![]() | 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. |
Hello bro, I've replied to your question and revert. Pls check and respond
regards, Hdaackda ( talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That was definitely a WTF... Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 10:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Galicia-Volyn, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Turov-Pinsk, Polotsk Principality, as well as being Rus earlier than 882 is not part of Russian history. The wars their participation can not be written in this section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.172.114 ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind welcome message. This is my first attempt to make edits to Wikipedia. I am doing my best to comply with the guidance on Talk pages; none the less I very much appreciate your reference to it. If I am not doing things right stylistically or in terms of mark up, or anything at all, please do continue to message me! Thanks again! Kebl0155 ( talk) 11:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
what the fuck is up with all these unexplained warnings? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi DVdm. I'm here regarding your recent reports to WP:AIV, such as this one. I was a little curious about your description about how the user was "automatically reported by Huggle". To my understanding, Huggle is a semi-automated tool, meaning while it can assist with performing edits and reverts more quickly, the user running Huggle is still in control of pressing the button to revert and report. In this sense, when Huggle reports to AIV, there shouldn't be a risk of a "false positive", since it is still a human user that is doing the reporting (of course, there is a chance of "human error", if that's what you meant). That aside, thank you for your work on the counter-vandalism front! Mz7 ( talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Both my edits at Gravity had adequate explanations contained in the edit summaries - clearly explaining my reasons, and as such were not vandalisms. My deletes were based on core content policy eg. WP:V to remove claims long flagged as false on the article talk page.
The reverted claims are EXCEPTIONALLY misleading if taken and presented out of context. An "introductory" remark cherry picked from a Physical Geodesy textbook is insufficient citation per policy for resolving such controverses.
Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources, the WP:BURDEN is on you (as the user who restores the text) to provide multiple reliable sources, especially since the sole citation proferred is from an unreliable (for this claim) classical pre-1950 theories approached textbook which declares itself at the outset as A simple rather than completely rigorous presentation (see p.3).
WP:BRD is only an essay for one method towards achieving consensus. In the face of my edit summaries, simply citing BRD as your excuse for reverting is highly provocative and imputes that you ignored content issues. The singular fact that User:Damoclete's May 14 2016 Talk page objection is still unopposed / undisputed means there was sufficent talk page CONSENSUS for me to delete. Additionally, if you cite BRD, you are expected to be considerate and patient instead of threatening me with blocks for Edit Warring and especially after I assumed AGF on your part. Inlinetext ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Re [3], I wonder if an edit filter can take care of this. xaosflux, you know this kind of stuff, right? Drmies ( talk) 19:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I provided extensive references to books, news papers, and I could add more references and journals if Paradox didn't keep disappearing. I have contacted support and we are working to locking it. If there is something missing, it should be noted as CITATION NEEDED, not purged. Purging is ONLY allowed if it has been shown not to be established after a set time when requests are made. Your failure to know about the research does not make it non-existent. You should not be commenting and editing research out of Wiki, when that is what it is for in the first place, without firm belief that what it needs does not exist. You cannot have that unless you have a degree in logistics, which Dr. Sauser does, and a book, as I reference in the article. I will expand on it, but to remove it is offensive. User:mbcopeland —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, i was the guy that removed the "heavy metal" thing from the article and now there's a troll that says that the Mahavishnu Orchestra is hard rock and heavy metal, could you talk with an admin to ban the troll? Thanks! -- 189.216.112.131 ( talk) 04:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, i know who is that IP and it's definitively a troll, please be careful with the article, Thanks! -- 189.216.112.131 ( talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
For your anti-vandalism efforts at Michael White (author) and at Galileo-related pages. - Darouet ( talk) 20:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not incorrect information. Vyvek ( talk) 11:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I wont say what my admin account is. Try to find it. You wont be able to find it because Im smarter than you. Vyvek ( talk) 12:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nata-Olijeck Bridge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 13:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you are right, there's no positive or negative imaginary number, I made a mistake. But still I have some doubts regarding using x^2 + 1 = 0 equation for defining imaginary unit. I shared my doubts in the
Talk:Imaginary_unit#Definition_of_i, I'll appreciate your remarks.
Thanks!
Arek
89.77.32.175 (
talk)
01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Richard Feynman (estimated annual readership: 1,160,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) |
Congratulations!
Paradoctor (
talk)
16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You reverted "jump in time" to "jump in simultaneity".
Most relevantly for this article and for this section: What jumps for the astronaut in the new inertial frame is his reading of the time registered on the Earth clock by way of the lattice of clock method. This is, after all, a discussion about the time differential.
Wheeler, in "Spacetime Physics", wrote that the Earth clock “jumps way ahead at turn-around” for the traveler.
He also wrote that the returning astronaut “has only herself to blame for her misperception of a "jump" in the Earth clock reading.” (quotes around "jump" are Wheeler's.)
I went with: "a requisite jump in the reading of the Earth clock time made by a "suddenly returning astronaut..."
