![]() | 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. |
It’s informations were in TWO books. How can you say it “wrong”? Unknown User Double ( talk) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The source that was cited which claimed OpIndia was "fake news", itself was heavily biased and they were OPINION articles, not objective ones and therefore I removed the source as well as the claim :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Based47 ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I do not know why you reverted my edits on Factorial for "not citing". Those were pure math equations, and already had an example shown. (Similar parts of the article did NOT have cites and used only examples, yet they were not deleted). This isn't a page about a famous person, it is a page about a mathematical operation, with proof. Next time, I (and other editors) would appreciate it if you gave more reason and detail to the undo/warning to their edits, as those were not vandalism and were well-intentioned edits.
SolidState2 ( talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
While the derivation is correct in the article on gravitational potential energy, it is confusing because it is presented in a way that is at odds with the other derivations of potential energy that are present on Wikipedia. I put a detailed comment on this point in the talk section of the article. Gwpjp ( talk) 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I do not understand why you removed the changes that I made in the three pages mentioned in the title. All sentences that I have modified/added are based on the content of the reference that I had provided (on the contrary, I had removed some sentences that were not supported by any reference). The changes that I applied aimed at correcting a common mistake in Electromagnetic theory. The reference that I used includes the mathematical proof of the statements that I wrote. Such a reference is a peer-review scientific article, published in an authoritative international scientific journal, widely available and accessible. The reference, in turn, provides a lot of other references that support the statements wrote by me. Could you please explain why you believe that the reference is not reliable? I think you made a mistake and I kindly ask you to restore my version of the three pages. 47.53.123.202 ( talk) 21:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Pesky hobbitses, I hates them. /gollum
Muinn (
talk)
11:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
103.150.187.3 (
talk)
00:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear DVdm: I notice this is the second time you reverted the pdf's "Macro Magnetics.pdf" and "CuFe.pdf". These articles relate strictly to solenoids and help in defining them by means of how they are mathematically described. These articles are a result of a teaching PhD. at Eastern Washington Univ. who asked how solenoids were designed prior to Finite Element software. Both he and his students "learned" magnetics by means of fea software and never had to manually crunch the numbers, therefore not learning the basics of iron saturation and BH relationships first hand. The articles are useful, instructive, definitive and of no profit to me. I designed solenoids as an aerospace engineer for over 50 years; starting before fea was around. I thought this was the purpose of Wikipedia. You decide. Respectfully, David B. Mohler; Sr. Principal Engineer Johnson Electric North America. djdm@woh.rr.com 69.133.97.31 ( talk) 16:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I didnt mean to add unsourced info I was just asking the person to state the reason for why they deleted so much content with out saying why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedefender35 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Thedefender35 16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
These sources cannot be verified. I have tried searching anywhere for a speech transcript, which allegedly these sources were from. A full quote search returns only two sources on the internet, both of which are from books and both of which fail to offer any other information on the source of these quotes. It appears to be hearsay at best. Not only is the information unverifiable, it is added by a user with an edit history that clearly suggests the edits are not in good faith, and they are quite off-topic from the preceding text in this section. Finally, the information provided is not correctly classified as "Legacy." If there was discussion about future fallout from the quotes in question, then possibly. However, the sources provide no such post-death controversies of significance that would help classify this information as that of "Legacy."
Also, the edits that were removed were clearly explained in the respective "Edit Summary" sections. They were not left empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.253.98 ( talk) 19:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I added an external link to an interactive simulation for the Taylor series and you reverted my contribution.
I don't understand why the link immediately above the one I put (which is a simulation too) is relevant mine isn't. The previous link need a plugin that does not work anymore. The link I provide works on any browser.
Allan Martins ( talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, DVdm - Thank you for your guidance. I will follow your direction going forward. ORSfan ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
1. Why is a link to a research article referred to as spam?
2. Is the DVdm user a specialist in Relativity?
3. Why the DVdm user does not justify his editing efforts? Providing the problem code does not constitute a substantive justification.
