discussion page? Of course, we could continue our discussion, if there is anything we need to talk about. Thanks for your consideration.
Since you are an experienced user, could you please let me know who can decide when edit(s) are disruptive? Any users? Or administrators only? Thanks for your time :).
@Harry Princeton: The warning icons come with standard warning templates. First level user warning has a . Second level warning has a . Third level warning has a . Fourth level—final—warning has a . After that someone might report you at some noticeboard, and one or more administrators might decide to block you for some time.
I already told you that you can remove almost any comment from your talk page in the comment that you removed with this edit, and that you said that you "don't need". See some guidelines about what you can do on your user talk page at wp:OWNTALK and wp:REMOVED, and, again, at wp:TALKO.
If you like to add some content to an article that gets reverted by users, and they tell you that it is unsourced or original research, then the place to go, is the article talk page. Before you go there, make sure that you have a source to supoort the content, and be aware that your own proofs are not accepted. You tried to enter original research, as outlined in the policy wp:NOR, and there is no such thing on Wikipedia as "synthetic research". Your proofs can be correct, but they do not count as wp:reliable sources. See, again wp:verifiability, wp:CALC, and wp:BURDEN, to which I pointed in the message that you removed on your talk page. If your proofs are not present in the literature, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, assumes that they are not worth being mentioned. That is by design—see wp:Five pillars.
In case of disputes, we have wp:dispute resolution. Be aware that administrators tend not to intervene with administratve tasks in content disputes, but they will do so where there are behavioural problems. Try to avoid those.
After having exhausted the first step of dispute resolution (article talk page discussion), as a second step, you could try the wp:No original research/Noticeboard, but don't forget to carefully read and follow the instructions before you do so. - DVdm (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Harry Princeton: Another thing about talk pages: with this edit you just changed a message of yours to which I already had replied. Please do not do that. The reason is explained in wp:REDACT, which is, again, part of the wp:talk page guidelines. Your PPS has a better place immediately under my response. You also forgot to sign. Please take some time to carefully read the talk page guidelines and preferably also the recommendations at Help:Talk pages. Thanks. And, yes, there is a lot to learn here at Wikipedia... - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. It was particularly heartening tjat editors like yourself continued to support even when the RfA went west. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
You recently reverted a change to the "Normal Number" page on wikipedia and cited this IP: 132.62.88.128 (for the record, I personally have never been to that page, nor made changes to it).
While 132.62.x.x is the IP space for Kirtland AFB (publicly available information), this IP is not tied to an end user machine, and is instead a network level device on Kirtland AFB - hence, everyone on Kirtland who reaches the internet through that device (likely everybody, I would have to check with the NCC as to what device it specifically is, but I presume it is the border router that is NATing for the base, since my specific computer has a 129.238.x.x IP that is specific to my organization on base) and opens Wikipedia is getting this "you've been bad" message.
While I understand the reason behind "page security", to ensure the correctness of information (as much as possible) on Wikipedia, from this side of the equation, I have to provide you the same feedback - there is not a 'single editor' coming from the IP you are listing - it is a border device that likely handles most, if not all, standard internet traffic to/from the base. It would be impossible from your end to determine who the end user is that is making these changes.
There is a specialized group of investigators for the USAF who work for 24th Air Force who investigate malicious activity (malware, hacking, remote code execution, exfiltration, etc), however I doubt they would be willing to devote resources to finding the specific perpetrators of these "unwanted edits" using their internal logging capabilities.
This is common across all USAF bases - the only IP the "outside world" should ever see is our border router, and thus, knowing the actual perpetrator of "vandalism" (as wikipedia likes to call it) is virtually impossible.
I don't think you're understanding... the person who is responding to you is NOT the person who made the edit you reverted - I'm simply someone who understands (and has long worked with) the USAF network structure. You putting a "notice" to the User talk page for that IP does absolutely no good (or, conceivably exceptionally little good), because it is not an end user IP, and the person or persons you are addressing regarding the changes may never see your input, because the next person on base who goes to Wikipedia after you have made your comment (in this case, me) would be the one to see and clear the message.