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteUMD ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Louis Essen was the inventor of the atomic clock, the man who most accurately measured the speed of light, and one of the two men who decided the number of oscillations of cesium in an atomic second. Essen wrote a scientific paper disproving relativity [ [8]]. /]]. It was also disproven by Roberto Monti in a paper by the same name (The Special Theory of Relativity, A Critical Analysis) as that of Essen's. [ [9]] Considering Essen's qualifications, a letter from Essen on the subject of relativity is worthy reading, regardless of the website it is posted on[ [10]]. It is also disproven in the book "Science From A Different Perspective" where the writer dispels many of Einstein's thought experiments and the three classic tests considered critical to relativity, disproving general relativity in the process. Drillstop ( talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Drillstop Drillstop ( talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
I came to your page by looking at the contribution history of another user. That user reverted an edit I made to the field (mathematics) article. It could be my imagination but I thought his comment on the talk page was a little aggressive. I just made a new edit taking his criticisms into account, but I am wondering if he'll revert again and try to start an edit war. Which I do NOT want to get into.
With all that said, when I landed on your page and saw your vandalism marker, I couldn't resist :). Cheers! Vincent ( talk) 15:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
According to Evans, Crothers, Eckardt & Pendergast, 2009, Hodge's dual has an antisymmetric tensor in four-spacetime. Do you not like the primary source I used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadchumley ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, I got your message regarding the edit to the Bell's spaceship paradox article. I agreed with the previous user who deleted my edit that this paragraph was undue in the lede, but I fail to see how it is inapropriate in the section "Discussion and publications". I cite a newly released relativity textbook published by Springer with a whole chapter on Bell's spaceship paradox in it. Best, Andune88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andune88 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
Why did you remove the links to Opera Magistris? It is the biggest scientific compendium in a unique PDF existing in the world with the most detailed developments that cannot be found anywhere else even in textbooks? Downloaded more than 10'000 times in English and 80'000 times in French. And by the way it has qualitatively a much better content than other provided links as rendered with LaTeX and peer-reviewed (and qualitatively and scientifically much better than most Wikipedia articles). Thanks for your answer. Daname Kolani
https://archive.org/details/OperaMagistris
194.230.159.128 ( talk) 10:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
May I being allowed a last remark , ... in cauda venenum. Had you known and accepted my interpretation , you never have written , in the refutation of Dingle that ... rate A/rate B = 1/a !! Because of course that ratio = 1 ! Since Einstein a lot of physicists have mistaken , in relativity , the rate of the clock with the measured time itself. Nevertheless I appreciated our brief (!) dicussions ,... your warnings , and your knowledge. Cordially -- Chessfan ( talk) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, my mistake! Dorintosh ( talk) 10:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I saw your anti-vandalism edit on the Pixel (smartphone) page from June 8, 2017. I really appreciated your work in getting rid of this vandalism and wanted to give you a barnstar for it! :) Snowsky Mountain ( talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
message Snowsky Mountain ( talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
Before you roll back what you think is vandalism, how about you actually check what you rolled it back to? Thanks pal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.230 ( talk) 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Wondering if i may use some illustrations from here. I was to write my own section on the dimensionality of space time. Blackcat129 ( talk) 21:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
www.dipole.se presents a valid, contemporary theory about the role of Coulomb dipole forces in strong force and gravity. It is not spam. The problem might be that the scientist who spent 20 years substantiating this theory is also a Wiki editor with over a thousand edits. Since you label this self promotion, would you prefer that this contemporary theory was listed under modern theories by somebody other than the author, and if so, what difference would that make ? Bengt Nyman ( talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I have dug into a physics research project for awhile now. My own time. I used a form of logic math instead of the formal math usually applied. I have noticed a strange way things keep realating to a constant? Is thier a page to ask questions? Blackcat129 ( talk) 05:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of bitcoin wallets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry we've been reverting each other. If you feel strongly about linking "dictionary" words (otherwise known as "common terms", in linking parlance), you might consider raising the matter at WT:MOSTLINK. On the English Wikipedia, this matter was settled long ago (I think from about 2009 to 2011). I can refer you to the discussions at that time if you wish—but they're voluminous. My best. Tony (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.16.236 ( talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I recieved this message. Thing is I don't edit at all on Wikipedia nor been looking into anything bird related. I just browse Wikipedia.-- 86.153.233.215 ( talk) 13:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
That’s enough! I am scared stiff already to take any initiative. Whatever I did (it would seem for the good!) I have never been praised.