4. The statement about the three warnings is untrue. Previously, IP entries in another section of the article were removed. As a registered user, I have made one edit in different section and it is an abuse to suggest breaking the three-repetition rule (in 24h).
This time, please provide a description and answer to the points 1,2,3,4.
Regards, RodriguesVector.
@ DVdm Ad. 1. This is not the answer to my question! You incorrectly identify primary and secondary sources. You have no grounds to accuse me of a conflict of interest.
Ad. 2. If you are a specialist, have a scientific discussion and read what is written.
Ad. 3. I do not think so. Let another editor decide!
Ad. 4. Don't pretend you don't understand: the rule of three repetitions in 24 hours has not been broken - including IP and user identity. Do you want to keep making a false allegation ?! RodriguesVector ( talk) 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hello. You told me I have to nominate an article in good articles for it to be a good article. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Could you tell me? Danglerofhell ( talk) 11:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, what is the reason that my entry in HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS / INTEGRATED INFORMATION THEORY has been deleted several times? Thanks, Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 06:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 07:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, I wonder what the scientific basis of Tony Clarke is to decide my contribution was „inappropriate“. All what I could find on his user page is TonyClarke’s statement: „My interests include sailing, cycling, philosophy,photography,healthy eating (vegan) and general messing about with computers, eg wikis, Python programming, etc.. [...] I try to follow the teachings of Jesus.“ No one single scientific entry that I could find. It’s different with User:WikiPedant. From a retired university professor, I had expected sound arguments, not just a „NO“. That’s poor! Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Dear prof. Kromer. Did you remove my comment or is it DVdm that censors the statements of others? I assume that a discussion is a discussion and more than two people may speak. RodriguesVector ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I did NOT remove your comment - so it probably was the administrator. Best regards, Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 13:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was that GR wasn't developed in 1915. It took Einstein years to develop his ideas into GR. – Tea2min ( talk) 13:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please stop putting up messages on my talk page now. I will taie care. Yozdek ( talk) 12:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Would you accept just this change:
curprev 18:41, 6 June 2021 WhiteBeard120 talk contribs 72,510 bytes +1,902 →Timeline: add description of recent book on this subject undo Tag: Reverted
(and changes specifically related to it)?
It specifically adds a relevant secondary source.
WhiteBeard120 ( talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have come across your editing over the years, but it must be a very large number, and yet until today I don't think I had ever thought to look at your user page. Having now looked at it, I have the following three thoughts, which may or may not interest you.
The twin paradox of special relativity arises because the theory as formally presented provides no explanation why a twin who has traveled at relativistic speed and returns to meet the other twin at point of origin should be the younger of the two. The theory only addresses inertial frames and provides transformations between quantities observed in the frames involved. The theory, based on (1) the laws of physics in all inertial frames are identical, and (2) that the speed of light is observed to be the same in all inertial frames, simply does not address non-inertial frames or events involving observers passing through successive but different inertial frames.
The Twin Paradox article in Wikipedia contains much very debatable information which is not supported by solid theoretical or experimental evidence. For example,
"However, it has been proven that neither general relativity,[9][10][11][12][13] nor even acceleration, are necessary to explain the effect, as the effect still applies to a theoretical observer that can invert the direction of motion instantly, maintaining constant speed all through the two phases of the trip."
The problem with this view is evident in the "Specific Example," wherein one twin goes round trip to the nearest star at 0.8c with instantaneous acceleration. In reporting the traveling twin's perspective, the duration he/she experiences is reported, i.e. 6 years; however, the traveling twin's expectation of what happens on earth is not calculated. Ignoring the accelerations, the traveling twin may consider him/herself at rest. What they would see is the earth (star) move away (toward) them at 0.8 c for three years. The star reaches the travelers and the earth reaches 2.4 ly distance. Then the earth and star would reverse direction and travel another three years at 0.8 c returning to initial positions. On earth, of course, they would consider themselves and the star as stationary while the "traveling" twin moved to the star at 0.8c and returned at the same speed. The traveling twin would say that six years passed. The traveling twin would assert that on earth time passage was 0.6 x 6 = 3.6 years, which contradicts the earth calculation. If acceleration (which changes between inertial frames) is ignored, contradictions arise.
