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.
The source that was cited which claimed OpIndia was "fake news", itself was heavily biased and they were OPINION articles, not objective ones and therefore I removed the source as well as the claim :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Based47 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
I do not know why you reverted my edits on Factorial for "not citing". Those were pure math equations, and already had an example shown. (Similar parts of the article did NOT have cites and used only examples, yet they were not deleted). This isn't a page about a famous person, it is a page about a mathematical operation, with proof. Next time, I (and other editors) would appreciate it if you gave more reason and detail to the undo/warning to their edits, as those were not vandalism and were well-intentioned edits.
@SolidState2: See wp:no original research. Sources establish whether content is worth being mentioned in Wikipedia. If unsourced stuff has been sitting there since some time, it means that there was a de-facto wp:CONSENSUS to have and keep it. The presence of unsourced content in article is no invitation to have even more of it. I have reverted again. Next time, you will be reported and likely blocked. - DVdm (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@SolidState2: sure, but, again, sources are needed to make sure that content is worth being mentioned in Wikipedia. We can use any calculator to show that 464646446446 + 323232323233 = 787878769679, but unless the literature mentions this, we cannot have it on Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Gravitational Potential Energy Edit reverted
While the derivation is correct in the article on gravitational potential energy, it is confusing because it is presented in a way that is at odds with the other derivations of potential energy that are present on Wikipedia. I put a detailed comment on this point in the talk section of the article. Gwpjp (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Field line, Solenoidal vector fields and Maxwell's equations
Hello. I do not understand why you removed the changes that I made in the three pages mentioned in the title. All sentences that I have modified/added are based on the content of the reference that I had provided (on the contrary, I had removed some sentences that were not supported by any reference). The changes that I applied aimed at correcting a common mistake in Electromagnetic theory. The reference that I used includes the mathematical proof of the statements that I wrote. Such a reference is a peer-review scientific article, published in an authoritative international scientific journal, widely available and accessible. The reference, in turn, provides a lot of other references that support the statements wrote by me. Could you please explain why you believe that the reference is not reliable? I think you made a mistake and I kindly ask you to restore my version of the three pages.
47.53.123.202 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree. The reference that I used is a review paper, which analyzes the question from both the technical and historic perspectives. It is based on previous (primary) sources, that are elaborated to provide an overview and a synthesis of the issue. If you read it, you can find sentences like: "We review the problem and revisit...". In Wikipedia's guidelines about sources, one can read "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". The reference that I used fits perfectly this feature. Again, I kindly ask you to restore my version of the three pages. I am particularly interested in correcting those pages because they perpetuate a common mistake (recognized by the relevant scientific community), providing wrong information to the readers (including students).47.53.123.202 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
But the new claim is made in the paper, which makes it the primary source for the claim. If the claim is nowhere mentioned in the literature other than by its author, which we can easily verify with Google Scholar and Google Books, then it is wp:UNDUE for Wikipedia, per lack of secondary sources.
If indeed you don't agree that our policy pertains to this matter, then per wp:CONSENSUS the recommended place to discuss this, is the article talk page Talk:Maxwell's equations, where you can discuss with other contributors. You can add a pointer to here and to your three edits [1], [2], [3]. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
No; the mistake is here. The claim is given in some (more than one) references included in the paper. The paper simply puts them in oder and recaps the whole story. Hence, it is a secondary source, by definition.47.53.123.202 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@93.66.102.253: Thanks for the heads-up. I have seen the discussion but I didn't really scrunitize it. As far as I can see, I think some of the content is welcome on the Field line article but probably not in the others. Make sure the content is properly sourced. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear DVdm:
I notice this is the second time you reverted the pdf's "Macro Magnetics.pdf" and "CuFe.pdf". These articles relate strictly to solenoids and help in defining them by means of how they are mathematically described. These articles are a result of a teaching PhD. at Eastern Washington Univ. who asked how solenoids were designed prior to Finite Element software. Both he and his students "learned" magnetics by means of fea software and never had to manually crunch the numbers, therefore not learning the basics of iron saturation and BH relationships first hand. The articles are useful, instructive, definitive and of no profit to me. I designed solenoids as an aerospace engineer for over 50 years; starting before fea was around. I thought this was the purpose of Wikipedia. You decide.