Still, in one article I found doubtful expression. May I propose some clarification? Also, are the Feynman Lectures on Physics either “reliable source” or “original research”? Is it ok to refer to them? 83.181.150.84 ( talk) 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 September 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
14:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
18:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello DVdm, recently you removed my link from Surface gravity page. The link provided by me was regarding how surface gravity works on different planets, natural satellites, comets, dwarf planet, asteroid etc and how our weight can vary according to variations in surface gravity of that respected celestial object. Anyone can check his/her weight on different worlds easily. Check this link again. http://antariksha.org/weight-planets-stars-worlds/ Its purely informative content. Here you can not find any kind of promotion. You can revert me here. Kumar Nikate ( talk) 19:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, You have left a message on my talk page, that talks about an edit I made in the article Calculus in the section of history in the subsection of modern. I have to tell you that if you search in the original source which is http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/calc1/calc1.html then you can see that the only mention of the chain rule, is in the Leibniz section. And in the article Chain rule there is no mention, that Newton have discovered that rule. Also in the sources you have inserted, there is no mention that Newton have discovered the chain rule.Thanks - IJM98 ( talk) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)
References
what's wrong with e-print link? Each article in this chapter has this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.129.57 ( talk) 11:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on in this section. Anyway, I've found the citation of this paper myself as part of a larger project, then I independently found the sandbox when the author mentioned File:Trolley Pic.jpg (which I was surprised to see included in an existing page). I think the sources are sufficient for this kind of content. The title can be changes if necessary, e.g. if somebody disagrees there are sufficient sources to consider it a paradox rather than just an exercise. -- Nemo 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what the issue is with the edits, appending, I have provided given that I have included citations ....? ( 108.51.194.199 ( talk) 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC))
I'm reverting your mass removal of Category:Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism. Don't try to pre-empt the CfD process – they can be deleted if and when the CfD is successful, not on your whim. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion on my talkpage, which made clear that it was the IP vandal messing around. The Old Jacobite and I were both pretty puzzled about why I received a warning from him, and when/how he would've posted such a warning; it never even occurred to me that someone else might have posted using his name. Grandpallama ( talk) 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused about the need for references when adding something that is simple logic. Do you have to reference the Pythagorean theorem? I'm sure there are many people who have used the spaceship example in some form or another to explain the of lack of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. I have used it many times in class myself, but I have no idea who first used it--possibly Einstein since he liked thought experiments. The logic, however is straight forward and I'm not sure what to reference. Probably many textbooks have similar discussions, but I'm sure they are not original either. (Just because it's in a physics text does not guarantee it is correct--I've found many mistakes in textbooks.) I added the section because nowhere in the article does it explain what is going on in simple English. Just throwing out the Lorentz transformations does not explain anything. You could derive the transformations from the expanding light spheres as seen by two moving observers, an easy to understand explanation. (I don't know who first came up with that idea either.) If you can find something wrong in the article I would be interested. I also added a section to Bell's theorem, but the watchdogs on Wikipedia do not seem to be interested in explaining physical concepts. Most articles seem not be concerned with understanding ideas. They simply write down the formulas and feel that explains it. There is not a Venn diagram in the whole article, which would explain more than all the words. If someone wanted to understand a topic in physics, I would probably not direct them to Wikipedia. By the way check out "hyperbolic function" I added a section there, but I didn't know you to reference it either since it is pretty straight forward. The original article did not even clearly explain how the functions can be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph C Boone ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Also note that the phenomena of relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction all have their own well-sourced articles, with well-known and documented thought experiment explanations—without Lorentz transformations. So there is no need to invent new or better explanations and put them in the general article Special relativity - DVdm ( talk) 21:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for nominating Property qualifications for voting for deletion; I have deleted this now. Just to let you know though that the more appropriate tag to use was WP:CSD#A10, as that covers new articles that have content covered entirely in existing articles, rather than WP:CSD#A7, which is for notability. Notability doesn't really apply for this article; it's more for people, companies, bands, and products rather than well established concepts. Stephen! Coming... 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the message on Valentine Joseph you left on my talk page, I wanted to let you know that I have changed the article with the Einstein bit because I have referenced it now. Regards - Heptanitrocubane ( talk) 19:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for retracting my FTL article.It needs more comprehension...
K.P.Anastasiadis 06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cca2012 (
talk •
contribs)
06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Cca2012: regarding this message: Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm ( talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you are probably right about the tan(α)=v/c but in the image it is not well justified α must be the angle between axes ct and ct' to be consistent with the tangent definition also. Over and out. K.P.Anastasiadis 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I am inviting past editors of the Tom Waits article to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Tom_Waits#Genres. I am in dispute with User:TheOldJacobite, who has reverted even my sourced changes and ignored my appeals to discuss the issue. Please express your opinion on the issue if it interests you.-- MA SHAUN IX 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, new here. You said said to me recently on the Lorentz Ether Theory page: //PLease get a reliable wp:secondary source (with pages number) where this claim is supported. (TW)// I don’t understand how a compilation book with PhD physicists in it cannot be reliable. Most of these have given papers at PIRT (Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory) and are Professors or were. Their credentials can be looked up online, for example Franco Selleri even has his own wikipage on wikipedia itself, others like Duffy and Levy who are editors were good friends with H.E. Ives and Jean-Pierre Vigier (who even read and commented and replied on Lèvy's book from Galileo to Lorentz..and Beyond). I don’t see why it needs a page number when all the Volumes are a discussion on Lorentzian theories. That's kinda weird to me. Can you explain more to me why it was unacceptable? Maybe just do to the Publisher?
Thanks, ~~Rick~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.86.173 ( talk) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
First you say it cannot be included as it doesn't have a direct quote, now I give a new direct quote and you now say the publisher Apeiron is a fringe source (which is completely different then your argument from before which seems inconsistent, you mentioned nothing about the editors/authors ironically who have the relevant qualifications). How do you define fringe? And do you think holding a neo-Lorentzian view of Special Relativity is considered a fringe view? I am trying to understand why it cannot be included because you think the publisher is a "fringe" source. 173.49.86.173 ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Rick 173.49.86.173 ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello from Ukraine, DVdm Патріот України ( talk) 19:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you SO MUCH for not removing Scarlett Johansson from Category:Fraternal twin actresses as well as One Direction's Category:Family musical groups reputation! But I want twin paradox and/or twin for them so badly! -- 2606:A000:4AC8:1100:A8B5:ABD9:14B3:E573 ( talk) 18:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The 2/3 of the english words derives from norman (above all the "high" one used by the powerful normans and not by saxons)so from old french and so from latin. Kingofwoods ( talk) 20:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Lost time with ignorant people. Kingofwoods ( talk) 20:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologize we all have made mistakes of our own in one way or another Tylermax365 ( talk) 16:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edit on the Electron Wiki talk page?
