User talk:DVdm/Archive 2015

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2013

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

→

Archive 2020

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

Heads of State of South America‎ template

Just a quick question about the revision of my edit to Template:Heads of State of South America. I added the content because it seemed strange to leave out dependent territories, especially given they are included in many other similar template (such as Template:Foreign relations in South America, Template:Legislatures of the Americas, Template:SouthAmerican legislatures).

In the edit you put 'unsourced content'. How do I source that type of content? Many thanks for your help, also apologies for my dynamic IP. 86.190.74.114 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. It somewhat depends on whether South America refers to politics or to geography. It could go both ways so perhaps your edits were appropriate after all. My choice of "unsourced content" was off the mark. Sorry for that. Feel free to redo. I will not interfere. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No worried. Thanks. Philip Stevens (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Latitude

I have reinstated the link that was recently added to Latitude. The site is actually quite useful. It is an academic page and not a commercial page. Nor is it a dabbler's page. Nor does it violate any policy; after all it is in the External Links section. On the other hand that section of Latitude does include a fair amount of junk which I will prune. I have been meaning to do this since I finished the major edit of that page (some time ago).  Peter Mercator (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I had removed the links on the basis of wp:ELNO, item #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Do we have a recognized authority here? - DVdm (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The website is under the auspices of a faculty of Dresden Technical University. It's certainly not in the blog/personal/fansite category. 'Authority' is a difficult word in mathematics: all that matters is that it is correct. I was a university lecturer in mathematics and I find the content acceptable.  Peter Mercator (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Time

Tnx for yr diligent AGFing re the Time "suite". Got an alligator situation here, but i hope our discussion can soon work twd the longer-term solutions that i think we both hope for.
--Jerzy•t 22:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy. Sorry, hadn't seen this message yet. No problem. By the way, I have removed the spaces (  ) at the beginning of your message here and on some article talk pages—see wp:talk page formatting. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Assistance with inappropriate use of talk page

May I ask you a favor about checking out the proper use of a talk page, specifically on the Robert Palmer article. Binksternet, an often problematic and recently blocked editor, has posted a malicious manifesto against a woman named Geraldine Edwards whom he's developed an unhealthy obsession about, on the talk pages of Robert Palmer. I am admittedly a neophyte in the area of Wikipedia, but it is my understanding that the talk pages exist to improve the quality and veracity of an article, not as a forum to attack a third party. He has entitled his paranoid diatribe the San Diego Hoaxer problem, in which he's all over the map accusing an individual that he believes exists of numerous acts, propounding dubious and far-fetched theories. Apparently, Binksternet is a bona fide conspiracy theorist. In addition the attack references multiple articles, however, he has posted all his delusional allegations under the Robert Palmer talk page. In addition, he has posted multiple attacks against an editor named Zabadu, insisting that he is from San Diego, regarding his comments to the Robert Palmer talk page. For whatever reason he has developed a fixation that a conspiracy has been formatted in San Diego, which is a bit alarming. Zabadu clearly stated to Binksternet during one of his multiple attacks against him that he is from Sacramento, and indeed he is. Finally, when this was revealed, Binksternet removed his malicious comments and warnings from his talk page. With all due respect, and in no way am I trying to create a problem here, Binksternets' mental hygene appears to be in question in this regard. That being said, I wonder if Binksternet's long winded diatribe on the Robert Palmer talk page should be modified or even removed. When you have a moment, can you check this out? If you're wondering why I came to you on this, well, I always trust a Frank Zappa fan. Thanks for listening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.220.178 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Apart from my recollection of a few pretty catchy pop songs and ditto girls in some of his video clips, I know virtually nothing about Robert Palmer, so I'm not really able to have a close—and relevant—look at the rationale behind this and the impressive body of evidence presented here and here. Removing that valuable and relevant content, which for me does not at all read like a "malicious manifesto", from the article talk page would be i.m.o. highly inappropriate.