Respectfully, David B. Mohler; Sr. Principal Engineer Johnson Electric North America. djdm@woh.rr.com
69.133.97.31 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages, provide a header for new sections, and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
These sources cannot be verified. I have tried searching anywhere for a speech transcript, which allegedly these sources were from. A full quote search returns only two sources on the internet, both of which are from books and both of which fail to offer any other information on the source of these quotes. It appears to be hearsay at best. Not only is the information unverifiable, it is added by a user with an edit history that clearly suggests the edits are not in good faith, and they are quite off-topic from the preceding text in this section. Finally, the information provided is not correctly classified as "Legacy." If there was discussion about future fallout from the quotes in question, then possibly. However, the sources provide no such post-death controversies of significance that would help classify this information as that of "Legacy."
Also, the edits that were removed were clearly explained in the respective "Edit Summary" sections. They were not left empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.253.98 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
@216.255.253.98: If you have concerns about the quality of a source, the only place to go with this, is the article talk page Talk:Sam Houston, where you can discuss with the article contributors. If after or week or so you get no response there, then you probably can safely delete the content. When you do that, make sure to refer to the talk page entry in your edit summary. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Reversion on the Taylor Series page
Hello. I added an external link to an interactive simulation for the Taylor series and you reverted my contribution.
I don't understand why the link immediately above the one I put (which is a simulation too) is relevant mine isn't. The previous link need a plugin that does not work anymore. The link I provide works on any browser.
@Ninguem wiki: See wp:ELNO item #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority". As for some of the other links, it's not because bad links are already present, that more bad links could be added. If you think some other link is bad, feel free to remove it, but make sure you explain the reason in your edit summary.
Hello. I'm an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering with Phd in Computacional Intelligence with two Post-Doc (Florida University and University of Geneva) Scopus H-10 impact factor. How can I verify my "recognised authority" to be able to share the visualisation app (which all my students find very very informative) with Wikipedia readers? Can you attest for the "Cinderella.2" app (which by the way needs a plugin that does not work anymore with modern browsers?)
Pardon me for the opinion, but your edits to this topic seems authoritarian and non-democratic. I guess Wikipedia philosophy if to let the community to decide about an edit. If you feel that any contribution is not suitable or is at "your your personal taste". You should start a discussion and let readers share opinions.
Im sharing this link because is one of the few demos that is purely based on Javascript (which is cross browser compatible) and shows the Taylor approximation for two variables (which is rare).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninguem wiki (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ninguem wiki: Our personal credentials are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Whether some author of some blog or personal website would indeed qualify as a recognised authority for some particular external link on some particular article, is ultimately decided by consensus on the relevant article talk page. Also note that Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Your previous attempt to add a similar external link to the arcticle was reverted for the same season by user D.Lazard. The ultimate key to Wikipedia probably is wp:CONSENSUS. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I see your point. So, how do we reach a consensus in this case? I think my link is useful and in accordance with the goals of the Wikipedia. The credenciais of the authors, as you correctly mentioned, are irrelevante, so we should arrive to a consensus wether or not I have a better qualification than you to evaluate the relevance of the link I provide. What would be your argument? the word "blog" in the link? I can easily change that and put the app in the oficial university link. Would that be acceptable for you?
I understand the value of what you guys do (patrolling wikipedia). It keeps it clean and reliable. The problem arises when you over do it. But I trust that you do not do it for vanity, so please lets reach a consensus. What is wrong with my link? Would be a oficial university URL be ok?
Please notice that the app does not have ANY propaganda, tag, self promotion or advertisement. Even my name is not present! Its a pure and simple app without any mention to any organisation or person, so please state your case of why its not ok to use it as a link? And why we had some links with similar apps allowed before?