My edit was hardly 'inappropriate discussion' as you described it - it accurately describes all the properties of an Electron from both a Classical and Quantum Mechanical perspective. You seem to be against the better understanding and advancement of Physics. It was not even an edit of the actual Electron Wiki page - it was on the Talk page for crying out loud!
Declan Traill ( talk) 22:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi there.
With regards to your revert of the edit I made on the square root page, no property in the Properties and uses section is currently backed by sources. In my experience, it is common practice on math pages to present such results without citation as they are considered standard, but I could be wrong I guess.
But now wouldn't you agree that deleting the edit I made would then warrant deleting the entire section as it stands? 91.230.41.206 ( talk) 11:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear DVdm
Could you please elaborate why you deleted my edit for the Speed of Light?
I have, as you request, put sufficient references to make my text valid.
Thanks in advance
Darkch2 ( talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hunh!? (LOL.)
The source was algebra.
The content of the deleted edit was an insertion of: multiply both sides of (Einstein's) equation, and a "Looky there!"
No new source material was being added? Eleaticus ( talk) 20:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read the official IMF list in the article referred.Italy has a very high level of development. Kingofwoods ( talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
you are probably a auto-bot computer editor and not even a human. i just read about other edits you have made to other people that are also incorrect. you just deleted my edits to the "aoa". i am an astronomer(that is my reference-citation).the edits-additions i made are "common knowledge" to follow astronomers. you must not be an astronomer, however you are lame- that i do not need a citation to prove.i also saw that you are a "registered editor", wow you should start a family, or attend a university and become somebody in reality(planet earth).prove your a man, and interested in the truth and dont delete my comments. 172.58.46.216 ( talk) 10:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.46.216 ( talk) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I am a certified and verified source SunMoonStars ( talk) 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions —the one you made with
this edit to
Hollyfield School— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Samf4u (
talk)
19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi DVdm. Thought you might like to know (if you didn't already) that this edit, which you reverted is related to the " Getting to Philosophy game" mentioned here. It turns out that, as described at Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy, most Wikipedia articles have the property that:
where the "first link" is defined to be the first link which is neither in italics nor in parentheses.
However some articles' link paths end in "loops". Currently, for example, the following loop exists: Knowledge -> Fact -> Knowledge. So any article whose link path ever enters such a loop, stays there and so never "gets to philosophy". The edit you reverted was intended to "fix" that loop so that more articles will "get to philosophy". Paul August ☎ 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I changed the colours to match the dominate colours of the DVD/release covers, it's standard on Wikipedia. Your best asking users like User:AlexTheWhovian or User:Drovethrughosts, who can explain in detail. Theo ( edits) 00:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted) RonMaimon ( talk) 17:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted) RonMaimon ( talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, DVdm.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, |
Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih ( talk) 03:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
While we had a small, friendly exchange on my talk page in August 2016, which I enjoyed very much, I lately perceive an extent ( continuous function) and style ( fraction (mathematics)) of turning down my suggestions that I perceive as sort of offensive. Honestly, I can't interpret "if you don't understand it", with "it" being some obvious triviality, as an appropriate remark in reverting an edit of mine, especially, since an other editor re-reverted yours. In the proximate controversy, a wholesale reversion of a few minor imprecisions and layout variants, you yourself corrected the same wrong content in two places in an equivalent, maybe even better way. So why the claim that it "was better before"? While I am quite sure that my actual 4. step is an improvement in the consistency of the layout, I am prepared to argue the typesetting of the constant "c" in roman, in contrast to the italics for the variable "x". I think that contrasting the two notions is valuable, and using "x=c" may be even better than the also often used "x=x0". The remaining points from my edit concerning the "ending graph" and the "continuity of the square root" are, imho, definitely weak points in that paragraph, deserving improvement.
I am absolutely inclined to discuss in an unbiased climate all this at the talk page of the article, but I do not want to partake in a discussion governed by troublesome hostility. I am not aware of having started any intentional hostility, and humbly ask to tell me, if and where I gave any perceived reason of assuming such. Friendly regards, Purgy ( talk) 11:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your edit of /info/en/?search=G-force#cite_note-28 , I am not very experienced... I just wanted to update the links with correct ones. Why do you think the links are not good ? Thanks, Gabriel aka. Sokoban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokoban ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
In reverting my edit of the Millikan oil drop experiment Wikipedia article, you pointed out that this is a difference between British and American usage. Could we agree to replace the word with “positioned,” which is synonymous and removes the issue of whose English we are using?
Thanks for raising the question.