By all means, continue to police the articles that are your specialty, I'm not saying to not do that... I'm simply letting you know that sending "threats" of blocking, and/or recommendations on corrective actions etc, to a non-end user IP address is... not helpful, for lack of a better way to phrase it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.62.88.130 (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
Yes, I know that the person who is responding to me might not be the person who made the edit I reverted. That is exactly the reason why, in order to avoid possibly irrelevant notices, all these persons (including the "next person on base") are advised to create an account. That advice is standard practice in Wikipedia. Don't take it personal. - DVdm (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course this information is important to his biography. The harassment incidents even led to a police investigation and the harassers continued intimidate his co-workers. There are other biographies in Wikipedia that have complete sections devoted to harassment even when they're not proved or based; nothing justifies the exclusion of this one which is backed by a police report and criminal investigation. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I have noticed your edits at my talk page and at Fermat number. What exactly is the statement added by me which really needs a citation? The fact that Fermat numbers are terms of a numerical sequence (which is easily noticeable as the statement "The sky (without clouds) is blue" as specified somewhere here in some wikiprocedures) or the specification of main motivation of Fermat studying these types of numbers in regards to primality? This aspect re primality is already in article in a section but without explicit acknowledgement of main motivation. I think that is only aspect which requires citation. Thoughts?--109.166.129.57 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The statement added by this edit has no source. If it is indeed true and sufficiently important to say this in the article, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find a source for it — see wp:verifiability and wp:burden. You can also go to the article talk page and query thoughts from the other article contributors. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
There are several edits by me, not all really needing citation. I understand from your diff that the main somewhat controversial edit is that at 13:36 about the simple enumeration procedure used by Fermat in the statement of the conjecture. Is it right?--109.166.129.57 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
HI User:DVdm,
It is you who initiated and engaged in this edit war, when you sought to for invalid and trumped up reasons to remove my content which was not research (original or novel ) but derived from 1st principles, basic geometry and algebra, just deductive, the proof and explanation for why a hexagonal has a property or behaviour.
Until you refute the math as being wrong, you have no right to remove the needed content. Until you do so please cease your edit war.
Keep well,
Abluegiant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abluegiant (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
@Abluegiant:Wikipedia does not work that way: just take 15 minutes to actually read the policies as outlined in wp:NOR, wp:CALC and wp:BURDEN.
These are not accusations. It is policy. See also wp:edit warring and wp:BRD. After my very first revert (with warning) of your edit, you should have gone to the article talk page to explain why you think that Wikipedia policies should not be followed in your case.
By the way, there is no need to reply here and on your user talk page. I have your talk page on my watch list. DVdm (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please help detractors delete the information without any explanation, this is a person and the page has links to everything that is written and links are posted on government sites. If possible, put a temporary key so that they can’t remove information from the page. Earlier, a key was set for this page. Thank you in advance for your help. Acer Comp (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
You've asked me to leave you a message here if I have a question, so here I am. it can be very easily proven that , one just need to multiply the equation by . I added it because it's simpler and (in my opinion) cooler than just the average. I've tried to find a good source to it, but to no avail. Can it still be there without a source, or do I need to write a proof? Fr.dror (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
But the "old" version is also unsourced; why is it preferable then? I restore the new version. And the proof is a routine calculation (just get rid of denominators, open brackets and cancel equal terms in both sides). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tsirel: the old version is normally preferable because (1) it could be supported by some of the generic sources, and (2) it was de-facto accepted by all the other article contributors and readers. It could very well be that this new version, even if 100% correct, is nowhere to be found in the literature, and therefore it can be original research. So I suggest that you or user Fr.dror find a proper inline source, and stick it to the new version, of that you just restore the original version. TIA and cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As for me, even if it is nowhere to be found in the literature (which is not easy to check), it is "petty original research" quite common in wikipedia (at least, in math articles). And I doubt that the "de-facto accepted by all the other article contributors and readers" version was ever found in the literature by at least one of them. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