The twin paradox is profound in that it highlights the fundamental importance of CHANGES between inertial frames. The few experiments demonstrating that the traveling twin is younger are a bit weak and it would be valuable to inspire new and more decisive tests. It would be very interesting if the traveling twin is not younger (can only be determined by a decisive experiment).
The Wikipedia article falls short on providing the reader with insight as to the profound nature twin paradox. Twmoss77 ( talk) 05:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Dvdm, regarding my recent warning of edit warring, I don't know exactly what I am supposed to do now. I used anyway the talk section with other editors regarding this issue. I asked for a standard reference in the topic that support their claims, and indicated examples of how my editions are in fact the correct ones, and instead of responding back to the issues with logical arguments, other editors just opted to revert my changes too. Please let me emphasize that I gave formal arguments and examples to two editors, they are just not listening.
If the standard procedure needs an expert in the field, I am in fact one, my info: ddavalos.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by David phys davalos ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 11 July 2021 (UCT) (UTC)
Visibility of Caspian Sea from Elbrus (or vice-versa).
Because Earth is not flat, you can't see that far. There is no significant hill or mountain near Caspian Sea.
Proofs: https://sites.math.washington.edu/~conroy/m120-general/horizon.pdf (using simplified equation gives result of 270 km without terrestrial refraction, with it it's about 305 km. https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/makepanoramas.htm (use point of your choice to see simulation). Respectively, direct link for simulation: https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/panqueryfull.aspx?mode=newstandard&data=lon:42.45403$$$lat:43.34661$$$alt:5642$$$altcam:1$$$hialt:false$$$resolution:100$$$azimut:65$$$sweep:70$$$leftbound:30$$$rightbound:100$$$split:12$$$splitnr:6$$$tilt:-2.66666666666667$$$tiltsplit:false$$$elexagg:1.2$$$range:750_RC0.14$$$colorcoding:false$$$colorcodinglimit:134$$$title:Elbrus$$$description:$$$email:$$$language:ge$$$screenwidth:1600$$$screenheight:860
Richard Jezik 212.37.64.15 ( talk) 09:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Source is definitely not correct, 270 and even 300 km is quite far from 370, I mean really far. See function, for every kilometer you have to battle more with earth curvature. About your example: You really cannot compare ~200km sight of ~2500m mountains from around 200m above sea level. That is quite easy observation and no special terrestrial refraction is needed. I don't know exact point from where observation was made, but simulation is pretty obvious: https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/panqueryfull.aspx?mode=newstandard&data=lon:7.30018$$$lat:43.69937$$$alt:auto$$$altcam:1$$$hialt:true$$$resolution:100$$$azimut:145$$$sweep:50$$$leftbound:120$$$rightbound:170$$$split:12$$$splitnr:5$$$tilt:-0.875$$$tiltsplit:false$$$elexagg:1.2$$$range:750_RC0.13$$$colorcoding:false$$$colorcodinglimit:273$$$title:Nice$$$description:$$$email:$$$language:ge$$$screenwidth:1920$$$screenheight:1040
Please compare it with real photography as you see it's exactly same.