Cieljaune Cieljaune ( talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |||
Hello, DVdm.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project,
AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (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. |
Hello bro, I've replied to your question and revert. Pls check and respond
regards, Hdaackda ( talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That was definitely a WTF... Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 10:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Galicia-Volyn, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Turov-Pinsk, Polotsk Principality, as well as being Rus earlier than 882 is not part of Russian history. The wars their participation can not be written in this section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.172.114 ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind welcome message. This is my first attempt to make edits to Wikipedia. I am doing my best to comply with the guidance on Talk pages; none the less I very much appreciate your reference to it. If I am not doing things right stylistically or in terms of mark up, or anything at all, please do continue to message me! Thanks again! Kebl0155 ( talk) 11:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
what the fuck is up with all these unexplained warnings? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 22:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi DVdm. I'm here regarding your recent reports to WP:AIV, such as this one. I was a little curious about your description about how the user was "automatically reported by Huggle". To my understanding, Huggle is a semi-automated tool, meaning while it can assist with performing edits and reverts more quickly, the user running Huggle is still in control of pressing the button to revert and report. In this sense, when Huggle reports to AIV, there shouldn't be a risk of a "false positive", since it is still a human user that is doing the reporting (of course, there is a chance of "human error", if that's what you meant). That aside, thank you for your work on the counter-vandalism front! Mz7 ( talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Both my edits at Gravity had adequate explanations contained in the edit summaries - clearly explaining my reasons, and as such were not vandalisms. My deletes were based on core content policy eg. WP:V to remove claims long flagged as false on the article talk page.
The reverted claims are EXCEPTIONALLY misleading if taken and presented out of context. An "introductory" remark cherry picked from a Physical Geodesy textbook is insufficient citation per policy for resolving such controverses.
Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources, the WP:BURDEN is on you (as the user who restores the text) to provide multiple reliable sources, especially since the sole citation proferred is from an unreliable (for this claim) classical pre-1950 theories approached textbook which declares itself at the outset as A simple rather than completely rigorous presentation (see p.3).
WP:BRD is only an essay for one method towards achieving consensus. In the face of my edit summaries, simply citing BRD as your excuse for reverting is highly provocative and imputes that you ignored content issues. The singular fact that User:Damoclete's May 14 2016 Talk page objection is still unopposed / undisputed means there was sufficent talk page CONSENSUS for me to delete. Additionally, if you cite BRD, you are expected to be considerate and patient instead of threatening me with blocks for Edit Warring and especially after I assumed AGF on your part. Inlinetext ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Re [3], I wonder if an edit filter can take care of this. xaosflux, you know this kind of stuff, right? Drmies ( talk) 19:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I provided extensive references to books, news papers, and I could add more references and journals if Paradox didn't keep disappearing. I have contacted support and we are working to locking it. If there is something missing, it should be noted as CITATION NEEDED, not purged. Purging is ONLY allowed if it has been shown not to be established after a set time when requests are made. Your failure to know about the research does not make it non-existent. You should not be commenting and editing research out of Wiki, when that is what it is for in the first place, without firm belief that what it needs does not exist. You cannot have that unless you have a degree in logistics, which Dr. Sauser does, and a book, as I reference in the article. I will expand on it, but to remove it is offensive. User:mbcopeland —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, i was the guy that removed the "heavy metal" thing from the article and now there's a troll that says that the Mahavishnu Orchestra is hard rock and heavy metal, could you talk with an admin to ban the troll? Thanks! -- 189.216.112.131 ( talk) 04:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, i know who is that IP and it's definitively a troll, please be careful with the article, Thanks! -- 189.216.112.131 ( talk) 16:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
For your anti-vandalism efforts at Michael White (author) and at Galileo-related pages. - Darouet ( talk) 20:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not incorrect information. Vyvek ( talk) 11:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I wont say what my admin account is. Try to find it. You wont be able to find it because Im smarter than you. Vyvek ( talk) 12:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nata-Olijeck Bridge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 13:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you are right, there's no positive or negative imaginary number, I made a mistake. But still I have some doubts regarding using x^2 + 1 = 0 equation for defining imaginary unit. I shared my doubts in the
Talk:Imaginary_unit#Definition_of_i, I'll appreciate your remarks.
Thanks!
Arek
89.77.32.175 (
talk)
01:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Richard Feynman (estimated annual readership: 1,160,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) |
Congratulations!
Paradoctor (
talk)
16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You reverted "jump in time" to "jump in simultaneity".
Most relevantly for this article and for this section: What jumps for the astronaut in the new inertial frame is his reading of the time registered on the Earth clock by way of the lattice of clock method. This is, after all, a discussion about the time differential.
Wheeler, in "Spacetime Physics", wrote that the Earth clock “jumps way ahead at turn-around” for the traveler.
He also wrote that the returning astronaut “has only herself to blame for her misperception of a "jump" in the Earth clock reading.” (quotes around "jump" are Wheeler's.)
I went with: "a requisite jump in the reading of the Earth clock time made by a "suddenly returning astronaut..."