As far I can see, it is not ok to use to use your link as an external link, per wp:ELNO item #11.
As I hinted above, the kind of consensus to make an exception here is to be established on the relevant article talk page. It's related to what goes for wp:reliable sources as outlined in wp:BURDEN, which obviously is upon you. - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with you about the exception. I honestly recognise that Im not a valid reliable source to be qualified as an exception. My question is what would qualify my link as valid? Would be ok if the URL was from my university (which IS a reliable source)? Can you point out why my link is hurting wp:ELNO item #11 and Madhava of Sangamagramma or Cinderella.2 are not?
If you enter the link your would verify that its content is in perfect accordance with all Wikipedia guidelines (no promotion of any kind of anyone or any organisation, etc). So is that about the "blog" in the URL? is that about the URL? As I said I can transfer the app to the university website. They would be very happy ho host it.
Is a consensus defined by what you and me agree? Im would be happy to agree with if you argue why my link is not in accordance with wp:ELNO item #11. I kindly ask you to answer my question: Is it about the URL and if yes, would be ok if I transfer the content to a university website? Or is it about the technical content of the app? I would be very happy to discuss the technical side and would completely accept (to reach a consensus) if you point why the app is not technically acceptable (but remember to answer for the Sangamagramma and Cinderella.2 links.
I think you are wasting your time here. The place to discuss this, is the article talk page, where other article contributors can weigh in — Do note that the guideline about wp:external links says: "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Also, my experience more or less suggests that, in general, Wikipedia goes like, the less external links, the better. - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
A agree... I'll revert to put the link back and we can discuss if someone finds it inappropriate. Thanks.
You are wasting your time here. We should be having this discussion in the article itself. Again, I fully understand your effort to make Wikipedia a good place. Thank you for the effort. But since on this matter you are wrong (not by intention), I understand. I'll keep my edit until I can talk to someone from a technical background on the subject.
The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass
1. Why is a link to a research article referred to as spam?
2. Is the DVdm user a specialist in Relativity?
3. Why the DVdm user does not justify his editing efforts? Providing the problem code does not constitute a substantive justification.
4. The statement about the three warnings is untrue. Previously, IP entries in another section of the article were removed. As a registered user, I have made one edit in different section and it is an abuse to suggest breaking the three-repetition rule (in 24h).
This time, please provide a description and answer to the points 1,2,3,4.
Read the statement. It does not matter if you used IP-addresses or a new special purpose user account. This is about your edits, and if you persist, you will be blocked by username and/or IP address(es). - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ DVdm
Ad. 1. This is not the answer to my question! You incorrectly identify primary and secondary sources. You have no grounds to accuse me of a conflict of interest.
Ad. 2. If you are a specialist, have a scientific discussion and read what is written.
Ad. 3. I do not think so. Let another editor decide!
Ad. 4. Don't pretend you don't understand: the rule of three repetitions in 24 hours has not been broken - including IP and user identity. Do you want to keep making a false allegation ?!
RodriguesVector (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hello. You told me I have to nominate an article in good articles for it to be a good article. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Could you tell me?
Danglerofhell (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, what you are saying is not how it is. I did not even know who deleted my entry, I also did not get any critique at any time, and I never changed or deleted the entry of other contributers. So I did NOT start an „edit-war“ as you obviously think. How could I discuss and seek consensus if I even don’t know who the competitor is? THAT‘S UNSCIENTIFIC BEHAVIOUR. I did not receive any arguments. It’s also not correct that the two users Tony Clarke and Wiki Pedant provided sound reasons in their edit summaries why my contributuion was „inappropriate“. It is appropriate and it directly addresses the term „integrated information“ by modifying what the term should cover. It’s an „edit-war“ initiated by competitors in an unfair way.