But I try; here is one related. And another: "For one, if a/b < c/d, then a/b < (a+c)/(b+d) < c/d, so both this bogus average of two fractions and their real average lie between them." (posted by parudox at 2:08 AM on October 29, 2008) By the way, parudox apparently does not expect any credit for his original research... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's no big deal. If nobody has further objections, it will de-facto stay this way. That is, until someone else comes along with yet another nifty example . - DVdm (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Not a very reliable source—Wikipedia-wise. Of course there's an infinite number of rationals there. One of the reasons why Wikipedia needs sources, is to make sure that the content is worth being mentioned to begin with. Indeed, if no-one ever used this example in the literature, then it probably is not worth being mentioned in an encyclopedia . - DVdm (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is true, as long as we strictly follow the rule "inform, not explain". But we rarely do. Most math articles violate this rule, more or less (I think so). And most of our readers (rather than editors) need explanations desperately, and are angry not finding them. (See also User:Tsirel#Why_not_a_textbook.) There are a lot of published explanations, why there are rationals in between. Both our versions (old and new) are bad for many readers (including me a teenager) that prefer geometric explanations. For others, that prefer algebraic explanations, both are good; ask them, which is better. Anyway, we always choose, what to explain, and how. Maybe it makes sense, to always choose the most used (in textbooks) explanations. Or alternatively, to never explain at all. The former is tedious to implement. The latter cannot be enforced, since most new editors disagree (and we have IgnoreAllRules, after all). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Barnstar!!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU16:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mzb1534: see a dictionary. For instance https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis: plural of hypothesis is hypotheses. Referring to your edit, there are two of them: (1) the stationary aether hypothesis, and (2) the partially-dragged aether hypothesis. That's two hypotheses. If you have problems with the English language, please do not try to make grammatical edits in the English Wikipedia. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Your kindness has permitted me to express some of my interpretations of special relativity in the talk pages. Merci beaucoup ! It contrast's with the attitude of French Wikipedia. After three years of fruitless discussions , they too admitted that some of my interpretations were correct but ... , immediately after that , they ousted me with an idiotic pretext ! In French we call that " le coup de pied de l'âne ..." !
Well I am 83 now , it's time to leave ...
A little secret : Professor Levy-Leblond had the kindness to confirm me by message , that my views of special relativity are correct. I expressed them in my Internet pages (see "the belt trick with Geometric Algebra " ... !).
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
Getting the queue to 0
There are now 812 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Tools
It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
Hi there, apologies for leaving a vague commit message with regards to the removal of the table in the ethical frameworks section of the Machine ethics article. As Smojarad (talk) mentioned, adding the table was a copyright violation, and we are working to fix this right now. Thanks avnishna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
First of all I'd like to thank you for your interest in my edit, even though you reverted it. My first language is Italian, therefore please forgive me if I can't explain properly why I don't agree with you.
1) The link is a more authoritative source than the one you reverted to. No doubts that Einstein knows the subject a little bit more than the link you provide. Am I wrong?
2) Mass is an "extensive property", therefore I wrote it. Why do you prefer just "property"?
3) In the Einstein-Infeld's book I cited, at page 33 the authors explain that the methods to measure the "inertial mass" and the "gravitational mass" are different, (1) pushing a body by applying a mechanical force or (2) weighing the body on a scale. Whatever the method results always coincide. Their conclusions literally reported: "In modern physics the identity of the two masses is fundamental". Did I miss something?
Please let me know what you think about it and if you have time help me to write more clearly the above-mentioned concepts. I'd like to edit it again and I would appreciate your help.
Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
4) Please would you read two Wikipedia articles, "Velocity" and "Acceleration". I think that in the article we should prefer "change in velocity" over "change in acceleration". Do you agree? If not, why? As I wrote, not English but Italian is my mother tongue, therefore I might be missing something.
Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fabio Maria De Francesco: Hi. Referring to my revert, I really think that the original opening sentence was a better, more appropriate reflection of the article. For instance:
1) Einstein considered mass to change with speed, which has become an obsolete view—see section Mass#Special relativity,
2) The metaphysical concept of extensiveness is nowhere mentioned in the article itself, so it certainly does not belong in the first sentence of the lead—see wp:FIRSTSENTENCE,
3) See above,
4) Change in acceleration—Jerk (physics)—is nowhere mentioned in the articles Velocity and Acceleration. Acceleration is defined in terms of change in velocity.