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteUMD ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Louis Essen was the inventor of the atomic clock, the man who most accurately measured the speed of light, and one of the two men who decided the number of oscillations of cesium in an atomic second. Essen wrote a scientific paper disproving relativity [ [8]]. /]]. It was also disproven by Roberto Monti in a paper by the same name (The Special Theory of Relativity, A Critical Analysis) as that of Essen's. [ [9]] Considering Essen's qualifications, a letter from Essen on the subject of relativity is worthy reading, regardless of the website it is posted on[ [10]]. It is also disproven in the book "Science From A Different Perspective" where the writer dispels many of Einstein's thought experiments and the three classic tests considered critical to relativity, disproving general relativity in the process. Drillstop ( talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Drillstop Drillstop ( talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
I came to your page by looking at the contribution history of another user. That user reverted an edit I made to the field (mathematics) article. It could be my imagination but I thought his comment on the talk page was a little aggressive. I just made a new edit taking his criticisms into account, but I am wondering if he'll revert again and try to start an edit war. Which I do NOT want to get into.
With all that said, when I landed on your page and saw your vandalism marker, I couldn't resist :). Cheers! Vincent ( talk) 15:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
According to Evans, Crothers, Eckardt & Pendergast, 2009, Hodge's dual has an antisymmetric tensor in four-spacetime. Do you not like the primary source I used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadchumley ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, I got your message regarding the edit to the Bell's spaceship paradox article. I agreed with the previous user who deleted my edit that this paragraph was undue in the lede, but I fail to see how it is inapropriate in the section "Discussion and publications". I cite a newly released relativity textbook published by Springer with a whole chapter on Bell's spaceship paradox in it. Best, Andune88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andune88 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm
Why did you remove the links to Opera Magistris? It is the biggest scientific compendium in a unique PDF existing in the world with the most detailed developments that cannot be found anywhere else even in textbooks? Downloaded more than 10'000 times in English and 80'000 times in French. And by the way it has qualitatively a much better content than other provided links as rendered with LaTeX and peer-reviewed (and qualitatively and scientifically much better than most Wikipedia articles). Thanks for your answer. Daname Kolani
https://archive.org/details/OperaMagistris
194.230.159.128 ( talk) 10:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
May I being allowed a last remark , ... in cauda venenum. Had you known and accepted my interpretation , you never have written , in the refutation of Dingle that ... rate A/rate B = 1/a !! Because of course that ratio = 1 ! Since Einstein a lot of physicists have mistaken , in relativity , the rate of the clock with the measured time itself. Nevertheless I appreciated our brief (!) dicussions ,... your warnings , and your knowledge. Cordially -- Chessfan ( talk) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, my mistake! Dorintosh ( talk) 10:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I saw your anti-vandalism edit on the Pixel (smartphone) page from June 8, 2017. I really appreciated your work in getting rid of this vandalism and wanted to give you a barnstar for it! :) Snowsky Mountain ( talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
message Snowsky Mountain ( talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
Before you roll back what you think is vandalism, how about you actually check what you rolled it back to? Thanks pal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.230 ( talk) 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Wondering if i may use some illustrations from here. I was to write my own section on the dimensionality of space time. Blackcat129 ( talk) 21:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
www.dipole.se presents a valid, contemporary theory about the role of Coulomb dipole forces in strong force and gravity. It is not spam. The problem might be that the scientist who spent 20 years substantiating this theory is also a Wiki editor with over a thousand edits. Since you label this self promotion, would you prefer that this contemporary theory was listed under modern theories by somebody other than the author, and if so, what difference would that make ? Bengt Nyman ( talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I have dug into a physics research project for awhile now. My own time. I used a form of logic math instead of the formal math usually applied. I have noticed a strange way things keep realating to a constant? Is thier a page to ask questions? Blackcat129 ( talk) 05:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of bitcoin wallets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry we've been reverting each other. If you feel strongly about linking "dictionary" words (otherwise known as "common terms", in linking parlance), you might consider raising the matter at WT:MOSTLINK. On the English Wikipedia, this matter was settled long ago (I think from about 2009 to 2011). I can refer you to the discussions at that time if you wish—but they're voluminous. My best. Tony (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.16.236 ( talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I recieved this message. Thing is I don't edit at all on Wikipedia nor been looking into anything bird related. I just browse Wikipedia.-- 86.153.233.215 ( talk) 13:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
That’s enough! I am scared stiff already to take any initiative. Whatever I did (it would seem for the good!) I have never been praised.
