![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 Editing User DVdm:
I am using the editing feature on Wikipedia for the first time. My attempts to edit the Calvin cycle page were repeatedly reverted. I would like an explanation, if I may.
I read the Wikipedia Calvin cycle page, and was struck by the fact that between Refs. 1 and 2, the entire body of Calvin et al's original papers on their finding of the light reaction in photosynthesis were omitted. I.e., Refs. 1 and 2 were the sole sources for the Wikipedia presentation of the Calvin cycle.
I inserted the omitted body of original papers by Calvin et al, which refuted the existence of the Calvin cycle in photosynthesis. Apparently these papers were not known to you as Editing User.
I received auto messages stating, first that someone else had edited during the time I was doing my edits and, then, that two of my external links were not allowed. So I removed them all, and re-introduced the edits. Unfortunately, as a result, I received your warning of possibly being blocked for being disruptive.
All of my indicated changes were referenced to reputable journal publications, including Calvin et al's original publications in the permanent literature. I neither intended to be a "vandal," nor "disruptive."
As for another User's (Schmidt?) question, "What is NSFfunding.com," the answer is: NSFfunding.com, a U.S.-based organization under contract with the Internal Revenue Service, is authorized by the United States to detect the use of the Calvin cycle as a means for penetrating the U.S. Treasury. See, The Calvin Cycle Website.
Therefore, I'd appreciate your letting me know why you reverted my edits.
Thanks, Frankkfong ( talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. After I communicted this talk writeup, I noticed your attribution to me of the headline thing on "Kumbaya." I did not introduce the unsigned "Kumbaya." I am new to all this. Forgive me for having made some inadvertent mistakes, if any.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkfong ( talk • contribs)
Petrb has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
I have tried to add a single line to the S.E. Cupp page, but it continues to be removed. I was told it needed a reference, so I provided one. The line was still deleted. The line is not of opinion, but is an honest assessment of her after reading article after article (I can't reference them all) and her book "Losing Our Religion." I would like to know why this is continuously removed. 64.191.172.126 ( talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I have mentioned edits by you here. It seems right to alert you about this on your talk page rather than discuss you behind your back. Wenttomowameadow ( talk) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(Moved conversation with italicised and parenthesised signatures from here to Frankkfong's talk page)
To all involved, please continue at User talk:Frankkfong. Thank you. - DVdm ( talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you read? Can't you see the content of 4.2.1 was just copyed and the table was broken? -- 139.18.148.186 ( talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your not in trouble but please explain why every edit since january the 6th on fort plank has been part of an edit war -- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor and I are trying to come up with a way to modify the Inertial frame of reference definition. It currently uses a paraphrasing from Landau and Lifshitz. Based on discussion on the talk page I guess people want to simplify it, or at least have a simplier lead in which is then followed by a stricter definition. Since you were involved in previous discussion, I was wondering if you could please stop by and share opinions on how to word it? FlyingBob ( talk) 04:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency between the definition of the Pochhammer symbol and the series expansion of an Hypergeometric function. I changed the index convention in the Hypergeometric Function to make it consistent with the Pochhammer symbol article. Why was this reverted? 130.245.203.227 ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHY MY PAGE WAS DELETED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.114.83 ( talk) 13:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You say my contributions are unsourced, but I'm the source, there is no other source on this kind of matter. Chrisnach ( talk) 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, alas, maybe I should listen to the voices, hehehe, and comit mass murder, then I would get published, right?? By the way where do you live? lol, bye. 94.227.51.235 ( talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Any reason why you refuse to allow accurate information on this particular entry? Why make an edit war out of something political/personal? This seems rather against the Wikipedia mission statement. I don't want to have to report you for vandalism. Daarlock ( talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, misread the links. We are on the same side. Look at me jumping the gun. My apologies. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daarlock ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, just a quick note to say that although I think this edit of yours improved the article, it is not a good idea to use Huggle to revert good-faith edits; Huggle is solely for use in reverting vandalism. Regards, Skomorokh 17:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
...for this. And I agree with you regarding the wise use of automated tools for good-faith edits. Unfortunately, on this exact topic Huggle has been proving problematic for me lately, as reported here. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you tagged Music of the Baroque for speedy deletion as G7 (author requested deletion). Where did the author request this? While the article is certainly a COI, I don't see any evidence that they blanked the page or otherwise asked for it to be deleted. Thanks. Zachlipton ( talk) 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You say:
(→Origin of the term natural logarithm: Don't need this unsourced derivaton here - it re-uses the variable x. Used more common approach - with source.)
I ask: What if I used z instead of x? The point is to provide more detail to aid people to understand the steps. Also, what is wrong with unsourced derivations as long as the derivations are correct?
I think you should not have deleted the derivation I provided but your point about the use of x is well taken and substituting another variable, such as z, would help to avoid confusion with equation just above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.30.11.1 ( talk) 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Noticed you on Huggle last night, I thought i'd send this, to say thanks for you work on reverting vandalism. Pol430 talk to me 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) |
You appear to have given an AFD deletion warning notice when you probably meant to give a removal of speedy deletion notice warning. You may want to swap the warning. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 13:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
We make great vandlism busters ;) SilverSoul91911 ( talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, noticed you helping revert the vandals on Doyle. I'd asked yesterday about protection for that page, as it's getting hit pretty hard. Seems like it could use some. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 12:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you, kind editor, for the quick revert on my talk page! I saw the user's edit in Huggle, and you had removed it before I was even able to get to my page! EWikist Talk 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
Good catch on the addition to Funkmaster Flex being a copyvio. I had searched for the text, but I couldn't find it as a copy. Where'd you find it—in case I need to know for future reference? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer to MOS:LQ! — Quantling ( talk | contribs) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, congrats with your rollback rights. Be careful with that axe, Eugene! Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you delete his bio on purpose, or were you trying to do something else? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
We all make mistakes. We computer programmers call them "bugs". ;-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what the issue is. I go to the games and know that Dan Lowson is our first choice keeper and I don't see how this is a controversial edit. Fergyc123 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi, please be aware that many articles use Harvard style citations instead of footnotes. It is inappropriate to place a {{ no footnotes}} tag on such articles. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The lead of the article already displays a prominent note that I take to mean that general referencing in being used for uncontroversial knowledge presented in the body. From WP:SCICITE:
-- Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal man? You keep wanting to keep in this insane language that says the radius of the earth is closer to the moon than it is to the center. It's possibly correct, but the pronoun confusion is so misleading that it should be scrapped altogether for a better explanation. Like the one I put in. JCM83 ( talk)JCM83, regarding the "tides" page.
