User talk:DVdm/Archive 2007

Archive 2000

←

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archives by year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Definition of absolute acceleration

Have raised the point in the talk page of the twins paradox article. If you can say one frame has zero absolute acceleration you must be able to provide a definition of absolute accelleration. Please do so, I am intrigued. AnnabelBuxton 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

General relativity

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. - Tangotango (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the page. The talk page clearly had become inadequate as a means to work towards consensus among editors. DVdm 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to reassure you I am definitely with the regular editors here, but there are several possibilities for what might be going on with this new user. Some probing is needed to find out, so I think we should try hard to follow WP:AGF and WP:DNFTT. This underlies my questioning approach. Geometry guy 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the WP:AGF approach will work in this case, but I wish you good luck :-) - Cheers, DVdm 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is when you most doubt good faith that it can be most effective to assume it, but there is a pragmatic side here, which is to make SnS do the work, not the regular editors. So instead of making statements which SnS could develop into unproductive arguments, I have been asking short questions. Geometry guy 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

CIVIL

Go have a quick read over WP:CIVIL before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Thanks. Nick 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and whilst I'm at it, two other things. Please don't mark all of your edits as minor, only small corrections and reversion of blatant vandalism should be marked as minor. Blatant vandalism does not include reverting based on your interpretation of our non free image policy. The removal of non free images from articles is certainly not a minority viewpoint and it certainly shall not be treated as vandalism by you or anybody else. Nick 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are right about that.Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Good point. DVdm 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

Your userpage says 'see talk page'. Using the following code

#REDIRECT [[User talk:DVdm]]

you could get the page to automatically redirect to this page. Just a thought :) ck lostsword•T•C 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. But... supposing the redirection is in place, how do I access my userpage if/when I change my mind? DVdm 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi DVdm! You can do so by adding &redirect=no to the end of the URL. Note the difference between this and this one with the expanded URL. You can also use the expanded URL to see the old history that gets hidden behind a redirect after it's created. Tim Shuba 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim... ok , I get it. However, I have merely put a link on the page. No redirection needed. Thanks guys :-) DVdm 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Twin Paradox talk page

The anonymous user on the twin paradox talk page obviously doesn't want to learn the answers to his questions, but just wants to tick people off. That being the case, may I humbly suggest that continuing to argue the point and sniping with him is precisely the worst response...? -- SCZenz 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I think I'm done with him. And with his other less anonymous identities ;-)

Cheers, DVdm 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Caiuszip

Have you dropped by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to report the website? Tabercil 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that the 5 points in section Removal how-to have been exhausted. I can't do much more I guess. The last point refers to intervention against vandalism page which is what I did. Last time this was taken care of by admin Ed. Cheers, DVdm 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: History of caiuszip.com and the copy sciarthistory.com:

201.53.33.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 more entries after final warning, block, 1 more entry

189.13.60.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings

201.8.194.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Warnings.

201.37.236.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 blocks

201.8.194.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 attempts

201.53.33.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1 warning, 2 blocks

Profes001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 4 warnings, indefinite account creating block

201.53.0.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

201.53.42.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 3 warnings, 1 block

Refactored links, you don't want your talk page locked up when we blacklist. By the way, it's m:Talk:Spam blacklist for the blacklisting. Someone's squatting my account over at meta so don't look at me. MER-C 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Testing edit summary links

Just a test. DVdm 09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Another. DVdm 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet another. DVdm 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am surprised you didn't bring this up at the pub. I think the issue it that the 'single bracket' notation for external links (also valid for a wikipedia full URL) is disabled in the edit summary field. This makes sense, as otherwise spammers would flood history pages with live links. For internal wikipedia pages, you can use the 'double bracket' notation, but you need to shorten the URL and (optionally) use a pipe. It appears that spaces and underscores are treated equivalently on the left side of the pipe. I am using [[User talk:DVdm#A suggestion|internal link]] in this edit summary. Tim Shuba 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another test along your suggestion, using [[Talk:Herbert_Dingle#A_friendly_reminder_about_the_three-revert_rule|This internal link]]. DVdm 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Tim, this works perfectly. Thanks!