Still, in one article I found doubtful expression. May I propose some clarification? Also, are the Feynman Lectures on Physics either “reliable source” or “original research”? Is it ok to refer to them? 83.181.150.84 ( talk) 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 September 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
14:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
18:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello DVdm, recently you removed my link from Surface gravity page. The link provided by me was regarding how surface gravity works on different planets, natural satellites, comets, dwarf planet, asteroid etc and how our weight can vary according to variations in surface gravity of that respected celestial object. Anyone can check his/her weight on different worlds easily. Check this link again. http://antariksha.org/weight-planets-stars-worlds/ Its purely informative content. Here you can not find any kind of promotion. You can revert me here. Kumar Nikate ( talk) 19:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, You have left a message on my talk page, that talks about an edit I made in the article Calculus in the section of history in the subsection of modern. I have to tell you that if you search in the original source which is http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/calc1/calc1.html then you can see that the only mention of the chain rule, is in the Leibniz section. And in the article Chain rule there is no mention, that Newton have discovered that rule. Also in the sources you have inserted, there is no mention that Newton have discovered the chain rule.Thanks - IJM98 ( talk) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)
References
what's wrong with e-print link? Each article in this chapter has this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.129.57 ( talk) 11:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on in this section. Anyway, I've found the citation of this paper myself as part of a larger project, then I independently found the sandbox when the author mentioned File:Trolley Pic.jpg (which I was surprised to see included in an existing page). I think the sources are sufficient for this kind of content. The title can be changes if necessary, e.g. if somebody disagrees there are sufficient sources to consider it a paradox rather than just an exercise. -- Nemo 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what the issue is with the edits, appending, I have provided given that I have included citations ....? ( 108.51.194.199 ( talk) 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC))
I'm reverting your mass removal of Category:Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism. Don't try to pre-empt the CfD process – they can be deleted if and when the CfD is successful, not on your whim. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion on my talkpage, which made clear that it was the IP vandal messing around. The Old Jacobite and I were both pretty puzzled about why I received a warning from him, and when/how he would've posted such a warning; it never even occurred to me that someone else might have posted using his name. Grandpallama ( talk) 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused about the need for references when adding something that is simple logic. Do you have to reference the Pythagorean theorem? I'm sure there are many people who have used the spaceship example in some form or another to explain the of lack of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. I have used it many times in class myself, but I have no idea who first used it--possibly Einstein since he liked thought experiments. The logic, however is straight forward and I'm not sure what to reference. Probably many textbooks have similar discussions, but I'm sure they are not original either. (Just because it's in a physics text does not guarantee it is correct--I've found many mistakes in textbooks.) I added the section because nowhere in the article does it explain what is going on in simple English. Just throwing out the Lorentz transformations does not explain anything. You could derive the transformations from the expanding light spheres as seen by two moving observers, an easy to understand explanation. (I don't know who first came up with that idea either.) If you can find something wrong in the article I would be interested. I also added a section to Bell's theorem, but the watchdogs on Wikipedia do not seem to be interested in explaining physical concepts. Most articles seem not be concerned with understanding ideas. They simply write down the formulas and feel that explains it. There is not a Venn diagram in the whole article, which would explain more than all the words. If someone wanted to understand a topic in physics, I would probably not direct them to Wikipedia. By the way check out "hyperbolic function" I added a section there, but I didn't know you to reference it either since it is pretty straight forward. The original article did not even clearly explain how the functions can be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph C Boone ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Also note that the phenomena of relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction all have their own well-sourced articles, with well-known and documented thought experiment explanations—without Lorentz transformations. So there is no need to invent new or better explanations and put them in the general article Special relativity - DVdm ( talk) 21:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for nominating Property qualifications for voting for deletion; I have deleted this now. Just to let you know though that the more appropriate tag to use was WP:CSD#A10, as that covers new articles that have content covered entirely in existing articles, rather than WP:CSD#A7, which is for notability. Notability doesn't really apply for this article; it's more for people, companies, bands, and products rather than well established concepts. Stephen! Coming... 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the message on Valentine Joseph you left on my talk page, I wanted to let you know that I have changed the article with the Einstein bit because I have referenced it now. Regards - Heptanitrocubane ( talk) 19:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for retracting my FTL article.It needs more comprehension...
K.P.Anastasiadis 06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cca2012 (
talk •
contribs)
06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Cca2012: regarding this message: Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm ( talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you are probably right about the tan(α)=v/c but in the image it is not well justified α must be the angle between axes ct and ct' to be consistent with the tangent definition also. Over and out. K.P.Anastasiadis 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I am inviting past editors of the Tom Waits article to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Tom_Waits#Genres. I am in dispute with User:TheOldJacobite, who has reverted even my sourced changes and ignored my appeals to discuss the issue. Please express your opinion on the issue if it interests you.-- MA SHAUN IX 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, new here. You said said to me recently on the Lorentz Ether Theory page: //PLease get a reliable wp:secondary source (with pages number) where this claim is supported. (TW)// I don’t understand how a compilation book with PhD physicists in it cannot be reliable. Most of these have given papers at PIRT (Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory) and are Professors or were. Their credentials can be looked up online, for example Franco Selleri even has his own wikipage on wikipedia itself, others like Duffy and Levy who are editors were good friends with H.E. Ives and Jean-Pierre Vigier (who even read and commented and replied on Lèvy's book from Galileo to Lorentz..and Beyond). I don’t see why it needs a page number when all the Volumes are a discussion on Lorentzian theories. That's kinda weird to me. Can you explain more to me why it was unacceptable? Maybe just do to the Publisher?
Thanks, ~~Rick~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.86.173 ( talk) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
First you say it cannot be included as it doesn't have a direct quote, now I give a new direct quote and you now say the publisher Apeiron is a fringe source (which is completely different then your argument from before which seems inconsistent, you mentioned nothing about the editors/authors ironically who have the relevant qualifications). How do you define fringe? And do you think holding a neo-Lorentzian view of Special Relativity is considered a fringe view? I am trying to understand why it cannot be included because you think the publisher is a "fringe" source. 173.49.86.173 ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Rick 173.49.86.173 ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello from Ukraine, DVdm Патріот України ( talk) 19:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you SO MUCH for not removing Scarlett Johansson from Category:Fraternal twin actresses as well as One Direction's Category:Family musical groups reputation! But I want twin paradox and/or twin for them so badly! -- 2606:A000:4AC8:1100:A8B5:ABD9:14B3:E573 ( talk) 18:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The 2/3 of the english words derives from norman (above all the "high" one used by the powerful normans and not by saxons)so from old french and so from latin. Kingofwoods ( talk) 20:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Lost time with ignorant people. Kingofwoods ( talk) 20:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologize we all have made mistakes of our own in one way or another Tylermax365 ( talk) 16:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edit on the Electron Wiki talk page?