With the repetitive warnings? How can I stop my vandalism when I am not vandalising between your warnings? 118.93.168.227 ( talk) 09:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
you reverted one of the things i added. I dont see how it was unconstructive. I talked to a couple of my teachers and the principle and they congradulated me for doing all that work that no one took the time to do. I've also talked to some students and asked them if they liked it they said they did. They sended me a message to try it on the sandbox but i dont know want is that since im kinda new to this thing. You can come check out the work i did and put in ours school wikipedia page but got reverted here User talk:Guslb12,my user page. By the way its not just you who reverted it it was many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guslb12 ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You clicked the wrong reason for revert (Huggle). Still, the IP is blocked, now, although the first edit today was only non-constructive, only the rest were vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi .. my automated report feature is on the fritz ... I already gave the IP (ice cream article) a final warning some vandal edits ago. If you are automated, might I ask you to make the report? The IP is on a vandal rampage today. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm Aghada is in fact known to many locals such as myself As "Andrew Meaghers Playboy Mansion".If you read the book "THROUGH THE MIST OF TIME" Memories of the past from Whitegate, Aghada, Saleen, Roches Point, Guileenetc.Compiled by Whitegate/Aghada Historical Society. You can have this verified. Thanks for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.96.3 ( talk) 19:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoa There! Dont bite the newbies man!I was just trying to give the source and help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.96.3 ( talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, DVdm, wanted to thank you for your support when my article was nominated for deletion, It did get deleted, but now is up fore deletion review for an overturn at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_3#Mark_Boerebach . Just wondering if you could please assist to get it overturned as there seems to be enough sources. I don't want to touch the discussion any further, as for me it would be a conflict of interest situation. Thanks. Whitewater111 ( talk) 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what a 100,000 shape might be? The article states 100, 1,000, 10,000 and 1,000,000, but it doesn't state 100,000. (Please respond here, as my IP address may change.)-- 90.217.236.77 ( talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You are incorrect. See the discussion page of the article. Flyback transformers are still used to produce high voltages. 86.163.87.193 ( talk) 16:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Tom Van Flandern . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see my edit summary here. Ladyof Shalott 13:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the strange chatter put on my talkpage. That sort of weirdness rattles me, and I appreciate your intervention very much. SteveStrummer ( talk) 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For reverting all that vandalism on my talk and user page, thanks a lot! -- Luke (Talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
you say "did not appear to be constructive" what do you mean exactly ? Pemf1000 ( talk) 12:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
...for reverting the personal attack at my talk-page. I intend no interactions with this user, unless to delete any further rants. By the way, have you noticed the offending user's page claim of "8+" years? Meaning what, I wonder? Haploidavey ( talk) 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69 talk 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Nuclear Transmutation of Stable and Radioactive Isotopes in Biological Systems by Vladimir I. Vysotskii, Alla A. Kornilova ISBN : 978-81-8274-430-1 Publication Year: 2010
and
2. Nuclear Fusion and Transmutation of Isotopes in Biological Systems by Vladimir I. Vysotskii and Alla A. Kornilova Moscow, Peace, 2003
Vladimir I.Vysotskii : Kiev Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine; and Alla A. Kornilova : Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Could you please advice what is the problem with those books ? Thank you very much ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.223.153 ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 89.210.223.153 ( talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
George Osahwa patent removed, why ? Obtained in 1966-02-04 French Patent number FR1427109 titled "Fabrication d'aciers spéciaux par transmutation à faible énergie" 89.210.223.153 ( talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you warned him: [6] Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at 213.107.74.132's talk page.--
213.107.74.132 (
talk)
12:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm. I saw your post at AN and I thought that I would let you know that you might put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection especially since more than one IP is being used. It is hard to say whether you will get quicker action at that noticeboard over the AN one. I hope that the situation gets resolved ASAP and thanks for your vigilance in taking care of that article. MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to view my response for you on my talk page at any time:)-- Hodeken ( talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If you remember 99.63.26.63 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (obsessed with adding religious categories to living people articles despite repeated and lengthy blocks), it would seem highly likely they are back as 99.63.24.11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), so you might want to keep an eye out too. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Template talk:ABS-CBN Programs Rigorimpossible ( talk) 08:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well,you have to understand that i dont edit keeping in mind the person i admire but by the facts which atleast i believe are true.Before Newton there was no comprehensive system to connect both mathematics aand philosophy as it was called in his day.He,by his remarkable genius understood the intricate importance that lie between these two branches and developed the first comprehensive system that could be relied upon for further research.The reason he is considered one of the most influential men is that his works not only influenced the scientific community but also the way the general public could think of a problem and he is still the only one considered by both physicists and mathematicians as one of the greatest,if not,the greatest in their respective fields.The sources i have provided are some of the many things that shed some light on his subjects.And the people(like Hart,Hawking,......) may vary,but,the opinion of majority regarding Newton do not.Thank you. Hawker07 ( talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have not done any edits to Newton,the new edits are not done by me.I hope you'll check it.cheers Hawker07 ( talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
do you think the new edits are from reliable source?? Hawker07 ( talk) 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Pretty darn quick, too! Wikipelli Talk 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see you're trawling swiftly through pages for vandalism (great), and warned an IP for messing up an edit (inadvertent deletion of comments) a little harshly (not so great). This was just as the IP was coming to the table to discuss sourcing problems after getting rather irate at getting blocked for not discussing matters and edit warring. I'm not sure your warning is helpful in the circumstances. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 14:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you do?
Thank you for your message!
So, this little work i made could be considered as an "original research". Ok. But this could be considered differently to :) Is it possible to discuss about it?
Best reguards and have fun :) Bastien Sens-Méyé ( discuss) 3 october 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for quick revert of this and similar vandalism. We appear to have a persistently childish yutz on our hands; guess you already saw the thread on the blocking admin's page. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 20:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a section here[ [9]] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 ( talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
Don't know why but you seem to be appearing all over my watch list this last couple of days reverting, correcting and adding so have this mere bauble for all your hard work. All the best Khu kri 11:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
If you want to keep the talk on my page, that is fine, but I thought I should give you at least one heads up that I've replied to your comment. KlappCK ( talk) 13:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd ask since you used it - where in Huggle is the function to show this for the edit summary? Or did you just use a custom one?
Calabe1992 (
talk)
14:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond on your page. I will keep an eye on it."
1) I guess you've been too busy to keep that pledge, huh? 2) Why did you revert then update my userpage, when the article Talk page was the appropriate location?
I'm losing my patience with you. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 17:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to this edit but I find the edit summary curious. As far as I know, Archimedes's is prounced "Ark-im-EED-eez-iz", five syllables, whereas Archimedes' is just four, the same as the man's name. -- Trovatore ( talk) 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am a Campus Ambassador of Wikipedia India Education Program, I have to encourage them to start editing articles. It was not at all a random act. I am their Campus Ambassador. Mihir.khatwani ( talk • contribs)
Well, please then have a close look at wp:talk page guidelines and specifically at wp:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Some basic rules are: (1) to put new messages at the bottom, (2) to use proper section headings, (3) to sign messages with four tildes (~~~~), and (4) never to remove (or replace) existing content from other peoples user talk pages. If you have a carefull read of these guidelines, the probability that someone mistakes your messages for vandalism will be much smaller. That is what happened with me anyway. Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that entry on my Talk page. -- Deadly∀ssassin 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I made a good edit on an article, another overzealous super-guy editor undid it and accused me of basically vandalizing the article, and then did some research and reverted the article to what I had changed. Then you come along and threaten to ban me? Get off your high horse, dude. 76.119.75.131 ( talk) 09:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You aren't the kind of guy who actually responds, huh? 76.119.75.131 ( talk) 09:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Anon76, please have a very careful look at wp:ETIQ and wp:AGF. When you immediately start calling someone who makes a possible mistake an "idiot", chances are that subsequent communication will be difficult, if not impossible. When you persist behaving like that, changes are that you end up blocked, so, trust me, do be very careful.
Da and Anon76, I suggest that you apologise to each other — in no particular order. Cheers & Chill. DVdm ( talk) 10:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Your issue with the episode summary for the third episode of Pan Am involved one misplaced letter you could clearly have removed yourself rather than remove the entire edit summary. That edit, which you made a second time even after it was reverted, was neither constructive nor helpful. If you were unable to make the change you wanted, you should have left a comment on the episodes talk page or after I reverted on mine, not removed the entire summary twice. I can think of no circumstances where so extreme an edit is a viable, appropriate option. Drmargi ( talk) 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi DVdm,
You recently reverted some external links added to this article by User:Bastien Sens-Méyé. I haven't undone your edit, but one or two of them looked as though they might (stress, might!) constitute valid sources. Since they're in French (which I can't speak beyond ordering coffee and croissants), I've encouraged Bastien to read WP:RS and consider whether any of them could be inserted as citations. No action required on your part, but I thought it best to let you know - don't come down on him too hard if he adds them back and you disagree; blame me instead!
Cheers, Yunshui ( talk) 08:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I believe I undid the edit because I realized that there was another inline citation earlier in the sentence, and it looked inconsistent to have ono inside the sentence and one outside of it. In the end, I figured I'd better leave it for someone else :) -- 90.184.154.70 ( talk) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Even if they're virtual. - DVdm ( talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
Not sure if you know, but Willdasmiffking was making unconstructive edits to List of English inventions and discoveries as well as to Maxim gun and Hiram Maxim. Thank you for reporting him to the administrator's board because I was about to do the same thing until you beat me to it. Yoganate79 ( talk) 19:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I wish to appeal my warning. I did not make a personal attack on that guy. He's in the middle of an edit war and I told the other guy to stop fighting with him. And for some reason he comes and attacks me? I don't get what this whole thing is about but Me123456789 or whatever is being really childish and I would like it if you could remove that warning. thanks 184.100.206.84 ( talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You recently notified me that edits I supposedly made to National Coming Out Day were removed because they were considered vandalism. I did not make those edits, nor would I ever write such offensive garbage. I'm not sure how I became linked to this incident, but I'm glad those comments were deleted. 12.131.0.2 ( talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - that IP is adding cut and copy paste from here http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3871084/TOWIE-Maria-Fowlers-secret-past-as-escort.html - I have a feeling even if it was cited it doesn't belong in a BLP. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear DVdm,
The BDS page is written from a anti-Israel perspective. All what i did was to neutralise the page. Please revert the changes you have made. My edit was made not to be subtle while the BDS trys to be subtle.
10:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC) MYGAMEUPLAY ( talk)
I couldn't find what you were trying to do here [10] but it didn't work. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Not sure what happened there but you fixed it, I grabbed the wrong dif, sorry. You might want to look at WP:NORN#James, son of Alphaeus. Dougweller ( talk) 13:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hiya,
Thanks for being quick to revert vandalism on my talk page. Is there any way I can find out the IPs that Julaime6606 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) (who has vandalised it a few times today) has been posting from? We think they may be a disgruntled banned user on SABRE but without matching IPs, we don't have enough concrete evidence to permanently boot them off. -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You just un-did an edit I made on Human Rights Violations (Removing the redirect to Human Rights). I've been working with a partner on an academic project to produce a full page for Human Rights Violations. As far as I can tell, the easiest way to do that is to get rid of the redirect. Obviously for now I can leave the redirect while working on the page, but once it's finished I plan on removing the redirect, allowing the subject to stand on its own, with links back to Human Rights. There is a great amount of information on the subject that deserves a greater exploration than just a subheading. Hope that works. DBG2011 ( talk) 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi: You warned someone who was reverting one piece of the vandalism at Holocene, and got a hurt response to your message. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know about vandalism on Shipwrecked 2011 by IP user. -- MSalmon ( talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello DVdm! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
i have added reference about indian calculations. i have also added a link that shows scanning of r..ig veda page that has particular hyme. plz see all and consider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drajaytripathi ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The external links which I have added as part of my are purely informational in nature and not irrelevant. Please consider going through the links before passing a judgement. The links were given to each event is happening in the festival. with in a page informing the people of a technical festival how is adding links to the events of the festival irrelevant or advertising ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasadpiyer ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
i received your message saying un-neutral point of view? but that was just copy and paste from intel, how un-neutral is that? lol 175.156.207.95 ( talk) 16:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Haha you beat me to warning that IP vandal. Have a good one! Shuipzv3 ( talk) 09:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
I'm not attempting to blank the pages, unfortunately for some reason, every time I've made an addition to a page, it blanks it and doesn't post the additions I have made. 71.233.89.10 ( talk) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi- My name is Leslie Fleming and I am a freshman at Clemson University. For my english class we were asked to create or edit a wikipedia page. If you have time I would love if you could look over what I have started in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lflemin/Homestead_High_School_(Mequon,_Wisconsin)_sandbox Thanks so much!
Lflemin ( talk) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a freshman at Clemson University. In my English 103 class, we are required to work on a wikipedia article. I've been working on the AutoCAD article. I added some content about the Mobile App and added a new section containing information about the newest release. Just so you know its only our "first draft" so I will definitely be putting more information up. I'm required to ask two current Wiki users that have worked on the page for any suggestions that they may have or problems that they see with the article. I would greatly appreciate the help! Here is a link to the sandbox which has bullet points about what I plan on adding in the next week. DD-ENGL103-41 AutoCAD Sandbox Thanks! DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 22:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, whilst I appreciate your looking over Buster Keaton, I don't think it is fair of you to have removed my term "wryly". It is applicable and does not have to appear in the original - you're splitting haec verba hairs without need. There is room for style without calling it a point of view or original research or whatever it is you said about it. I object further because in your explanation you said "wryliness" which is not even a word! I'd appreciate it if you just left my good edits alone! Djathinkimacowboy ( talk) 19:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule that says that we are not allowed to invent new words in our edit summaries in order to express what the edits are about. I can assure you that I looked it up in two online dictionaries and, when I failed to find it, I doubted about scare quoting it, but then I decided to boldly invent it on the spot, although I now realize that I probably should have called it wryness. I'm not going to diclook (without scare quotes — no rule about inventing new words on talk pages) for that one, as I'm sure it does exist. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Finally, I try to leave everyone's good edits alone and only touch some of the bad ones that I happen to come across, so you really have nothing to fear — on the contrary. DVdm ( talk) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, be gracious and assume good faith. No matter what anyone says, describing a quote as "wry" or any PROPER derivation therefrom is NOT a point of view or opinion. Lord, one would have to be barely semi-literate to fail to appreciate the wryness of the remark.
Still, I appreciate your diligence. However, I think you're being as narrow as you think I am. I know these rules perhaps better than most. I've seen them re-written and tortured over the years, for certain. Yes, I slip up as we all do - but it happens much more often that we get obsessed with editing every little thing.
You said, "...but then I decided to boldly invent it on the spot, although I now realize that I probably should have called it wryness..." and I cheer that. See, that's the spirit. The spirit I think you may be a bit uptight in dealing with others. Now you should have checked the verifiability of that made-up word! ;)
In the end, I respect you a lot. I have seen the work you have done there and in a few other spots. We writers (Wikipedia is the furthest thing from 'my life') get a bit hot about style.
I would suggest to you that boldness and style do have a place here, and not all of it is mere opinion. Djathink imacowboy 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I get it! - and still, though we shouldn't argue it further, I can direct you to someone here who agrees with us both. He favors your rendition of the point, though he can see why I worded it the way I did. Stick to the safest interpretation of the rule is what he suggested. I have respected you both in this. Djathink imacowboy 15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The external Physics link removed was for a subscription service. It should be removed as suggested on the page to remove improper links!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.66.160 ( talk) 08:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
That said, the content pointed to with the link in question requires no subscription, but it is indeed a blog and can therefore be removed per wp:ELNO #11. So go ahead, but make sure you don't replace it with another improper link. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a funny one, this - DVdm ( talk) 09:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Who insists of reverting waht I write in the Wikipedia. Eventually they go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.162.111 ( talk) 10:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You wanna read the page properly? If you can find one reason not to delete it, let me know. Jemerychen ( talk) 11:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For the vigilance and razor-keen exactitude in minor edits that make articles streamlined and perfect. Djathink imacowboy 03:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hello, I do not understand why you have deleted the video link depicting Cley next the Sea in the BBC One Balloon idents. This was not pure advertising at all, and was simply recognition of the village's proud achievement. ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 10:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
I'm still unconvinced by your justification, but would the following YouTube link be more appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR2Nf6ahzdo&feature=related ? ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
For a village of Cley's size, this was certainly notable. I have resubmitted the link as a source as you advised. ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 10:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Thank you. Much appreciated. ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 14:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Oh, please come over and see the talk page. It has erupted due to the harassment by user DIREKTOR, who I understand is a troublemaker. Good thing it's protected! This stuff on the talk page is frankly garbage. Now two editors are over there dancing round the issue like crazy people. Djathink imacowboy 18:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in again - this article is being vandalised almost daily. I don't know where you sit in the totem pole, but is there any way we can lock this, protect it like Nikola Tesla? Djathink imacowboy 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Exercise: go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - DVdm ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
HA! Agreed. Heel juist. I hate seeing that kind of nonsense happen to any article. Djathink imacowboy 19:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, so stupid - they tell editors to put their requests at the top! How could I have missed it! (I might was well say, "How typical of me.") Djathink imacowboy 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You are a genius, the way you handle my contributions. KK ( 78.146.67.35 ( talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC))
FYI: [12] Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 17:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
User IP 195.194.199.50 is now causing a bit of a small stir at Roscoe Arbuckle. I noted on the IP's talk page that the IP has been warned over and over again about making what look like silly edits. Another page protection request, or do you take the wheel on this one and request a user IP block? Djathink imacowboy 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was quite a famous a quotation that i didn't bother to search for a citation. Also, please use the {{Citation needed}} tag instead of undoing any edit outright. 122.176.58.109 ( talk) 11:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks buddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 ( talk) 12:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a little bit of an issue here, I think. Suggesting that it it not OK to say "moderate" without soures, but it is OK to say "far-right" without sources does not sit well.