What is correct is that I added my own (preprint-published) view on „integrated information“ but that’s a legitimate and, in my opinion, scientifically important contribution. How then can we solve that problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that you have a wp:conflict of interest and that you use a wp:primary source, where Wikpedia needs wp:secondary sources. It only possibly (yet unlikely) can be solved by going to the article talk page, opening a section to discuss your edit with the other contributors, and reaching a wp:CONSENSUS to have it on board. In my experience it will not be accepted, so If I were you, I would let it go, and wait a few years until your work is picked up by the relevant literature, and perhaps gets listed here by someone else through a wp:secondary source. Patience is the key here. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, I wonder what the scientific basis of Tony Clarke is to decide my contribution was „inappropriate“. All what I could find on his user page is TonyClarke’s statement: „My interests include sailing, cycling, philosophy,photography,healthy eating (vegan) and general messing about with computers, eg wikis, Python programming, etc.. [...] I try to follow the teachings of Jesus.“ No one single scientific entry that I could find. It’s different with User:WikiPedant. From a retired university professor, I had expected sound arguments, not just a „NO“. That’s poor! Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Dear prof. Kromer. Did you remove my comment or is it DVdm that censors the statements of others? I assume that a discussion is a discussion and more than two people may speak. RodriguesVector (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Dear prof. Kromer. My post should not be removed from the discussion by the editor. On my "talk" I showed that the editor does not understand or do not know some Wikipedia rules. Please see maybe the same problem applies to your topic.
The point I was trying to make was that GR wasn't developed in 1915. It took Einstein years to develop his ideas into GR. – Tea2min (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
secondary reference for relativity priority dispute
Would you accept just this change:
curprev 18:41, 6 June 2021 WhiteBeard120 talk contribs 72,510 bytes +1,902 →Timeline: add description of recent book on this subject undo Tag: Reverted
@WhiteBeard120: I'm not sure what you mean. You probably should go to the article talk page and open a section there, to discuss with the other article contributors. When you ask there, I might comment too. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
What I mean is that you rolled back the changes with the explanation that the changes added primary sources and did not add secondary sources, however the majority of the word count added was about a new secondary source. So I am asking you: Would you accept the changes if it only had the part about the new secondary source?
(And I note that you didn't use talk to address this to article contributors, and that puts you on at a different level. That is why this reply is directed to you.)
You seem to be new here. See wp:BRD: you made some bold (B) edits. I reverted (R) them for the reason stated in my edit summary. The idea is that you (not I) start a discussion (D). You came here, but I think it's better that you go to the article talk page so other contributors can weigh in.
By the way, on your user page User:WhiteBeard120 you say that you published two books on the subject of the articles that you were editing. That might cause a conflict of interest — see wp:COI. Wikipedia is not a place where we promote out own work. - DVdm (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
A few inconsequential thoughts prompted by seeing your user page
I don't know how many times I have come across your editing over the years, but it must be a very large number, and yet until today I don't think I had ever thought to look at your user page. Having now looked at it, I have the following three thoughts, which may or may not interest you.
I found your information on that page about Dingle's "fumble" interesting.
That led me on to read the original discussion which you linked to. That was even more interesting. It's amazing the extent to which people otherwise quite intelligent can go completely off the rails when it comes to relativity. (I wrote that thinking of some of the Wikipedia editors in that discussion, but come to think of it the same can be said of Dingle.)
When I was young I liked Frank Zappa, but over the years my attention drifted off to other things, and I didn't hear any of his music for a long time. A few years ago I reintroduced myself to his work. Alas, whatever it was that attracted me to it all those years ago has gone. I no longer find it particularly interesting. That's a sad loss. I'm glad you, apparently, can still appreciate it. JBW (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@JBW: Hi there, nice to hear all this. Ha... that Dingle thing dates from way back when I was still pretty active on Usenet's sci.physics.relativity, trying to educate some of the long standing relativity deniers infesting that newsgroup. Pretty bizarre, that. I have given up on trying. I just go there every now and then to have a look at the most persistent ones, and perhaps make a few one-liner shots from the hip, so to speak. The place hasn't changed much since then. In any case, Dingle used to come up quite often, but that seems to have stopped. So perhaps I managed to convince just a few, who knows...