Let's make it pure theoretical and play with parameters of simulation directly from Caspian Sea
https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/panqueryfull.aspx?mode=newstandard&data=lon:46.77997$$$lat:44.45291$$$alt:auto$$$altcam:100$$$hialt:true$$$resolution:100$$$azimut:250$$$sweep:40$$$leftbound:230$$$rightbound:270$$$split:12$$$splitnr:4$$$tilt:auto$$$tiltsplit:false$$$elexagg:1.2$$$range:750_RC0.35$$$colorcoding:false$$$colorcodinglimit:273$$$title:Caspian - Elbrus$$$description:$$$email:$$$language:ge$$$screenwidth:1920$$$screenheight:1040
Now what was needed to done to finally make Elbrus visible: Adding 100m of altitude (Caspian Sea elevation is -29m, let's assume there is some observation tower 100m tall. Making Terrestrial refraction coefficient as high as 0.35. Such refraction is practically impossible to achieve. Usual value for this coefficient is 0.13, with very strong temperature inversion it can go as high as 0.25 if trajectory of observation is whole within temperature inversion. There are no temperature inversions up to altitudes of Elbrus.
Richard Jezik 95.105.250.232 ( talk) 19:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess my source and arguments are invalid to this statement. Thanks. 95.105.250.232 ( talk) 20:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
You have removed a sub-section on general relativity with the excuse that the Nature publishing group is not reliable. If Nature publishing group is not reliable, would you enlighten me on what is considered reliable by you? PhysicsVoice ( talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC) ;)
wasn't vandalism. no way to provide a source as don't know all the artists. wrongfully removed. regarding the abc the look of love article. 45.31.69.47 ( talk) 19:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You have been edit-warring to replace "Dhaliwal" with "Dhillon" in the article Baghel Singh. Are you sure that is correct? Sources I have found overwhelmingly support Dhaliwal. Dhillon did not appear in the article until recently, and it looks rather like vandalism. If you have a reliable source for Dhillon then please provide it; otherwise it shouldn't ne restored. JBW ( talk) 09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that note. Apologies for the late reply. 145.40.206.159 ( talk) 02:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm raising a reasonable concern regarding the pseudoscience denomination on the article. There should be evidence to support the assertion, otherwise it should be removed. There can be a controversial section to make whatever valid claims that may exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepovtourself ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Zappa WakaJawaka.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIjLUzS6SQA&t=4620s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello I left you a message at User talk:G4L21qtQD Many thans in advance for any assistance you may provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4L21qtQD ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to sign G4L21qtQD ( talk) 14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The external link will open our Quadratic Equation page in our Maths Bud website.
In that page we created Quadrating Equation solution online using various methods
The page will express the basic rules before calculate the equation 1. If b2 - 4ac is a POSITIVE number, the equation has TWO different real root 2. If b2 - 4ac is equal to ZERO, the equation has ONE real root 3. If b2 - 4ac is a NEGATIVE number, the equation NO real root
Using our page, user can solve any Quadratic Equation by entering values of a, b and c of any equation (ax^2 + bx + c = 0) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukka Chooo ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
Hi DVdm )) Please, advise me, how i can to improve the animation. Thanks! Кубриков ( talk) 02:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Кубриков
I cannot see that the reversal has more or better sources.
The essential of both versions is the very same, namely 3 real solutions (roots).
Although I think that my version shows the very point more precisely:
19:06 (my version) has
19:11 (the other version) has
But I have to admit that many people don't read exactly enough, so that the very point has been found as late as 3.11.21. – Nomen4Omen ( talk) 21:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You mention large numbers that have “no existence outside the imagination”.