Rich
Farmbrough,
19:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
hehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.137.34 ( talk) 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This is user jmfs1701i would like to know why my topics have been put up for speedy deletion, please respond, thank you DVdm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfs1701 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So why was my page requested for speedy deletion they are valid solid reliable information Jmfs1701 J.M. Farinola ( talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Why did you undo your own edit? The source is legitimate and the quote is not "taken out of context," since it's immediately cited and the full article is available. Webberkenny ( talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, I need help. Nikola Tesla discussion page Would you come to the section "The lead photo's date" and mediate this? I'm not going to allow the likes of user DIREKTOR to get me in trouble! There's a history there, I'm sure you know it. He's at it again, and after this moment I am not going to acknowledge or respond. Which I ought to have done so much earlier! If you can lend a hand, I would be so obliged. Djathink imacowboy 19:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hah. I wish I could say that cjt is code for WP:CITEKILL, but the fact of the matter is that misspelled "citation" and accidentally hit Enter while reaching for Backspace :) -- Anders Feder ( talk) 23:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you havn't noticed (don't worry) on my talk page, the lorentz transformation talk page or the real and imaginary parts talk page, I wrote stuff in response to you're welcome. Thanks again, -- F=q(E+v^B) ( talk) 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
Sorry, just asking everyone I can think of to please come and help me with a small editing issue at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Houdini#Exhumation_edit and I do respect your views. Djathink imacowboy 10:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Aha, you mean that. Well, point well taken, and I appreciate the warning. In fact, I went about deleting my couple of other posts to those who had not responded. Hope that does not end up looking bad too.
You know, I feel I can tell you, I have just about had all I can take from exerting myself here. Look what happens: the air is full of chisels. Even you felt the need to present my appeal to you on the Houdini talk page.
This niggling (not you!) and name-calling is making me ill. And please don't tell me to take a vacation. ;) This stupid Wikipedia editing used to be a hobby I liked. Djathink imacowboy 13:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
...for your recent help. Keep up the good work. Tide rolls 08:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a template to generate a link to Behindwoods news article in your edits.
{{ Behindwoods}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjenith ( talk • contribs)
This is a template to generate a direct link to the Twitter status message. You can use this template to navigate directly to the Tweet or to refer someone directly to any Tweet in your wiki. You can use this template freely wherever you need to refer any tweets/twitter users of Twitter#Features for your external references or some other places. -- Jenith Michael Raj ( talk) 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Twitter_status
It's probably not a good idea to use red warning triangles with newbies who are not malicious, just not quite "getting" it :) A friendly note with advice on how to move forward can be preferable, where the former risks frightening them off ( WP:BITE is, of course, the relevant policy - I'm not accusing you of being Bite-y, but it expresses the sentiment) -- Errant ( chat!) 09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the AIV report for 212.85.28.40. That IP has a long block log, and I've just added a year-long stretch to it. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
We obviously cant describe each researchers contribution in the cold fusion article. Rothwell's first list has 4500 names on it. A later version only lists the 350 peer review published researchers. We cant list this on the cold fusion article but it does show how active the field exactly is. Currently people believe Rossi is doing all the work. This while he hasn't even published anything. Nothing on Wikipedia contradicts this flawed assumption.
I'm not sure about the exact criteria at this stage but before adding them to a Wikipedia list of researchers each list item should have the credentials checked out. This is going to take some time. People who have a wikipedia article that already identifies them as a cold fusion researcher would obviously be the first to approve. The gray areas need a bit of debate first.
If you cant wait you can put the article live with 4 or 5 of the 350 names on it but I thought that was a bit of a silly approach. The list on the talk page is suppose to be a photo-negative of the one on the article so that editors can easily help expand it.
If in doubt, we also have List of quantum gravity researchers and one for List of loop quantum gravity researchers etc etc
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even understand their point. lol Apparently they got the impression I wasn't going to source anything. What would be the fun in that? It's such a strange assumption I really didn't get it. Now it all makes sense. I just have to get used to the idea of being treated like an idiot and all will be fine. haha 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 03:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 09:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look on the current status of the list
User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers (only the first bit, the rest is just working sheet) and let me know what you think. Thanks --
POVbrigand (
talk)
14:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the list was challenged for BLP while still in my userspace. Nobody responded, so I guess I did everything right. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Userpage Shield | |
Thanks for taking care of that vandalism on my page. Achowat ( talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
D, thanks for the slack you picked up at the article. I'm afraid I did that in a stupid moment of multitasking and did not bother to try to fix it. I'm glad you went in and straightened it - also I see that I misunderstood the Dawkins ref. So thanks for that. Djathink imacowboy 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
About your comment on my talk page, for which you said "please cite a reliable source" for the article
Square root: I did not write those thing. I just copied a portion of text from
Methods of computing square roots, just to display an example. If you need a
reliable source, you can contact the original author of
it. Anyway, thanks for your great comment.
Derek Leung
LM
02:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi you said the statement was un-sourced the source can be found at the end of the paragraph. I added the source again and see you have now removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 ( talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems likely Collins dictionary has changed it entry for "time" - and it does say 2011 now. See 6th down in this search
Collins: The Dictionary Meaning of time www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3...False...1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole, temporal, (Related adjective) 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with ... I must wonder why they would consider their change an improvement-- JimWae ( talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A description of WP organization is in this draft. Please look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing all the damage that the Mr. Curious' IP address has done to my talk page and user page. It was very kind of you. :) It's such a shame that they will not leave me alone on wikia and Youtube. But thanks for undoing the damage once again. :)-- Brainiac Adam ( talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your vigilance about the time articles... lol... And please kindly elaborate a bit on my talk page (I added a few questions there). -- Nazar ( talk) 19:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Booknotes was a high quality interview program that interviews leading authors on topics directly relevant to the articles in question. There is no way it violates any of the WP:ELNO restrictions. So please don't delete them. The series of 800 hourlong interviews is a major RS for Wiki users. Many of the people interviewed won the Pulitzer and other major prizes. Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam praised the series because it "connects serious writers in a highly-civilized way to serious readers out there." Brian Lamb did most of the interviews, for which he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The American Historical Association awarded Lamb the 2004 Theodore Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Award "for extraordinary contributions to the study, teaching, and public understanding of history." High honors indeed. Rjensen ( talk) 11:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not that hard. See what we just did at Artificial gravity and User talk:Otolith2#External links to be avoided. It works and it's better, and it is a Wikipedia guideline. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 14:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, let me point out (below) that the existing External Links (not including Booknotes) on the Einstein article (which was the original one in question) includes links to the FBI, Life Magazine, the Nobel Prize website, The History Channel, PBS/WGBH, an MIT course that also covered Oppenheimer and Feynman, and an article by Einstein about Socialism. Again, I will concede that perhaps the links section for the Einstein article needs to be patrolled against getting too crowded (due to the length and breadth of the article) but the same is not a particular concern for Eleanor Clift, Ted Sorenson, etc.
KConWiki (
talk)
18:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
External links section from Albert Einstein article, not including Booknotes
Collapsed list
|
---|
|
And of course I still don't see what is so hard to understand about the guideline as amply quoted above. Our interpretations seem to be collide. Anyway, time for some Real-life Living now. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Drawn here by my own revert of the link being added to Albert Einstein before I was made aware of this discussion I think any point I might raise has been discussed already but it's still worth me restating my reasons for removing the link, expanding on my edit summary. The link in question's main problem is it is only incidentally on the topic: the main topic of the linked page is the book, not Albert Einstein. So it clearly fails #13 of WP:ELNO. Also a video is far less useful as a link as it requires both more time and special software for users to view. There is a transcript but it's clearly not meant to be read, being poorly formatted and stuck in a narrow frame. But the main reason is #13 of the reasons to exclude links.
I agree the section is already too long but just because there are bad links already is not a reason to add more – quite the opposite. I have in the past pared back overlong external links sections in articles, but I'm happier to do this in other topic areas and leave this to other editors who know this subject better.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 11:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
To improve the article:
1) Wiki needs to view it as science.
2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.
I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.
Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"
1) Is this science or pathological science?
2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.
3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?
4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?
DVdm, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702-- Gregory Goble ( talk) 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, I have admitted I jumped the gun- but I don't think I deserved a spanking from you like this [15]. Djathink imacowboy (yell) 23:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
How is global security a pov source? in fact why haven't you warned the other user for 3rv rule? I will remove your warning if you pick and choose who to warn at your leisure 109.150.60.235 ( talk) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 Editing User DVdm:
I am using the editing feature on Wikipedia for the first time. My attempts to edit the Calvin cycle page were repeatedly reverted. I would like an explanation, if I may.