Yes, I can still appreciate Zappa and his work. I started listening at about age 13, and a half a century later I still do. Still, each time when I carefully listen, I discover new exciting subtleties. They are endless. In the last fifteen years I also went to a dozen or so Zappa Plays Zappa concerts, with Dweezil Zappa and a bunch of top-class musicians performing dad's music. Not amazingly, every concert is entirely different from all the others. You might give one a try when they're in your neighbourhood! - DVdm (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
twin paradox
The twin paradox of special relativity arises because the theory as formally presented provides no explanation why a twin who has traveled at relativistic speed and returns to meet the other twin at point of origin should be the younger of the two. The theory only addresses inertial frames and provides transformations between quantities observed in the frames involved. The theory, based on (1) the laws of physics in all inertial frames are identical, and (2) that the speed of light is observed to be the same in all inertial frames, simply does not address non-inertial frames or events involving observers passing through successive but different inertial frames.
The Twin Paradox article in Wikipedia contains much very debatable information which is not supported by solid theoretical or experimental evidence. For example,
"However, it has been proven that neither general relativity,[9][10][11][12][13] nor even acceleration, are necessary to explain the effect, as the effect still applies to a theoretical observer that can invert the direction of motion instantly, maintaining constant speed all through the two phases of the trip."
The problem with this view is evident in the "Specific Example," wherein one twin goes round trip to the nearest star at 0.8c with instantaneous acceleration. In reporting the traveling twin's perspective, the duration he/she experiences is reported, i.e. 6 years; however, the traveling twin's expectation of what happens on earth is not calculated. Ignoring the accelerations, the traveling twin may consider him/herself at rest. What they would see is the earth (star) move away (toward) them at 0.8 c for three years. The star reaches the travelers and the earth reaches 2.4 ly distance. Then the earth and star would reverse direction and travel another three years at 0.8 c returning to initial positions. On earth, of course, they would consider themselves and the star as stationary while the "traveling" twin moved to the star at 0.8c and returned at the same speed. The traveling twin would say that six years passed. The traveling twin would assert that on earth time passage was 0.6 x 6 = 3.6 years, which contradicts the earth calculation. If acceleration (which changes between inertial frames) is ignored, contradictions arise.
The twin paradox is profound in that it highlights the fundamental importance of CHANGES between inertial frames. The few experiments demonstrating that the traveling twin is younger are a bit weak and it would be valuable to inspire new and more decisive tests. It would be very interesting if the traveling twin is not younger (can only be determined by a decisive experiment).
The Wikipedia article falls short on providing the reader with insight as to the profound nature twin paradox. Twmoss77 (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
You seem to criticise article content that is directly backed by multiple reliable sources. We cannot do that in our articles. See the policy about wp:original research and wp:reliable sources.
You talk about "the fundamental importance of CHANGES between inertial frames". Sure, please read the second paragraph of the lead. Note that the article already says that "the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey", again properly sourced. So I don't think that the article falls short on providing the reader with this insight. Quite on the contrary, it seems.
In your edits ([10] and [11]) you were trying to add unsourced content. I already said something about that on your user talk page.
Refereeing is very difficult. While policies exist, judgment is required in their application. In the "Specific Example," no mention is made of what the traveling twin would expect to happen on earth which reveals the "paradox" in the twin paradox. Special relativity itself treats all inertial frames as equivalent. It contains no mechanism or recipe for resolving the twin paradox, which is why the scenario was termed the twin paradox to begin with. Resolution of the twin paradox requires inputs beyond the special relativity theory as originally proposed.