Having met user Binksternet on a few occasions here, I must say that I was highly impressed by the broad and scholar nature of his research.^{(by the way, search here)} As I cannot possibly match that, I'm afraid I am not able to help you. Please note that remarks about another user being "a bona fide conspiracy theorist" and about his "mental hygene" will not help either. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with you, but everybody's entitled to their opinion. Thanks for the input. Have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.220.178 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Any further edits by this incorrigible hoaxer should be removed immediately. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Geraldine Edwards hoax from San Diego for details. You can refer to that page when deleting posts. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Albert Einstein, early life

Even so, what's the point or relevance? His parents were apostate Jewish, in other words, not Jewish. He went to Catholic School, stongly implying being a catholic. His parents would have been shunned then and that is the only time it was important. You might as well write: His parents were consdiered freaks by the Jewish community, at least to anyone who understands what the statement means. I find it defaming. GESICC (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page, where other contributors can provide input. This is not the place for that. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Blatant editorializing

DVdm, what specific statement have I made that you consider blatant editorializing? I really have no idea what I did that could be considered blatant editorializing. I said, "The reader should note the equations to be solved are not the equations for a hyperboloid discussed above:". Do you consider this statement to be blatant editorializing? Now the reason I said this is because the discussion of hyperbolas and hyperboloids could easily mislead the reader. RHB100 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page, where other contributors can provide input. This is not the place for that. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning

DVdm, this is a warning. You have engaged in vandalism and disruptive behavior. If you continue in this conduct you will be reported and there could be serious administrative action against you. You have accused me of blatant editorializing. I have denied this accusation and you have been unable to show me any instance of where I engaged in the behaviour of which I am accused. You have used this false accusation as an excuse for reverting my post. This false accusation you have made amounts to nothing less than a personal attack on me. You have been warned. RHB100 (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See this reply by user Kendall-K1 on the article talk page. If, after having looked at the MOS-guideline (wp:EDITORIALIZING) and your edit ([1]), you still fail to understand that this is indeed a classic example of editorializing, then I'm afraid I can't help you. - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Commented. - DVdm (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Huggle message

Hey DVdm! You are receiving this message because you are subscribed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers

I have recently launched a new downloads for beta testers that contains nightly builds of huggle, eg. versions that are built every day from our master branch and contains latest huggle. These builds are currently provided only for Windows and Ubuntu. You can find them here: http://huggle.wmflabs.org/builds/

Please keep in mind that these don't have any automatic updates and if you download and start using nightly build, you will need to update it yourself! So don't get yourself to running old version, it's possible to install both stable and nightly huggle, which is what I suggest.

Keep the bug reports coming to phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=Huggle Many thanks! Petrb (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting notice Engineering Education

Dear DVdm, I'm not expert in wiki but I faced a problem creating the article on "Education studies", which is a research field, because it was redirected to "Engineering Education" as teaching activity. I didn't find another solution to create the page on "Education studies" than removing the "redirect". But into the article on "Education studies", I introduced that in some case "Education studies" means ""Engineering education" and here I introduced a link toward the corresponding page. I hope I did it correctly. But now I see the whole page on "Education studies" disappeared. It was many hours of work to avoid the previous mistaking redirection. I don't know now what to do to not loose this work you deleted. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinsonV (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

I think that user Sam Sailor's suggestion (at User talk:Sam Sailor#Redirect remove) to insert the content in the existing article Engineering education is a good one. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting PROD removal

I have reverted your reversion of the removal of a {{PROD}} template from Wetted surface. I don't agree with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) in his removal of the PROD, but that is a valid action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Proper length

I would be interested in your opinion on the Proper length article. I have moved it around a bit as it seemed to be mainly about the different concept of 'Proper distance'.