This isn’t a very useful distinction as no numbers exist outside the imagination. 2607:FB91:103:8D4D:682C:E13E:CBE7:3C4B ( talk) 16:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The edits by new editor Jackja are not vandalism, they are just the same confusion discussed here. -- JBL ( talk) 13:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I made an edit in the fourth dimension and I gave a scientists' name, who first told the concept and you reversed my edits ! Tapanmandal27011969 ( talk) 10:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm the guy who bolded stuff that you unbolded in Trigonometric functions. Thanks for bringing the MOS point to my attention. Uporządnicki ( talk) 18:22, 10 December 2021 (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. |
It’s informations were in TWO books. How can you say it “wrong”? Unknown User Double ( talk) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The source that was cited which claimed OpIndia was "fake news", itself was heavily biased and they were OPINION articles, not objective ones and therefore I removed the source as well as the claim :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Based47 ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I do not know why you reverted my edits on Factorial for "not citing". Those were pure math equations, and already had an example shown. (Similar parts of the article did NOT have cites and used only examples, yet they were not deleted). This isn't a page about a famous person, it is a page about a mathematical operation, with proof. Next time, I (and other editors) would appreciate it if you gave more reason and detail to the undo/warning to their edits, as those were not vandalism and were well-intentioned edits.
SolidState2 ( talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
While the derivation is correct in the article on gravitational potential energy, it is confusing because it is presented in a way that is at odds with the other derivations of potential energy that are present on Wikipedia. I put a detailed comment on this point in the talk section of the article. Gwpjp ( talk) 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I do not understand why you removed the changes that I made in the three pages mentioned in the title. All sentences that I have modified/added are based on the content of the reference that I had provided (on the contrary, I had removed some sentences that were not supported by any reference). The changes that I applied aimed at correcting a common mistake in Electromagnetic theory. The reference that I used includes the mathematical proof of the statements that I wrote. Such a reference is a peer-review scientific article, published in an authoritative international scientific journal, widely available and accessible. The reference, in turn, provides a lot of other references that support the statements wrote by me. Could you please explain why you believe that the reference is not reliable? I think you made a mistake and I kindly ask you to restore my version of the three pages. 47.53.123.202 ( talk) 21:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Pesky hobbitses, I hates them. /gollum
Muinn (
talk)
11:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
103.150.187.3 (
talk)
00:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear DVdm: I notice this is the second time you reverted the pdf's "Macro Magnetics.pdf" and "CuFe.pdf". These articles relate strictly to solenoids and help in defining them by means of how they are mathematically described. These articles are a result of a teaching PhD. at Eastern Washington Univ. who asked how solenoids were designed prior to Finite Element software. Both he and his students "learned" magnetics by means of fea software and never had to manually crunch the numbers, therefore not learning the basics of iron saturation and BH relationships first hand. The articles are useful, instructive, definitive and of no profit to me. I designed solenoids as an aerospace engineer for over 50 years; starting before fea was around. I thought this was the purpose of Wikipedia. You decide. Respectfully, David B. Mohler; Sr. Principal Engineer Johnson Electric North America. djdm@woh.rr.com 69.133.97.31 ( talk) 16:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I didnt mean to add unsourced info I was just asking the person to state the reason for why they deleted so much content with out saying why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedefender35 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Thedefender35 16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
These sources cannot be verified. I have tried searching anywhere for a speech transcript, which allegedly these sources were from. A full quote search returns only two sources on the internet, both of which are from books and both of which fail to offer any other information on the source of these quotes. It appears to be hearsay at best. Not only is the information unverifiable, it is added by a user with an edit history that clearly suggests the edits are not in good faith, and they are quite off-topic from the preceding text in this section. Finally, the information provided is not correctly classified as "Legacy." If there was discussion about future fallout from the quotes in question, then possibly. However, the sources provide no such post-death controversies of significance that would help classify this information as that of "Legacy."
Also, the edits that were removed were clearly explained in the respective "Edit Summary" sections. They were not left empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.253.98 ( talk) 19:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I added an external link to an interactive simulation for the Taylor series and you reverted my contribution.
I don't understand why the link immediately above the one I put (which is a simulation too) is relevant mine isn't. The previous link need a plugin that does not work anymore. The link I provide works on any browser.
Allan Martins ( talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, DVdm - Thank you for your guidance. I will follow your direction going forward. ORSfan ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
1. Why is a link to a research article referred to as spam?
2. Is the DVdm user a specialist in Relativity?
3. Why the DVdm user does not justify his editing efforts? Providing the problem code does not constitute a substantive justification.