The Wikipedia article does not make this clear to the reader. It conveys the impression that the twin paradox is no big deal and essentially exists as a "mistake" in the perspective of some. The "Specific Example" should include a discussion of what the traveling twin would see if frame changes/acceleration were ignored. There are real paradoxes involved and showing where they arise may stimulate thought in the reader that the present article does not. Simply noting that frame changes of the traveler make the histories non-equivalent is not a sufficient resolution of the twin paradox since the special theory does not then tell us what to conclude - at least in its straightforward simplistic application.
Your focus on validating references is selective in my view since many statements are made with no reference. For example, in the first paragraph, "Therefore, the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction" which is a profound conclusion has no validating reference. The ultimate standard in any reputable source of data whether refereed scientific journal or Wikipedia is to leave the reader better and more accurately informed. The present Wikipedia article on the twin paradox leaves the reader puzzled as to why the scenario was ever described as a paradox.
I, as a professional physicist, have made comments to you and tried to place innocuous suggestions that the twin paradox is somewhat subtle. You have judged that the insertion is "unverified" and that the article is better off without comments such as mine. So be it. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twmoss77 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Twmoss77: Indeed, many statements appear on Wikipedia without reference. Such statements almost always have survived either by de-facto wp:consensus (which arguably is the ultimate deciding factor on Wikipedia), or because they are trivial or self-evident, or just because nobody noticed or cares. The presence of such unsourced content is of course no reason to add even more — see wp:Otherstuffexists. That's one of the pilars of Wikipedia: challenged content needs proper sourcing, and the burden is upon the person who wants to add new content — see wp:BURDEN. Believe it or not, but without this, Wikipedia would never have survived . Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding edit warring in Natural Logarithm
Dear Dvdm, regarding my recent warning of edit warring, I don't know exactly what I am supposed to do now. I used anyway the talk section with other editors regarding this issue. I asked for a standard reference in the topic that support their claims, and indicated examples of how my editions are in fact the correct ones, and instead of responding back to the issues with logical arguments, other editors just opted to revert my changes too. Please let me emphasize that I gave formal arguments and examples to two editors, they are just not listening.
If the standard procedure needs an expert in the field, I am in fact one, my info: ddavalos.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by David phys davalos (talk • contribs) 02:07, 11 July 2021 (UCT) (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
@David phys davalos:wp:Verifiability and wp:Consensus are key on Wikipedia. Sometimes there's a conflict between the two. When one finds oneself in the middle of such a conflict, the best thing to do is to stick with the discussion. Repeatedly reverting against multiple contributors (or even against one experienced one) is almost always deadly. If the talk page discussions don't go your way, you can always try other means — see some possibilities in wp:Dispute resolution. However, having followed the discussion form the sideline, I don't think that further steps will be effective in this case. Hope this helps. I hope this does not make you turn away from this place. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Visibility of Caspian Sea from Elbrus (or vice-versa).
Visibility of Caspian Sea from Elbrus (or vice-versa).
Because Earth is not flat, you can't see that far. There is no significant hill or mountain near Caspian Sea.
Without atmosphere the horizon is roughly at 3.6 km times the square root of your height in meters. Lying on the ground, still without atmospheric refraction, you could see the mountain top, being 5642 meters high, from approx 270 km. Now stand up to approx 2 meters, so add a few kilometers. And that's still without atmospheric refraction. So yes, the source is very likely correct. See also [12]. That is one that I have seen with my own eyes. Pretty spectacular . - DVdm (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Now what was needed to done to finally make Elbrus visible:
Adding 100m of altitude (Caspian Sea elevation is -29m, let's assume there is some observation tower 100m tall.
Making Terrestrial refraction coefficient as high as 0.35. Such refraction is practically impossible to achieve. Usual value for this coefficient is 0.13, with very strong temperature inversion it can go as high as 0.25 if trajectory of observation is whole within temperature inversion. There are no temperature inversions up to altitudes of Elbrus.
