User talk:DVdm/Archive 2008

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

→

Archive 2015

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

your antics on GR article

I'd like to add my voice to the apparent cacophany of voices calling you down. Please be more considerate and thorough when you revert articles, especially those edited by people who know more than you do. If you'd looked at the talk page for the GR article you would see that I sourced the changes I made, and was met with stony silence and non sequitur by the opponents of these sensible edits to the article. It doesn't matter if people disagree with me if they can't support their claims with reliable sources as I have done. Stop reverting the general relativity article or I will seek to have you banned. SteakNShake 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this before :-)

It didn't take long before this resulted in this. - DVdm (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

THANKS

Hi! Thanks for your kind words on my recent Zappa edits. It was completely by accident that I deleted them. I have restored them now (even though modesty almost forbad me :-) ). Thanks again. Happy New Year!--HJensen, talk 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DVdm has a well documented history of violating Wikipedia rules

Again, you cite Wikipedia rules, but you violate them yourself. In your deleting an addition made in good faith and that was first given in the Discussion for all to comment on you unilaterally deleted it giving only insults and unsubstantiated general claims. If you have a specific technical issue, then state it and be very specific and detailed. ThanksTwPx (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. DVdm (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitals in song titles

First of all, "the"/"of"/"en" and any other conjunction shouldn't be capitalized. It is grammaticaly wrong and in every reliable source I've found it is written without capital letters (AMG, for example). By capitalizing all the words you've also broken the link to Willie the Pimp article. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that what is actually brought out by the record company is the thing that counts, independently of grammar? If some links are broken, I'll gladly fix them. Just let me know? Cheers, DVdm (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued on Hot Rats talk page. DVdm (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This ([1]) edit was bang out of order. I am about to remove it from this page. That kind of incivility totally crosses the line. Come on... it's not necessary and all it does it upset people. I strongly suggest you apologise to the other party. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, I carefully avoided commenting on the other party's condition - I am insufficiently qualified for that. I merely accurately characterised its behaviour (see also [2], [3], [4], [5] etc...).

If I have upset you in some way, then I am sorry. The other party doesn't seem to mind however (see [6] and [7]), so apologies would be misplaced in this case. By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board. It might be capable of making valuable contributions to the project, but as the history shows, it behaves abominably - at least in my perception. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When you tread on someone's toe, you apologise whether or not you actually hurt them. And that's accidental injury, never mind deliberate name-calling. Furthermore, I think that Amaltheus's subsequent messages have made it clear that he is, rightly, appalled by your edit. And please don't play semantic games about categorising the user or the behaviour.

Amaltheus's editing has indeed been problematic. He has been warned and I am watching. I am certainly not bending over to do anything at all, if that comment was aimed at me. Once one has graduated from kindergarten keeping up with, or exceeding bad behaviour by other parties with whom one is in dispute is not justifiable by pointing at 'the other side'.

Admins take NPA extremely seriously and I have to tell you that I carefully considered blocking your account for this breach of NPA. I can see you've had problems with NPA and CIVIL in the past. I urge you to tread carefully.

--Dweller (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will tread carefully. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board." Maybe you would not be so surprised if you looked at the quality of his edits? David D. (Talk) 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also agree with Dweller in regard to this edit. It takes two to tango. David D. (Talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, "...capable of making valuable contributions to the project...", but i.m.o. that is no excuse for abominable behaviour.

P.S. Yes, it takes two to tango - plus a combo to make the music. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd SR postulate

Hi, I'm glad someone else also understands that the 2nd postulate is redundant. Your input at Talk:Special_relativity#Postulates_revisited was dismissed by people who really should have known better. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to have a go at the section Postulates of special relativity#Alternate Derivations of Special Relativity. For background, see Talk:Postulates of special relativity#Bogus Section on Alternate Derivations. Good luck :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Given up. Unless a group of us co-ordinate on this matter, it hopeless -- too many entrenched POVs. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed so. Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to revive WWI either - not even in a coordinated manner ;-)

Nice attempt. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Light

I had figured that light was not a matter; I would have called it a radiation, but that didn't seem fitting. I think that, somehow, it needs to be noted that "light is the fastest travelling <insert word here> in the known universe." -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "light is the fastest travelling <insert word here> in the known universe"?

Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) - DVdm (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zappa_WakaJawaka.ogg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_WakaJawaka.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Zappa_PeachesEnRegalia.ogg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_PeachesEnRegalia.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 02:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have uploaded shorter versions of both samples. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was on holidays :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify

The 1961-1962 Gibson Les Paul was a thin bodied solid electric guitar with 2 sharp horns. After 1963 they began to refer to the model as an SG. But when you say 1961 Les Paul... it looks like an SG... but it's officially a 1961 Les Paul. Les Paul didn't like the design and requested his name be removed from it. But Gibson had a stockpile the the Les Paul nameplates that sat between the neck pickup and the fingerboard. So the Les Paul name stuck with it until it was officialy named the SG in 1963. I own a 1961 Les Paul, a 1968 SG and a fairly new SG "61 Reissue". All three look almost identical. But only 2 are "SGs". The ol' girl is a Les Paul. A simlar naming gaff pops up in Gibson related article when editors add the word "Standard" to describe the 1958-1960 sunburst LPs. We've come to know the replicas and reissues by that name. But when referring to an actual model made during those 3 years, the word Standard is incorrect in the naming formatand should not be used. Hope that helps. Frank Marino being added to the Gibson players list along with a ref is long overdue. Thanks for getting him in there. Thye Gibson Player list has a very strict set of rules and a consistent style format which has been ongoing for quite some time. The intent is to get it to "Featured Article" status as has been achieved with the List of Telecaster players. The List of Stratocaster players is also close to 'good article' status with a featured article push in the near future.