4. The statement about the three warnings is untrue. Previously, IP entries in another section of the article were removed. As a registered user, I have made one edit in different section and it is an abuse to suggest breaking the three-repetition rule (in 24h).
This time, please provide a description and answer to the points 1,2,3,4.
Regards, RodriguesVector.
@ DVdm Ad. 1. This is not the answer to my question! You incorrectly identify primary and secondary sources. You have no grounds to accuse me of a conflict of interest.
Ad. 2. If you are a specialist, have a scientific discussion and read what is written.
Ad. 3. I do not think so. Let another editor decide!
Ad. 4. Don't pretend you don't understand: the rule of three repetitions in 24 hours has not been broken - including IP and user identity. Do you want to keep making a false allegation ?! RodriguesVector ( talk) 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, hello. You told me I have to nominate an article in good articles for it to be a good article. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Could you tell me? Danglerofhell ( talk) 11:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, what is the reason that my entry in HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS / INTEGRATED INFORMATION THEORY has been deleted several times? Thanks, Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 06:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 07:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm, I wonder what the scientific basis of Tony Clarke is to decide my contribution was „inappropriate“. All what I could find on his user page is TonyClarke’s statement: „My interests include sailing, cycling, philosophy,photography,healthy eating (vegan) and general messing about with computers, eg wikis, Python programming, etc.. [...] I try to follow the teachings of Jesus.“ No one single scientific entry that I could find. It’s different with User:WikiPedant. From a retired university professor, I had expected sound arguments, not just a „NO“. That’s poor! Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Dear prof. Kromer. Did you remove my comment or is it DVdm that censors the statements of others? I assume that a discussion is a discussion and more than two people may speak. RodriguesVector ( talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I did NOT remove your comment - so it probably was the administrator. Best regards, Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer ( talk) 13:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was that GR wasn't developed in 1915. It took Einstein years to develop his ideas into GR. – Tea2min ( talk) 13:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Please stop putting up messages on my talk page now. I will taie care. Yozdek ( talk) 12:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Would you accept just this change:
curprev 18:41, 6 June 2021 WhiteBeard120 talk contribs 72,510 bytes +1,902 →Timeline: add description of recent book on this subject undo Tag: Reverted
(and changes specifically related to it)?
It specifically adds a relevant secondary source.
WhiteBeard120 ( talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have come across your editing over the years, but it must be a very large number, and yet until today I don't think I had ever thought to look at your user page. Having now looked at it, I have the following three thoughts, which may or may not interest you.
The twin paradox of special relativity arises because the theory as formally presented provides no explanation why a twin who has traveled at relativistic speed and returns to meet the other twin at point of origin should be the younger of the two. The theory only addresses inertial frames and provides transformations between quantities observed in the frames involved. The theory, based on (1) the laws of physics in all inertial frames are identical, and (2) that the speed of light is observed to be the same in all inertial frames, simply does not address non-inertial frames or events involving observers passing through successive but different inertial frames.
The Twin Paradox article in Wikipedia contains much very debatable information which is not supported by solid theoretical or experimental evidence. For example,
"However, it has been proven that neither general relativity,[9][10][11][12][13] nor even acceleration, are necessary to explain the effect, as the effect still applies to a theoretical observer that can invert the direction of motion instantly, maintaining constant speed all through the two phases of the trip."
The problem with this view is evident in the "Specific Example," wherein one twin goes round trip to the nearest star at 0.8c with instantaneous acceleration. In reporting the traveling twin's perspective, the duration he/she experiences is reported, i.e. 6 years; however, the traveling twin's expectation of what happens on earth is not calculated. Ignoring the accelerations, the traveling twin may consider him/herself at rest. What they would see is the earth (star) move away (toward) them at 0.8 c for three years. The star reaches the travelers and the earth reaches 2.4 ly distance. Then the earth and star would reverse direction and travel another three years at 0.8 c returning to initial positions. On earth, of course, they would consider themselves and the star as stationary while the "traveling" twin moved to the star at 0.8c and returned at the same speed. The traveling twin would say that six years passed. The traveling twin would assert that on earth time passage was 0.6 x 6 = 3.6 years, which contradicts the earth calculation. If acceleration (which changes between inertial frames) is ignored, contradictions arise.