You have removed a sub-section on general relativity with the excuse that the Nature publishing group is not reliable. If Nature publishing group is not reliable, would you enlighten me on what is considered reliable by you? PhysicsVoice (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC) ;)
Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages. Thanks.
wasn't vandalism. no way to provide a source as don't know all the artists. wrongfully removed. regarding the abc the look of love article. 45.31.69.47 (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
With this warning I did not accuse you of vandalism. Please have a look (1) at what I wrote, and (2) at the preceding warning, its author, and its date, December 2016.
You have been edit-warring to replace "Dhaliwal" with "Dhillon" in the article Baghel Singh. Are you sure that is correct? Sources I have found overwhelmingly support Dhaliwal. Dhillon did not appear in the article until recently, and it looks rather like vandalism. If you have a reliable source for Dhillon then please provide it; otherwise it shouldn't ne restored. JBW (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@JBW: Ok, based on IP's silly edit summaries (e.g. "Thanks bro", "Thanks sis"), I took their edits as nonsense and later, after warnings, as vandalism. I reported two IPs for that at wp:AIV but if you think it's all clean, then I'll leave the articles alone. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm raising a reasonable concern regarding the pseudoscience denomination on the article. There should be evidence to support the assertion, otherwise it should be removed. There can be a controversial section to make whatever valid claims that may exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepovtourself (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
@Keepovtourself: In your talk page edits, for one example, you asked "Why are academics insisting on blurring the line between science and pseudo-science?" That is a question not specifically about the article. Same goes for other questions you asked. On the article talk pages we can only talk about improving the article, based on wp:reliable sources—see wp:TPG.
By the way, your article edit was reverted by user Psychologist Guy because you had removed well-sourced material. We can't do that on Wikipedia.
In these edits elsewhere, you started a discussion about the subject, not about the article. That too should have been removed from the talk page, but users Clone commando sev and Hob Gadling had already answered when I noticed it, so I chose not to remove it.
Ok, I understand. Will edit the entry. Now regarding me removing a "well-sourced material", sounds confusing. I only removed the word "pseudo-scientific" from the very first sentence of the article. There are no references to support it. There is, however, on the second paragraph which I never touched references to the pseudo-science claim and plagiarism by one science-fiction writer and some historian. Really? Because a book contains esoteric content it does not automatically mean it only has falsifiable information. Unless it has reliable, and plenty of references from multiple sources to back up the claim. Keepovtourself (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Please don't sign messages after they were signed for you by someone else. That can cause problems with archiving. I undid that.
@DVdm: I have my bias too regarding scientific views and am also against pseudo-science. Doesn't mean I can categorize something just because I don't like it as so. But thanks for the advice. Keepovtourself (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Zappa WakaJawaka.ogg
Thank you for uploading File:Zappa WakaJawaka.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of External Link - Solve Quadratic Equation online
The external link will open our Quadratic Equation page in our Maths Bud website.
In that page we created Quadrating Equation solution online using various methods
Using Formula
Complete Square Method
Factorization Method
Graphical Method
The page will express the basic rules before calculate the equation
1. If b2 - 4ac is a POSITIVE number, the equation has TWO different real root
2. If b2 - 4ac is equal to ZERO, the equation has ONE real root
3. If b2 - 4ac is a NEGATIVE number, the equation NO real root
I cannot see that the reversal has more or better sources.
The essential of both versions is the very same, namely 3 real solutions (roots).
Although I think that my version shows the very point more precisely:
19:06 (my version) has
"cube roots" and "all three solutions"
"cube roots to be extracted from non-real complex numbers"
equation cannot be factored by other means
19:11 (the other version) has
"square roots" and "all three roots"
"square roots of negative numbers"
cannot be rectified by factoring aided by the rational root test[unnecessarily precise!]
But I have to admit that many people don't read exactly enough, so that the very point has been found as late as 3.11.21. –Nomen4Omen (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Tapanmandal27011969: I undid your edit because it was unsourced, not because it was vandalism. If you follow the links in the message on your user talk page, you'll understand what is needed. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