My edit was hardly 'inappropriate discussion' as you described it - it accurately describes all the properties of an Electron from both a Classical and Quantum Mechanical perspective. You seem to be against the better understanding and advancement of Physics. It was not even an edit of the actual Electron Wiki page - it was on the Talk page for crying out loud!
Declan Traill ( talk) 22:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi there.
With regards to your revert of the edit I made on the square root page, no property in the Properties and uses section is currently backed by sources. In my experience, it is common practice on math pages to present such results without citation as they are considered standard, but I could be wrong I guess.
But now wouldn't you agree that deleting the edit I made would then warrant deleting the entire section as it stands? 91.230.41.206 ( talk) 11:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear DVdm
Could you please elaborate why you deleted my edit for the Speed of Light?
I have, as you request, put sufficient references to make my text valid.
Thanks in advance
Darkch2 ( talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hunh!? (LOL.)
The source was algebra.
The content of the deleted edit was an insertion of: multiply both sides of (Einstein's) equation, and a "Looky there!"
No new source material was being added? Eleaticus ( talk) 20:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read the official IMF list in the article referred.Italy has a very high level of development. Kingofwoods ( talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
you are probably a auto-bot computer editor and not even a human. i just read about other edits you have made to other people that are also incorrect. you just deleted my edits to the "aoa". i am an astronomer(that is my reference-citation).the edits-additions i made are "common knowledge" to follow astronomers. you must not be an astronomer, however you are lame- that i do not need a citation to prove.i also saw that you are a "registered editor", wow you should start a family, or attend a university and become somebody in reality(planet earth).prove your a man, and interested in the truth and dont delete my comments. 172.58.46.216 ( talk) 10:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.46.216 ( talk) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I am a certified and verified source SunMoonStars ( talk) 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions —the one you made with
this edit to
Hollyfield School— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Samf4u (
talk)
19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi DVdm. Thought you might like to know (if you didn't already) that this edit, which you reverted is related to the " Getting to Philosophy game" mentioned here. It turns out that, as described at Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy, most Wikipedia articles have the property that:
where the "first link" is defined to be the first link which is neither in italics nor in parentheses.
However some articles' link paths end in "loops". Currently, for example, the following loop exists: Knowledge -> Fact -> Knowledge. So any article whose link path ever enters such a loop, stays there and so never "gets to philosophy". The edit you reverted was intended to "fix" that loop so that more articles will "get to philosophy". Paul August ☎ 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I changed the colours to match the dominate colours of the DVD/release covers, it's standard on Wikipedia. Your best asking users like User:AlexTheWhovian or User:Drovethrughosts, who can explain in detail. Theo ( edits) 00:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted) RonMaimon ( talk) 17:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted) RonMaimon ( talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, DVdm.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, |
Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello DVdm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih ( talk) 03:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
While we had a small, friendly exchange on my talk page in August 2016, which I enjoyed very much, I lately perceive an extent ( continuous function) and style ( fraction (mathematics)) of turning down my suggestions that I perceive as sort of offensive. Honestly, I can't interpret "if you don't understand it", with "it" being some obvious triviality, as an appropriate remark in reverting an edit of mine, especially, since an other editor re-reverted yours. In the proximate controversy, a wholesale reversion of a few minor imprecisions and layout variants, you yourself corrected the same wrong content in two places in an equivalent, maybe even better way. So why the claim that it "was better before"? While I am quite sure that my actual 4. step is an improvement in the consistency of the layout, I am prepared to argue the typesetting of the constant "c" in roman, in contrast to the italics for the variable "x". I think that contrasting the two notions is valuable, and using "x=c" may be even better than the also often used "x=x0". The remaining points from my edit concerning the "ending graph" and the "continuity of the square root" are, imho, definitely weak points in that paragraph, deserving improvement.
I am absolutely inclined to discuss in an unbiased climate all this at the talk page of the article, but I do not want to partake in a discussion governed by troublesome hostility. I am not aware of having started any intentional hostility, and humbly ask to tell me, if and where I gave any perceived reason of assuming such. Friendly regards, Purgy ( talk) 11:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your edit of /info/en/?search=G-force#cite_note-28 , I am not very experienced... I just wanted to update the links with correct ones. Why do you think the links are not good ? Thanks, Gabriel aka. Sokoban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokoban ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
In reverting my edit of the Millikan oil drop experiment Wikipedia article, you pointed out that this is a difference between British and American usage. Could we agree to replace the word with “positioned,” which is synonymous and removes the issue of whose English we are using?
Thanks for raising the question.
Cieljaune Cieljaune ( talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |||
Hello, DVdm.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project,
AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)