I read the Wikipedia Calvin cycle page, and was struck by the fact that between Refs. 1 and 2, the entire body of Calvin et al's original papers on their finding of the light reaction in photosynthesis were omitted. I.e., Refs. 1 and 2 were the sole sources for the Wikipedia presentation of the Calvin cycle.
I inserted the omitted body of original papers by Calvin et al, which refuted the existence of the Calvin cycle in photosynthesis. Apparently these papers were not known to you as Editing User.
I received auto messages stating, first that someone else had edited during the time I was doing my edits and, then, that two of my external links were not allowed. So I removed them all, and re-introduced the edits. Unfortunately, as a result, I received your warning of possibly being blocked for being disruptive.
All of my indicated changes were referenced to reputable journal publications, including Calvin et al's original publications in the permanent literature. I neither intended to be a "vandal," nor "disruptive."
As for another User's (Schmidt?) question, "What is NSFfunding.com," the answer is: NSFfunding.com, a U.S.-based organization under contract with the Internal Revenue Service, is authorized by the United States to detect the use of the Calvin cycle as a means for penetrating the U.S. Treasury. See, The Calvin Cycle Website.
Therefore, I'd appreciate your letting me know why you reverted my edits.
Thanks, Frankkfong ( talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. After I communicted this talk writeup, I noticed your attribution to me of the headline thing on "Kumbaya." I did not introduce the unsigned "Kumbaya." I am new to all this. Forgive me for having made some inadvertent mistakes, if any.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkfong ( talk • contribs)
Petrb has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
I have tried to add a single line to the S.E. Cupp page, but it continues to be removed. I was told it needed a reference, so I provided one. The line was still deleted. The line is not of opinion, but is an honest assessment of her after reading article after article (I can't reference them all) and her book "Losing Our Religion." I would like to know why this is continuously removed. 64.191.172.126 ( talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I have mentioned edits by you here. It seems right to alert you about this on your talk page rather than discuss you behind your back. Wenttomowameadow ( talk) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(Moved conversation with italicised and parenthesised signatures from here to Frankkfong's talk page)
To all involved, please continue at User talk:Frankkfong. Thank you. - DVdm ( talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you read? Can't you see the content of 4.2.1 was just copyed and the table was broken? -- 139.18.148.186 ( talk) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your not in trouble but please explain why every edit since january the 6th on fort plank has been part of an edit war -- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor and I are trying to come up with a way to modify the Inertial frame of reference definition. It currently uses a paraphrasing from Landau and Lifshitz. Based on discussion on the talk page I guess people want to simplify it, or at least have a simplier lead in which is then followed by a stricter definition. Since you were involved in previous discussion, I was wondering if you could please stop by and share opinions on how to word it? FlyingBob ( talk) 04:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency between the definition of the Pochhammer symbol and the series expansion of an Hypergeometric function. I changed the index convention in the Hypergeometric Function to make it consistent with the Pochhammer symbol article. Why was this reverted? 130.245.203.227 ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHY MY PAGE WAS DELETED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.114.83 ( talk) 13:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You say my contributions are unsourced, but I'm the source, there is no other source on this kind of matter. Chrisnach ( talk) 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, alas, maybe I should listen to the voices, hehehe, and comit mass murder, then I would get published, right?? By the way where do you live? lol, bye. 94.227.51.235 ( talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Any reason why you refuse to allow accurate information on this particular entry? Why make an edit war out of something political/personal? This seems rather against the Wikipedia mission statement. I don't want to have to report you for vandalism. Daarlock ( talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, misread the links. We are on the same side. Look at me jumping the gun. My apologies. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daarlock ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, just a quick note to say that although I think this edit of yours improved the article, it is not a good idea to use Huggle to revert good-faith edits; Huggle is solely for use in reverting vandalism. Regards, Skomorokh 17:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
...for this. And I agree with you regarding the wise use of automated tools for good-faith edits. Unfortunately, on this exact topic Huggle has been proving problematic for me lately, as reported here. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you tagged Music of the Baroque for speedy deletion as G7 (author requested deletion). Where did the author request this? While the article is certainly a COI, I don't see any evidence that they blanked the page or otherwise asked for it to be deleted. Thanks. Zachlipton ( talk) 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You say:
(→Origin of the term natural logarithm: Don't need this unsourced derivaton here - it re-uses the variable x. Used more common approach - with source.)
I ask: What if I used z instead of x? The point is to provide more detail to aid people to understand the steps. Also, what is wrong with unsourced derivations as long as the derivations are correct?
I think you should not have deleted the derivation I provided but your point about the use of x is well taken and substituting another variable, such as z, would help to avoid confusion with equation just above it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.30.11.1 ( talk) 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Noticed you on Huggle last night, I thought i'd send this, to say thanks for you work on reverting vandalism. Pol430 talk to me 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) |
You appear to have given an AFD deletion warning notice when you probably meant to give a removal of speedy deletion notice warning. You may want to swap the warning. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 13:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
We make great vandlism busters ;) SilverSoul91911 ( talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, noticed you helping revert the vandals on Doyle. I'd asked yesterday about protection for that page, as it's getting hit pretty hard. Seems like it could use some. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 12:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you, kind editor, for the quick revert on my talk page! I saw the user's edit in Huggle, and you had removed it before I was even able to get to my page! EWikist Talk 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
Good catch on the addition to Funkmaster Flex being a copyvio. I had searched for the text, but I couldn't find it as a copy. Where'd you find it—in case I need to know for future reference? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer to MOS:LQ! — Quantling ( talk | contribs) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, congrats with your rollback rights. Be careful with that axe, Eugene! Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you delete his bio on purpose, or were you trying to do something else? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
We all make mistakes. We computer programmers call them "bugs". ;-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what the issue is. I go to the games and know that Dan Lowson is our first choice keeper and I don't see how this is a controversial edit. Fergyc123 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi, please be aware that many articles use Harvard style citations instead of footnotes. It is inappropriate to place a {{ no footnotes}} tag on such articles. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The lead of the article already displays a prominent note that I take to mean that general referencing in being used for uncontroversial knowledge presented in the body. From WP:SCICITE:
-- Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal man? You keep wanting to keep in this insane language that says the radius of the earth is closer to the moon than it is to the center. It's possibly correct, but the pronoun confusion is so misleading that it should be scrapped altogether for a better explanation. Like the one I put in. JCM83 ( talk)JCM83, regarding the "tides" page.