The twin paradox is profound in that it highlights the fundamental importance of CHANGES between inertial frames. The few experiments demonstrating that the traveling twin is younger are a bit weak and it would be valuable to inspire new and more decisive tests. It would be very interesting if the traveling twin is not younger (can only be determined by a decisive experiment).
The Wikipedia article falls short on providing the reader with insight as to the profound nature twin paradox. Twmoss77 ( talk) 05:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Dvdm, regarding my recent warning of edit warring, I don't know exactly what I am supposed to do now. I used anyway the talk section with other editors regarding this issue. I asked for a standard reference in the topic that support their claims, and indicated examples of how my editions are in fact the correct ones, and instead of responding back to the issues with logical arguments, other editors just opted to revert my changes too. Please let me emphasize that I gave formal arguments and examples to two editors, they are just not listening.
If the standard procedure needs an expert in the field, I am in fact one, my info: ddavalos.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by David phys davalos ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 11 July 2021 (UCT) (UTC)
Visibility of Caspian Sea from Elbrus (or vice-versa).
Because Earth is not flat, you can't see that far. There is no significant hill or mountain near Caspian Sea.
Proofs: https://sites.math.washington.edu/~conroy/m120-general/horizon.pdf (using simplified equation gives result of 270 km without terrestrial refraction, with it it's about 305 km. https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/makepanoramas.htm (use point of your choice to see simulation). Respectively, direct link for simulation: https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/panqueryfull.aspx?mode=newstandard&data=lon:42.45403$$$lat:43.34661$$$alt:5642$$$altcam:1$$$hialt:false$$$resolution:100$$$azimut:65$$$sweep:70$$$leftbound:30$$$rightbound:100$$$split:12$$$splitnr:6$$$tilt:-2.66666666666667$$$tiltsplit:false$$$elexagg:1.2$$$range:750_RC0.14$$$colorcoding:false$$$colorcodinglimit:134$$$title:Elbrus$$$description:$$$email:$$$language:ge$$$screenwidth:1600$$$screenheight:860
Richard Jezik 212.37.64.15 ( talk) 09:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Source is definitely not correct, 270 and even 300 km is quite far from 370, I mean really far. See function, for every kilometer you have to battle more with earth curvature. About your example: You really cannot compare ~200km sight of ~2500m mountains from around 200m above sea level. That is quite easy observation and no special terrestrial refraction is needed. I don't know exact point from where observation was made, but simulation is pretty obvious: https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/panqueryfull.aspx?mode=newstandard&data=lon:7.30018$$$lat:43.69937$$$alt:auto$$$altcam:1$$$hialt:true$$$resolution:100$$$azimut:145$$$sweep:50$$$leftbound:120$$$rightbound:170$$$split:12$$$splitnr:5$$$tilt:-0.875$$$tiltsplit:false$$$elexagg:1.2$$$range:750_RC0.13$$$colorcoding:false$$$colorcodinglimit:273$$$title:Nice$$$description:$$$email:$$$language:ge$$$screenwidth:1920$$$screenheight:1040
Please compare it with real photography as you see it's exactly same.