See you later at the pub. DVdm 09:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

AIV report

Since it looks like the guy has a dynamic ip and too large a block of addresses he may come from, your best bet is blacklisting his site, like you mentioned. To do this, check out WM:SPAM. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help out. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I clicked on WM:SPAM but I get an non-existing page. What do I put there? I tried WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSPAM, but I don't really see a way to proceed from here. Can you advise? TIA DVdm 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Swatting personal pronouns

Thanks for being an encyclopedic tone killer killer! [1] Robert K S 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

;-) DVdm 20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

To DVdm-

I request you not to revert my post on discussion page. I do acknowledge that it is wrong to post unsourced material directly in article as per wikipedia policy. Please refrain from doing it again. viran 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You will find the reason of my revert on your talk page. DVdm 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I do acknowledge that posting unsourced material, original research content is against wikipedia policy. But explaining sourced material is not against wikipedia policy. I request you not to revert my contribution to Theory of Relativity. If you have problem in understanding, please tell me first.

This is neo !!! 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I just posted further explaination on discussion page of Theory of Relativity. If you have comment you can post it there.

This is neo !!! 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This was Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at least for now ;-)

DVdm 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Never underestimate anyone in this universe, be it virus in gutter or Einstein.

If I choose I can give all these administrators nightmare they can't even imagine. All people in sci.physics.* have trained me except you and stephen speicher.

But I am not going to do that. Once all my usernames are blocked, I will move out as I did in sci.physics.*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived ANI thread 1 and Archived ANI thread 2 - DVdm 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

If you feel someone is gaming the system, I strongly urge you to file a request for checkuser or request for request for sockpuppet investigation.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DVdm 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And I did see your comment at ANI about the consensus version. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to protect an article, then get involved in the content dispute by editing the content. You could always make a request at page protection requests to get it unprotected. I did tag the article factually disputed because I think that is a fair assessment as someone neutrally viewing this from the outside.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I understand your position, better watch out for the wasps here ;-)

I'll leave the RFPP for someone else now - Cheers and thanks again. - DVdm 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Malicious Censorship Will Cease

DVdm- Fie on you for your malicious censorship of my good faith addition of a Criticisms of RT section to four RT articles. You must be some kind of wretch, misfit or punk, or any combination thereof. You must be lower than excrement at the bottom of a municipal sewage system. You confuse science with censorship. You present theory and fantasy as fact and then censor my well-referenced material by qualified scientists calling it "crackpot." Were Nobel laureates Rutherford and Soddy crackpots? Was Bell Laboratories scientist Herbert Ives a crackpot? Inasmuch as your reversions were improper, I will reinstate this material. If you delete it again you will suffer the consequences. This is your last warning.RAmesbury (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

DVdm, you wretch, I've got RAmesbury's contributions on my watchlist too. Alfred Centauri (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reported RAmesbury for making changes for which payment was offered on Anti-Relativity.com: See noticeboard. I thought you might be interested. Antelan ^talk 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Antelan. Ain't the web great? Alfred Centauri (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Depends on the municipality. Tim Shuba 02:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Interactions with RAmesbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Dvdm. I am contacting you in reference to your recent actions against RAmesbury recently, over pages relating to relativity theory. I see that, that user may be not all that acquianted with policies, but even still I would appreciate if both of you could find some sort of agreement. I notice, in a page that RAmesbury had mentioned to me, that both of you seem to have quite large content disputes on pages. The user in question is probably unfamiliar with citing sources (the reason I presume you removed their edits) and may not have reliably sourced their information. Maybe you could contact that editor and find some solution to the problem, maybe explain some key policies or try to encourage consensus before posting of a large piece of material. All co-operation is appreciated. And please understand I'm just trying to stop this before it escalates into something uncontrollable. Thank you. Regards, — Rudget _{Contributions} 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"...before it escalates into something uncontrollable". Perhaps I can reassure you if I tell you that I tend to avoid interacting (- both on a personal and technical level -) with people who have the reflex of calling someone "lower than excrement at the bottom of a municipal sewage system". So I don't think that there is much to escalate into something uncontrollable.

If you haven't done so already, do have a look at the preceeding section and at this. Finding some sort of agreement with someone like this is not on my agenda. DVdm (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. And I apologise, I can now understand your situation. All the best, — Rudget _{Contributions} 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) - Keep up the good work! DVdm (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)