With the repetitive warnings? How can I stop my vandalism when I am not vandalising between your warnings? 118.93.168.227 ( talk) 09:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
you reverted one of the things i added. I dont see how it was unconstructive. I talked to a couple of my teachers and the principle and they congradulated me for doing all that work that no one took the time to do. I've also talked to some students and asked them if they liked it they said they did. They sended me a message to try it on the sandbox but i dont know want is that since im kinda new to this thing. You can come check out the work i did and put in ours school wikipedia page but got reverted here User talk:Guslb12,my user page. By the way its not just you who reverted it it was many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guslb12 ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You clicked the wrong reason for revert (Huggle). Still, the IP is blocked, now, although the first edit today was only non-constructive, only the rest were vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi .. my automated report feature is on the fritz ... I already gave the IP (ice cream article) a final warning some vandal edits ago. If you are automated, might I ask you to make the report? The IP is on a vandal rampage today. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm Aghada is in fact known to many locals such as myself As "Andrew Meaghers Playboy Mansion".If you read the book "THROUGH THE MIST OF TIME" Memories of the past from Whitegate, Aghada, Saleen, Roches Point, Guileenetc.Compiled by Whitegate/Aghada Historical Society. You can have this verified. Thanks for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.96.3 ( talk) 19:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoa There! Dont bite the newbies man!I was just trying to give the source and help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.96.3 ( talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, DVdm, wanted to thank you for your support when my article was nominated for deletion, It did get deleted, but now is up fore deletion review for an overturn at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_March_3#Mark_Boerebach . Just wondering if you could please assist to get it overturned as there seems to be enough sources. I don't want to touch the discussion any further, as for me it would be a conflict of interest situation. Thanks. Whitewater111 ( talk) 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what a 100,000 shape might be? The article states 100, 1,000, 10,000 and 1,000,000, but it doesn't state 100,000. (Please respond here, as my IP address may change.)-- 90.217.236.77 ( talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You are incorrect. See the discussion page of the article. Flyback transformers are still used to produce high voltages. 86.163.87.193 ( talk) 16:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Tom Van Flandern . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see my edit summary here. Ladyof Shalott 13:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the strange chatter put on my talkpage. That sort of weirdness rattles me, and I appreciate your intervention very much. SteveStrummer ( talk) 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For reverting all that vandalism on my talk and user page, thanks a lot! -- Luke (Talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
you say "did not appear to be constructive" what do you mean exactly ? Pemf1000 ( talk) 12:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
...for reverting the personal attack at my talk-page. I intend no interactions with this user, unless to delete any further rants. By the way, have you noticed the offending user's page claim of "8+" years? Meaning what, I wonder? Haploidavey ( talk) 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69 talk 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Nuclear Transmutation of Stable and Radioactive Isotopes in Biological Systems by Vladimir I. Vysotskii, Alla A. Kornilova ISBN : 978-81-8274-430-1 Publication Year: 2010
and
2. Nuclear Fusion and Transmutation of Isotopes in Biological Systems by Vladimir I. Vysotskii and Alla A. Kornilova Moscow, Peace, 2003
Vladimir I.Vysotskii : Kiev Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine; and Alla A. Kornilova : Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Could you please advice what is the problem with those books ? Thank you very much ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.223.153 ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 89.210.223.153 ( talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
George Osahwa patent removed, why ? Obtained in 1966-02-04 French Patent number FR1427109 titled "Fabrication d'aciers spéciaux par transmutation à faible énergie" 89.210.223.153 ( talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you warned him: [6] Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at 213.107.74.132's talk page.--
213.107.74.132 (
talk)
12:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello DVdm. I saw your post at AN and I thought that I would let you know that you might put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection especially since more than one IP is being used. It is hard to say whether you will get quicker action at that noticeboard over the AN one. I hope that the situation gets resolved ASAP and thanks for your vigilance in taking care of that article. MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to view my response for you on my talk page at any time:)-- Hodeken ( talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If you remember 99.63.26.63 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (obsessed with adding religious categories to living people articles despite repeated and lengthy blocks), it would seem highly likely they are back as 99.63.24.11 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), so you might want to keep an eye out too. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Template talk:ABS-CBN Programs Rigorimpossible ( talk) 08:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well,you have to understand that i dont edit keeping in mind the person i admire but by the facts which atleast i believe are true.Before Newton there was no comprehensive system to connect both mathematics aand philosophy as it was called in his day.He,by his remarkable genius understood the intricate importance that lie between these two branches and developed the first comprehensive system that could be relied upon for further research.The reason he is considered one of the most influential men is that his works not only influenced the scientific community but also the way the general public could think of a problem and he is still the only one considered by both physicists and mathematicians as one of the greatest,if not,the greatest in their respective fields.The sources i have provided are some of the many things that shed some light on his subjects.And the people(like Hart,Hawking,......) may vary,but,the opinion of majority regarding Newton do not.Thank you. Hawker07 ( talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have not done any edits to Newton,the new edits are not done by me.I hope you'll check it.cheers Hawker07 ( talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
do you think the new edits are from reliable source?? Hawker07 ( talk) 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Pretty darn quick, too! Wikipelli Talk 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see you're trawling swiftly through pages for vandalism (great), and warned an IP for messing up an edit (inadvertent deletion of comments) a little harshly (not so great). This was just as the IP was coming to the table to discuss sourcing problems after getting rather irate at getting blocked for not discussing matters and edit warring. I'm not sure your warning is helpful in the circumstances. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 14:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you do?
Thank you for your message!
So, this little work i made could be considered as an "original research". Ok. But this could be considered differently to :) Is it possible to discuss about it?
Best reguards and have fun :) Bastien Sens-Méyé ( discuss) 3 october 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for quick revert of this and similar vandalism. We appear to have a persistently childish yutz on our hands; guess you already saw the thread on the blocking admin's page. — Scheinwerfermann T· C 20:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a section here[ [9]] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 ( talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
Don't know why but you seem to be appearing all over my watch list this last couple of days reverting, correcting and adding so have this mere bauble for all your hard work. All the best Khu kri 11:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
If you want to keep the talk on my page, that is fine, but I thought I should give you at least one heads up that I've replied to your comment. KlappCK ( talk) 13:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd ask since you used it - where in Huggle is the function to show this for the edit summary? Or did you just use a custom one?
Calabe1992 (
talk)
14:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond on your page. I will keep an eye on it."
1) I guess you've been too busy to keep that pledge, huh? 2) Why did you revert then update my userpage, when the article Talk page was the appropriate location?
I'm losing my patience with you. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 17:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to this edit but I find the edit summary curious. As far as I know, Archimedes's is prounced "Ark-im-EED-eez-iz", five syllables, whereas Archimedes' is just four, the same as the man's name. -- Trovatore ( talk) 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am a Campus Ambassador of Wikipedia India Education Program, I have to encourage them to start editing articles. It was not at all a random act. I am their Campus Ambassador. Mihir.khatwani ( talk • contribs)
Well, please then have a close look at wp:talk page guidelines and specifically at wp:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Some basic rules are: (1) to put new messages at the bottom, (2) to use proper section headings, (3) to sign messages with four tildes (~~~~), and (4) never to remove (or replace) existing content from other peoples user talk pages. If you have a carefull read of these guidelines, the probability that someone mistakes your messages for vandalism will be much smaller. That is what happened with me anyway. Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 15:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that entry on my Talk page. -- Deadly∀ssassin 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I made a good edit on an article, another overzealous super-guy editor undid it and accused me of basically vandalizing the article, and then did some research and reverted the article to what I had changed. Then you come along and threaten to ban me? Get off your high horse, dude. 76.119.75.131 ( talk) 09:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
You aren't the kind of guy who actually responds, huh? 76.119.75.131 ( talk) 09:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Anon76, please have a very careful look at wp:ETIQ and wp:AGF. When you immediately start calling someone who makes a possible mistake an "idiot", chances are that subsequent communication will be difficult, if not impossible. When you persist behaving like that, changes are that you end up blocked, so, trust me, do be very careful.
Da and Anon76, I suggest that you apologise to each other — in no particular order. Cheers & Chill. DVdm ( talk) 10:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Your issue with the episode summary for the third episode of Pan Am involved one misplaced letter you could clearly have removed yourself rather than remove the entire edit summary. That edit, which you made a second time even after it was reverted, was neither constructive nor helpful. If you were unable to make the change you wanted, you should have left a comment on the episodes talk page or after I reverted on mine, not removed the entire summary twice. I can think of no circumstances where so extreme an edit is a viable, appropriate option. Drmargi ( talk) 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi DVdm,
You recently reverted some external links added to this article by User:Bastien Sens-Méyé. I haven't undone your edit, but one or two of them looked as though they might (stress, might!) constitute valid sources. Since they're in French (which I can't speak beyond ordering coffee and croissants), I've encouraged Bastien to read WP:RS and consider whether any of them could be inserted as citations. No action required on your part, but I thought it best to let you know - don't come down on him too hard if he adds them back and you disagree; blame me instead!
Cheers, Yunshui ( talk) 08:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I believe I undid the edit because I realized that there was another inline citation earlier in the sentence, and it looked inconsistent to have ono inside the sentence and one outside of it. In the end, I figured I'd better leave it for someone else :) -- 90.184.154.70 ( talk) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Even if they're virtual. - DVdm ( talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
Not sure if you know, but Willdasmiffking was making unconstructive edits to List of English inventions and discoveries as well as to Maxim gun and Hiram Maxim. Thank you for reporting him to the administrator's board because I was about to do the same thing until you beat me to it. Yoganate79 ( talk) 19:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I wish to appeal my warning. I did not make a personal attack on that guy. He's in the middle of an edit war and I told the other guy to stop fighting with him. And for some reason he comes and attacks me? I don't get what this whole thing is about but Me123456789 or whatever is being really childish and I would like it if you could remove that warning. thanks 184.100.206.84 ( talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You recently notified me that edits I supposedly made to National Coming Out Day were removed because they were considered vandalism. I did not make those edits, nor would I ever write such offensive garbage. I'm not sure how I became linked to this incident, but I'm glad those comments were deleted. 12.131.0.2 ( talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - that IP is adding cut and copy paste from here http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3871084/TOWIE-Maria-Fowlers-secret-past-as-escort.html - I have a feeling even if it was cited it doesn't belong in a BLP. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear DVdm,
The BDS page is written from a anti-Israel perspective. All what i did was to neutralise the page. Please revert the changes you have made. My edit was made not to be subtle while the BDS trys to be subtle.
10:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC) MYGAMEUPLAY ( talk)
I couldn't find what you were trying to do here [10] but it didn't work. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Not sure what happened there but you fixed it, I grabbed the wrong dif, sorry. You might want to look at WP:NORN#James, son of Alphaeus. Dougweller ( talk) 13:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hiya,
Thanks for being quick to revert vandalism on my talk page. Is there any way I can find out the IPs that Julaime6606 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) (who has vandalised it a few times today) has been posting from? We think they may be a disgruntled banned user on SABRE but without matching IPs, we don't have enough concrete evidence to permanently boot them off. -- Ritchie333 ( talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You just un-did an edit I made on Human Rights Violations (Removing the redirect to Human Rights). I've been working with a partner on an academic project to produce a full page for Human Rights Violations. As far as I can tell, the easiest way to do that is to get rid of the redirect. Obviously for now I can leave the redirect while working on the page, but once it's finished I plan on removing the redirect, allowing the subject to stand on its own, with links back to Human Rights. There is a great amount of information on the subject that deserves a greater exploration than just a subheading. Hope that works. DBG2011 ( talk) 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi: You warned someone who was reverting one piece of the vandalism at Holocene, and got a hurt response to your message. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know about vandalism on Shipwrecked 2011 by IP user. -- MSalmon ( talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello DVdm! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
i have added reference about indian calculations. i have also added a link that shows scanning of r..ig veda page that has particular hyme. plz see all and consider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drajaytripathi ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The external links which I have added as part of my are purely informational in nature and not irrelevant. Please consider going through the links before passing a judgement. The links were given to each event is happening in the festival. with in a page informing the people of a technical festival how is adding links to the events of the festival irrelevant or advertising ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasadpiyer ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
i received your message saying un-neutral point of view? but that was just copy and paste from intel, how un-neutral is that? lol 175.156.207.95 ( talk) 16:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Haha you beat me to warning that IP vandal. Have a good one! Shuipzv3 ( talk) 09:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
I'm not attempting to blank the pages, unfortunately for some reason, every time I've made an addition to a page, it blanks it and doesn't post the additions I have made. 71.233.89.10 ( talk) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi- My name is Leslie Fleming and I am a freshman at Clemson University. For my english class we were asked to create or edit a wikipedia page. If you have time I would love if you could look over what I have started in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lflemin/Homestead_High_School_(Mequon,_Wisconsin)_sandbox Thanks so much!
Lflemin ( talk) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a freshman at Clemson University. In my English 103 class, we are required to work on a wikipedia article. I've been working on the AutoCAD article. I added some content about the Mobile App and added a new section containing information about the newest release. Just so you know its only our "first draft" so I will definitely be putting more information up. I'm required to ask two current Wiki users that have worked on the page for any suggestions that they may have or problems that they see with the article. I would greatly appreciate the help! Here is a link to the sandbox which has bullet points about what I plan on adding in the next week. DD-ENGL103-41 AutoCAD Sandbox Thanks! DD-ENGL103-41 ( talk) 22:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, whilst I appreciate your looking over Buster Keaton, I don't think it is fair of you to have removed my term "wryly". It is applicable and does not have to appear in the original - you're splitting haec verba hairs without need. There is room for style without calling it a point of view or original research or whatever it is you said about it. I object further because in your explanation you said "wryliness" which is not even a word! I'd appreciate it if you just left my good edits alone! Djathinkimacowboy ( talk) 19:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule that says that we are not allowed to invent new words in our edit summaries in order to express what the edits are about. I can assure you that I looked it up in two online dictionaries and, when I failed to find it, I doubted about scare quoting it, but then I decided to boldly invent it on the spot, although I now realize that I probably should have called it wryness. I'm not going to diclook (without scare quotes — no rule about inventing new words on talk pages) for that one, as I'm sure it does exist. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Finally, I try to leave everyone's good edits alone and only touch some of the bad ones that I happen to come across, so you really have nothing to fear — on the contrary. DVdm ( talk) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, be gracious and assume good faith. No matter what anyone says, describing a quote as "wry" or any PROPER derivation therefrom is NOT a point of view or opinion. Lord, one would have to be barely semi-literate to fail to appreciate the wryness of the remark.
Still, I appreciate your diligence. However, I think you're being as narrow as you think I am. I know these rules perhaps better than most. I've seen them re-written and tortured over the years, for certain. Yes, I slip up as we all do - but it happens much more often that we get obsessed with editing every little thing.
You said, "...but then I decided to boldly invent it on the spot, although I now realize that I probably should have called it wryness..." and I cheer that. See, that's the spirit. The spirit I think you may be a bit uptight in dealing with others. Now you should have checked the verifiability of that made-up word! ;)
In the end, I respect you a lot. I have seen the work you have done there and in a few other spots. We writers (Wikipedia is the furthest thing from 'my life') get a bit hot about style.
I would suggest to you that boldness and style do have a place here, and not all of it is mere opinion. Djathink imacowboy 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I get it! - and still, though we shouldn't argue it further, I can direct you to someone here who agrees with us both. He favors your rendition of the point, though he can see why I worded it the way I did. Stick to the safest interpretation of the rule is what he suggested. I have respected you both in this. Djathink imacowboy 15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The external Physics link removed was for a subscription service. It should be removed as suggested on the page to remove improper links!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.66.160 ( talk) 08:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
That said, the content pointed to with the link in question requires no subscription, but it is indeed a blog and can therefore be removed per wp:ELNO #11. So go ahead, but make sure you don't replace it with another improper link. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a funny one, this - DVdm ( talk) 09:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Who insists of reverting waht I write in the Wikipedia. Eventually they go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.162.111 ( talk) 10:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You wanna read the page properly? If you can find one reason not to delete it, let me know. Jemerychen ( talk) 11:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For the vigilance and razor-keen exactitude in minor edits that make articles streamlined and perfect. Djathink imacowboy 03:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hello, I do not understand why you have deleted the video link depicting Cley next the Sea in the BBC One Balloon idents. This was not pure advertising at all, and was simply recognition of the village's proud achievement. ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 10:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
I'm still unconvinced by your justification, but would the following YouTube link be more appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR2Nf6ahzdo&feature=related ? ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 10:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
For a village of Cley's size, this was certainly notable. I have resubmitted the link as a source as you advised. ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 10:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Thank you. Much appreciated. ( 86.53.67.133 ( talk) 14:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Oh, please come over and see the talk page. It has erupted due to the harassment by user DIREKTOR, who I understand is a troublemaker. Good thing it's protected! This stuff on the talk page is frankly garbage. Now two editors are over there dancing round the issue like crazy people. Djathink imacowboy 18:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in again - this article is being vandalised almost daily. I don't know where you sit in the totem pole, but is there any way we can lock this, protect it like Nikola Tesla? Djathink imacowboy 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Exercise: go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - DVdm ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
HA! Agreed. Heel juist. I hate seeing that kind of nonsense happen to any article. Djathink imacowboy 19:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, so stupid - they tell editors to put their requests at the top! How could I have missed it! (I might was well say, "How typical of me.") Djathink imacowboy 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You are a genius, the way you handle my contributions. KK ( 78.146.67.35 ( talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC))
FYI: [12] Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 17:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
User IP 195.194.199.50 is now causing a bit of a small stir at Roscoe Arbuckle. I noted on the IP's talk page that the IP has been warned over and over again about making what look like silly edits. Another page protection request, or do you take the wheel on this one and request a user IP block? Djathink imacowboy 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was quite a famous a quotation that i didn't bother to search for a citation. Also, please use the {{Citation needed}} tag instead of undoing any edit outright. 122.176.58.109 ( talk) 11:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks buddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 ( talk) 12:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a little bit of an issue here, I think. Suggesting that it it not OK to say "moderate" without soures, but it is OK to say "far-right" without sources does not sit well.