Since you are interested in Guitar related articles perhaps you would be interested in joining the WikiProject:Guitarists. We are always looking for editors who are dedicated to improving any/all guitar/guitarist related articles. Fee free to drop by the project page to learn more. And, again, thanks for adding Frank. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications and for the invitation. I still think there should be a ref to the name "SG" (perhaps "pre-SG") in the entry text, but I'll leave it up to you. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

May contain nuts

No where near as funny as The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm... don't know, I have never seen the page, and since it has been deleted now, I can't verify... - DVdm (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse the template...

... but it says it best. Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! لennavecia 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, looking at his most recent "contribution" and the history on his talk page, you used a template that says:

• "... may not have engaged in vandalism",
• "... not sufficiently or appropriately warned",
• "... unhelpful or misguided edits",
• "... good faith",

Duh. Excuse my skepticism, but this template is a bit off the mark here ;-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please put back my derivation on relativistic kinetic energy

The derivation you deleted is much better than the existent one. I omitted some obvious steps, if you think they are necessary, I can put them in. Or, you can do that on your own DS1000 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you first ask me to put it back and then you put it back without notice. I have reverted your edits and left a message on the talk page. Please keep it there. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved DS1000's subsequent comment to article's talk page and replied there - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo on Creationism page

You twice reverted my creationism edits. The comments added balance to the article, by noting that there are in fact scientists who dissent from Evolution and also those who believe in Creationism (albeit a minority but regardless). The added references/links simply show that these scientists do exist and show what their views are -- there is no indication that these scientists or views are 'right' or 'wrong', just that they exist. The article was unbalanced is it presents creationism as if there are no scientists who believe in it and no scientists who dissent from evolution (including non-creationists). Why are you reverting the edits? Do I need to proceed with page protection, as the article, as is without my additions, is in fact unbalanced. Hassandoodle (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to creationism was reverted by someone else first, with an edit symmary "Reverted good faith edits by Hassandoodle; Let's stick to a WP:NPOV". You undid this without providing an edit summary. Since you seem to be new (assuming you are not a single purpose account), I figured it would be a good idea to encourage you use the talk page before undoing reverts to controversial articles. I notice that you left a message on the talk page in question. This is good - you are learning fast. Thanks and cheers, DVdm (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I am a 'new' editor here on Wiki. Since you seem to be an expert, can you tell me what is the process as all the 'debate' on the "creationism" talk page goes, for the article to be edited to have any such changes implemented? What if no one ever agrees (which, in such a controversial topic, is likely to happen)? And I completely agreed with your comment on the creationism talk page. Hassandoodle (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not an expert. I just have some experience with controversial topics. What ultimately happens when no one ever agrees, is hard to predict, but generally it means that the talk pages are much longer and more interesting than the articles :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As per your most recent revert, "Reverted POV-push of creationists-list. There was no consensus on the talk page." No one contested my latest comments on the talk page (yet), which included the added wording. As is, I don't see how the specific wording (added as you reverted) is in any way not neutral, it's simply pointing out the fact that creationists maintain such a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassandoodle (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Acceleration requires a *force* with a parallel component to existing velocity.

Originally the statement about parallel component was indeed nonsense. I had omitted the word force as I hadn't read the book properly. Can we now agree that the modified statement is a consequence of the Lorentz factor, and therefore put the statement into the article. The statement should now read: "Acceleration requires a force not only in the direction of the acceleration but a force which also has a component parallel to the existing velocity." Delaszk (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please use talk page of the article. I will not comment here. DVdm (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"the" in Zappa lead: Excellent

Good catch! Impressive how much a little word can do! If you like, you may want to add it here as well (and perhaps add a comment). Thanks!--HJensen, talk 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and done with same comment in edit summary. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Following me

Are you following me around and undoing my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.24.106 (talk • contribs)

Huh? All I know about you (76.249.24.106) is your IP-address, registered to "SE2 PPPOX POOL, Richardson, Texas" and this one edit on November 30. Who are you and what makes you think I might be following you? Would there be any reason for someone to follow you? Perhaps you might consider registering with a username and signing your messages on user's talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ok. i am working on it. the next one will be better. (I hope). 76.249.24.106 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My compliments

Though it was almost a month ago, your patience and thoroughness shined through in your interaction with User:Quartus81 over the use of the word myth at the Creation page and color me impressed. Good work and thanks for your contributions.D-rew (talk)

Thanks for the thanks :-) - DVdm (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

DVdm, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of one of your recent edits

See Talk:Speed of light. Thanks!! --Steve (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I replied here. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)