Hope this helps. If you don't agree with this, you better go to the article talk page, where other article contributors will comment. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
1) I was talking about the Equivalence principle. This principle is part of the General relativity. I didn't mention Special relativity at all. Furthermore, since you think I'm wrong you should be coherent and delete the latest phrase of Mass#Phenomena which states: "Repeated experiments since the 17th century have demonstrated that inertial and gravitational mass are identical; since 1915, this observation has been entailed a priori in the equivalence principle of general relativity.".
2) Here I agree with you. Let's remove "extensive".
3) See above (1).
4) The original author of the article defines mass as "measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion)". Please, if you examine carefully that sentence you'd notice that acceleration is vaguely defined as a "change of state of motion". It means nothing to me. By re-phrasing in "resistance to changes in Velocity" permitted to remove that vagueness and permitted to briefly define it as a vector measure of speed, direction, verse. Furthermore I didn't subvert the original definition, since "acceleration" coincide with "change of velocity".
Unfortunately, I don't know how to move this dialogue to the talk page of the article. If you still think I'd better go there, I would appreciate your help in pointing me to the relevant Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
However, by aggressively reverting my edits you also reverted a broken link I had fixed on 18 September 2019 (two edits ago)"Jill Liddington (916404145)"..
I saw you are using a tool called Huggle. Are you able to see which edits you are reverting? How could you have reverted an edit from nearly 2 months ago, which corrected a broken link? This makes me not want to participate in Wikipedia. Why bother if you and other admins are going to flagrantly disregard valid edits in the process? Kimdorris (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kimdorris: Yes, when reverting, Huggle usually takes all the successive edits by the same author. I assumed that was ok, which apparently it was not. I restored the good part: [6]. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@DVdm: Thank you for correcting this mistake and for owning up to it. I appreciate your honesty and accept your apology. We all make mistakes now and then, especially those of us who are new here. Kimdorris (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Ha yes indeed. I had undone your edit because it added a new, unused tag name. If you had provided an edit summary for your edit, I would have spotted the mistake. I have removed the name altogether: [7]. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
Hi DVdm, this is SciencePhD. I have the book where Stephanie Lawrence identified and tested for the six dimensions of everything, ("Our Six Dimensions," 2019. Discovery Publishing: Morrison. isbn: 978733325707) Where do I include this verifiable data source in the revision I typed. I can include the citation, I don't know where you relocated the revision.
Thank you, Science PhD
SciencePhD (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
Hi DVdm
You were right that the expression was correct, but with my suggestion the substitution is little bit simpler.
I saw this only after I did undo to your undo.
YoavDvir (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi I am going through a few random user talk pages as I've seen on some recent changes thing. Is there a way to recover the password for the original account above please? Mike2Matthews17 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mike2Matthews17: I have no idea what you mean, but I don't think that Wikipedia can help you recovering user passwords. Best is to put a {{help me}} template message on your talk page—click the link here to see how to. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi I’m new to editing on Wikipedia so I would like help with writing a professional sounding source.
My paradox is
What I was to know was that there was nothing for me to know.
@Missevangelinegreen: Yes, but you came to the wrong place for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and can only harbour content that is backed by solid, established, reliable sources. There is no room for wp:original research. Read all about it in our wp:Five pillars, specially the second. Follow the blue links to learn about the policies. Enjoy! - DVdm (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I clearly provided a source in my edit of the page speed. I truly hate the manner in which people like you ruin Wikipedia with your arbitrary domineering over others. The fact of the matter is that Myanmar and a handful of jurisdictions in the Caribbean use miles per hour on their road signs, I provided a source indicating that, and as much as I love Wikipedia, there’s a special place in hell for people like you who prioritise personal power trips over the spread of knowledge.
174.138.198.241 (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. People like me merely try to make sure that Wikipedia's policies are followed. One of the policies is that wp:reliable sources are required. Blogs, such as this do not count as reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Hello. As you see there is no source for "The journal is indexed in EBSCO Information Services, which provides a range of library database services." You must log in to any database service to find whether or not a specific journal is indexed there or not. Therefore, it is requested to undelete my edit, or you may want to verify my edit by checking the following links: Scopus(Click here), Scimago(Click here), and DOAJ(Click here)
I would re-add the edit, however, if you think that it is needed to add the sources in other way, I would be very pleased if you add them on my behalf because I am a beginner, and the Wiki environment is not very familiar to me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Javanshiry (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dvdm, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. May you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