Rich
Farmbrough,
19:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
hehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.137.34 ( talk) 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This is user jmfs1701i would like to know why my topics have been put up for speedy deletion, please respond, thank you DVdm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfs1701 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So why was my page requested for speedy deletion they are valid solid reliable information Jmfs1701 J.M. Farinola ( talk) 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Why did you undo your own edit? The source is legitimate and the quote is not "taken out of context," since it's immediately cited and the full article is available. Webberkenny ( talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, I need help. Nikola Tesla discussion page Would you come to the section "The lead photo's date" and mediate this? I'm not going to allow the likes of user DIREKTOR to get me in trouble! There's a history there, I'm sure you know it. He's at it again, and after this moment I am not going to acknowledge or respond. Which I ought to have done so much earlier! If you can lend a hand, I would be so obliged. Djathink imacowboy 19:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hah. I wish I could say that cjt is code for WP:CITEKILL, but the fact of the matter is that misspelled "citation" and accidentally hit Enter while reaching for Backspace :) -- Anders Feder ( talk) 23:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you havn't noticed (don't worry) on my talk page, the lorentz transformation talk page or the real and imaginary parts talk page, I wrote stuff in response to you're welcome. Thanks again, -- F=q(E+v^B) ( talk) 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
Sorry, just asking everyone I can think of to please come and help me with a small editing issue at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Houdini#Exhumation_edit and I do respect your views. Djathink imacowboy 10:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Aha, you mean that. Well, point well taken, and I appreciate the warning. In fact, I went about deleting my couple of other posts to those who had not responded. Hope that does not end up looking bad too.
You know, I feel I can tell you, I have just about had all I can take from exerting myself here. Look what happens: the air is full of chisels. Even you felt the need to present my appeal to you on the Houdini talk page.
This niggling (not you!) and name-calling is making me ill. And please don't tell me to take a vacation. ;) This stupid Wikipedia editing used to be a hobby I liked. Djathink imacowboy 13:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
...for your recent help. Keep up the good work. Tide rolls 08:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a template to generate a link to Behindwoods news article in your edits.
{{ Behindwoods}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjenith ( talk • contribs)
This is a template to generate a direct link to the Twitter status message. You can use this template to navigate directly to the Tweet or to refer someone directly to any Tweet in your wiki. You can use this template freely wherever you need to refer any tweets/twitter users of Twitter#Features for your external references or some other places. -- Jenith Michael Raj ( talk) 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Twitter_status
It's probably not a good idea to use red warning triangles with newbies who are not malicious, just not quite "getting" it :) A friendly note with advice on how to move forward can be preferable, where the former risks frightening them off ( WP:BITE is, of course, the relevant policy - I'm not accusing you of being Bite-y, but it expresses the sentiment) -- Errant ( chat!) 09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the AIV report for 212.85.28.40. That IP has a long block log, and I've just added a year-long stretch to it. — Tom Morris ( talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
We obviously cant describe each researchers contribution in the cold fusion article. Rothwell's first list has 4500 names on it. A later version only lists the 350 peer review published researchers. We cant list this on the cold fusion article but it does show how active the field exactly is. Currently people believe Rossi is doing all the work. This while he hasn't even published anything. Nothing on Wikipedia contradicts this flawed assumption.
I'm not sure about the exact criteria at this stage but before adding them to a Wikipedia list of researchers each list item should have the credentials checked out. This is going to take some time. People who have a wikipedia article that already identifies them as a cold fusion researcher would obviously be the first to approve. The gray areas need a bit of debate first.
If you cant wait you can put the article live with 4 or 5 of the 350 names on it but I thought that was a bit of a silly approach. The list on the talk page is suppose to be a photo-negative of the one on the article so that editors can easily help expand it.
If in doubt, we also have List of quantum gravity researchers and one for List of loop quantum gravity researchers etc etc
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even understand their point. lol Apparently they got the impression I wasn't going to source anything. What would be the fun in that? It's such a strange assumption I really didn't get it. Now it all makes sense. I just have to get used to the idea of being treated like an idiot and all will be fine. haha 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 03:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
-- POVbrigand ( talk) 09:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look on the current status of the list
User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers (only the first bit, the rest is just working sheet) and let me know what you think. Thanks --
POVbrigand (
talk)
14:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the list was challenged for BLP while still in my userspace. Nobody responded, so I guess I did everything right. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Userpage Shield | |
Thanks for taking care of that vandalism on my page. Achowat ( talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
D, thanks for the slack you picked up at the article. I'm afraid I did that in a stupid moment of multitasking and did not bother to try to fix it. I'm glad you went in and straightened it - also I see that I misunderstood the Dawkins ref. So thanks for that. Djathink imacowboy 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
About your comment on my talk page, for which you said "please cite a reliable source" for the article
Square root: I did not write those thing. I just copied a portion of text from
Methods of computing square roots, just to display an example. If you need a
reliable source, you can contact the original author of
it. Anyway, thanks for your great comment.
Derek Leung
LM
02:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi you said the statement was un-sourced the source can be found at the end of the paragraph. I added the source again and see you have now removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 ( talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems likely Collins dictionary has changed it entry for "time" - and it does say 2011 now. See 6th down in this search
Collins: The Dictionary Meaning of time www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3...False...1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole, temporal, (Related adjective) 2. (Physics) a quantity measuring duration, measured with ... I must wonder why they would consider their change an improvement-- JimWae ( talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A description of WP organization is in this draft. Please look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing all the damage that the Mr. Curious' IP address has done to my talk page and user page. It was very kind of you. :) It's such a shame that they will not leave me alone on wikia and Youtube. But thanks for undoing the damage once again. :)-- Brainiac Adam ( talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your vigilance about the time articles... lol... And please kindly elaborate a bit on my talk page (I added a few questions there). -- Nazar ( talk) 19:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Booknotes was a high quality interview program that interviews leading authors on topics directly relevant to the articles in question. There is no way it violates any of the WP:ELNO restrictions. So please don't delete them. The series of 800 hourlong interviews is a major RS for Wiki users. Many of the people interviewed won the Pulitzer and other major prizes. Pulitzer Prize winning author David Halberstam praised the series because it "connects serious writers in a highly-civilized way to serious readers out there." Brian Lamb did most of the interviews, for which he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The American Historical Association awarded Lamb the 2004 Theodore Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Award "for extraordinary contributions to the study, teaching, and public understanding of history." High honors indeed. Rjensen ( talk) 11:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not that hard. See what we just did at Artificial gravity and User talk:Otolith2#External links to be avoided. It works and it's better, and it is a Wikipedia guideline. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 14:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, let me point out (below) that the existing External Links (not including Booknotes) on the Einstein article (which was the original one in question) includes links to the FBI, Life Magazine, the Nobel Prize website, The History Channel, PBS/WGBH, an MIT course that also covered Oppenheimer and Feynman, and an article by Einstein about Socialism. Again, I will concede that perhaps the links section for the Einstein article needs to be patrolled against getting too crowded (due to the length and breadth of the article) but the same is not a particular concern for Eleanor Clift, Ted Sorenson, etc.
KConWiki (
talk)
18:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
External links section from Albert Einstein article, not including Booknotes
Collapsed list
|
---|
|
And of course I still don't see what is so hard to understand about the guideline as amply quoted above. Our interpretations seem to be collide. Anyway, time for some Real-life Living now. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Drawn here by my own revert of the link being added to Albert Einstein before I was made aware of this discussion I think any point I might raise has been discussed already but it's still worth me restating my reasons for removing the link, expanding on my edit summary. The link in question's main problem is it is only incidentally on the topic: the main topic of the linked page is the book, not Albert Einstein. So it clearly fails #13 of WP:ELNO. Also a video is far less useful as a link as it requires both more time and special software for users to view. There is a transcript but it's clearly not meant to be read, being poorly formatted and stuck in a narrow frame. But the main reason is #13 of the reasons to exclude links.
I agree the section is already too long but just because there are bad links already is not a reason to add more – quite the opposite. I have in the past pared back overlong external links sections in articles, but I'm happier to do this in other topic areas and leave this to other editors who know this subject better.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 11:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
To improve the article:
1) Wiki needs to view it as science.
2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.
I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.
Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"
1) Is this science or pathological science?
2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.
3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?
4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?
DVdm, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702-- Gregory Goble ( talk) 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
DVdm, I have admitted I jumped the gun- but I don't think I deserved a spanking from you like this [15]. Djathink imacowboy (yell) 23:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
How is global security a pov source? in fact why haven't you warned the other user for 3rv rule? I will remove your warning if you pick and choose who to warn at your leisure 109.150.60.235 ( talk) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)