Let's make it pure theoretical and play with parameters of simulation directly from Caspian Sea
https://www.udeuschle.de/panoramas/panqueryfull.aspx?mode=newstandard&data=lon:46.77997$$$lat:44.45291$$$alt:auto$$$altcam:100$$$hialt:true$$$resolution:100$$$azimut:250$$$sweep:40$$$leftbound:230$$$rightbound:270$$$split:12$$$splitnr:4$$$tilt:auto$$$tiltsplit:false$$$elexagg:1.2$$$range:750_RC0.35$$$colorcoding:false$$$colorcodinglimit:273$$$title:Caspian - Elbrus$$$description:$$$email:$$$language:ge$$$screenwidth:1920$$$screenheight:1040
Now what was needed to done to finally make Elbrus visible: Adding 100m of altitude (Caspian Sea elevation is -29m, let's assume there is some observation tower 100m tall. Making Terrestrial refraction coefficient as high as 0.35. Such refraction is practically impossible to achieve. Usual value for this coefficient is 0.13, with very strong temperature inversion it can go as high as 0.25 if trajectory of observation is whole within temperature inversion. There are no temperature inversions up to altitudes of Elbrus.
Richard Jezik 95.105.250.232 ( talk) 19:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess my source and arguments are invalid to this statement. Thanks. 95.105.250.232 ( talk) 20:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
You have removed a sub-section on general relativity with the excuse that the Nature publishing group is not reliable. If Nature publishing group is not reliable, would you enlighten me on what is considered reliable by you? PhysicsVoice ( talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC) ;)
wasn't vandalism. no way to provide a source as don't know all the artists. wrongfully removed. regarding the abc the look of love article. 45.31.69.47 ( talk) 19:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You have been edit-warring to replace "Dhaliwal" with "Dhillon" in the article Baghel Singh. Are you sure that is correct? Sources I have found overwhelmingly support Dhaliwal. Dhillon did not appear in the article until recently, and it looks rather like vandalism. If you have a reliable source for Dhillon then please provide it; otherwise it shouldn't ne restored. JBW ( talk) 09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that note. Apologies for the late reply. 145.40.206.159 ( talk) 02:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm raising a reasonable concern regarding the pseudoscience denomination on the article. There should be evidence to support the assertion, otherwise it should be removed. There can be a controversial section to make whatever valid claims that may exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepovtourself ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Zappa WakaJawaka.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello DVdm,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIjLUzS6SQA&t=4620s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello I left you a message at User talk:G4L21qtQD Many thans in advance for any assistance you may provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4L21qtQD ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to sign G4L21qtQD ( talk) 14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The external link will open our Quadratic Equation page in our Maths Bud website.
In that page we created Quadrating Equation solution online using various methods
The page will express the basic rules before calculate the equation 1. If b2 - 4ac is a POSITIVE number, the equation has TWO different real root 2. If b2 - 4ac is equal to ZERO, the equation has ONE real root 3. If b2 - 4ac is a NEGATIVE number, the equation NO real root
Using our page, user can solve any Quadratic Equation by entering values of a, b and c of any equation (ax^2 + bx + c = 0) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukka Chooo ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
Hi DVdm )) Please, advise me, how i can to improve the animation. Thanks! Кубриков ( talk) 02:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Кубриков
I cannot see that the reversal has more or better sources.
The essential of both versions is the very same, namely 3 real solutions (roots).
Although I think that my version shows the very point more precisely:
19:06 (my version) has
19:11 (the other version) has
But I have to admit that many people don't read exactly enough, so that the very point has been found as late as 3.11.21. – Nomen4Omen ( talk) 21:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
You mention large numbers that have “no existence outside the imagination”.
This isn’t a very useful distinction as no numbers exist outside the imagination. 2607:FB91:103:8D4D:682C:E13E:CBE7:3C4B ( talk) 16:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The edits by new editor Jackja are not vandalism, they are just the same confusion discussed here. -- JBL ( talk) 13:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I made an edit in the fourth dimension and I gave a scientists' name, who first told the concept and you reversed my edits ! Tapanmandal27011969 ( talk) 10:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm the guy who bolded stuff that you unbolded in Trigonometric functions. Thanks for bringing the MOS point to my attention. Uporządnicki ( talk) 18:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)