I have nothing agains the term 'proper distance' although I do not think that is that widely used or particularly helpful but an article should be mainly about the subject in its title. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your edits. It looks better now. Good job . - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dark Forest listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dark Forest. Since you had some involvement with the Dark Forest redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Real estate in Italy

Real estate in Italy Why should be canceled or must have a consent an article that every nation has? the article still needs to be completed, with numerous art historical references, and current data, sales trends, and many other details. 79.50.122.82 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real estate in Italy, not here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Floating_point:Talk

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

You remove a post in Floating Point discussion because of tone (removal is not allowed especially under response to tone reason, which is considered ill-behaving), keep interpreting my post as "personal attack" (which is misinterpretation and debatable at least but assuming bad faith undoubtedly) and use my talk page to threaten me (with ban) in the end, instead of discussing the substance. You therefore grossly stand up against justice and multiple Wikipedia politeness rules. --Javalenok (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You were warned for this three times now. What you say here, is not acceptable. You will not be able to improve Wikipedia when you call other editors idiots. Continue this, and you will get blocked. - DVdm (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am responsible for every mine word. You called me to discuss it but it was obvious that you are not discussing anything from very beginning. Your job is to disregard the substance. The guise of politeness/respect is extremely useful here. The phrase, extracted from the context, will undoubtedly make idiots happy that "personal attack" was confirmed. They hear "idiot" or "crap" and immediatly understand everything. Idiots certainly know that there cannot be idiots and crap in real words and, therefore, any use of these words exposes "a personal attack". They cannot distinguish logical inference from from personal attack (ungrounded argument), as normal people. It is really pity that Wikipedia targets such audience, perpetuating the insanity in the World, eventhough the opposite mission is declared. --Javalenok (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, you are free to go elsewhere. If you cannot adapt to the way Wikipedia works, you will be forced to go elsewhere. DVdm (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You did right again. Exposing your misbehaviour as mine rejection of Wikipedia idea/rules. Misinterpretation of mine words and demagogy always works. I will go fuck only once you prove that you is the owner of Wikipedia and its rules must be interpreted oppositely to declaration. So far, go fuck yourself. --Javalenok (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Reported ([2]) and blocked ([3], [4]). - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sum of a trigon sequence and acceleration

I received your action item. This is an original work and conclusion. If you need me to publish it elsewhere before submitting it to Wikipedia, then I will need to re-assign copyright privileges to "a reliable publisher"--which means you will need to destroy my submission and advise me that you have done so. Thanks.ContributorPeters (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)ContributorPeters]

Hi. Wikipedia doesn't work this way. You need to have your work published in mainstream journals and textbooks, and other scholars refer to and use it. See wp:secondary sources and wp:notability. I have left a few interesting pointers on your talk page where you can find out how Wikipedia works. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You stated I did not provide a reason for my edit to Anti-Americanism. That is a lie, I provided an adequate explanation in my edit summary. Kindly do not revert valid edits or incorrectly use warning templates. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, you gave a reason in your edit summary. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Number theory, size of a number

One of the most important features of the logarithm function is that it gives the number of digits of a number (counting from zero as the first digit, as is the custom on many mathematic branches).

It is already referenced in the text "to the numbers of decimal digits of x", but need to be explicitly explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.70.167 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

What you wrote here is wrong. The number of digits in 100 is 3, not 2. Furthermore, what is written in the section Logarithm#Number theory about "to the numbers of decimal digits of x" is not related to what you wrote. By the way, there was an obvious typo in that section, so I corrected it. Further comments should belong on the article talk page Talk:Logarithm. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You wrote "inversely proportional to log(x)" (which is exactly what the referenced equation says: 1/log(x) ) as "inversely proportional to the numbers of decimal digits of x", so YOU are writting that log(x) is exactly what I wrote.

What I wrote is not wrong, just incomplete.

If the first digit in a number is counted as zero, which is just a convention, then logarithm gives the number of digits of that number. If you instead take the logarithm in base 2, you get the number of digits necessary to represent that number in binary base.

The source of your confusion is the difference between number and a scalar. Zero as a number, enumerates the digits.

A number is not a scalar. It may be a vector, a matrix, or more complex objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.70.167 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That is why entropy uses logarithm. Entropy is proportional (the proportionality implies some change of base related to the arbitrary unit chosen) to the logarithm of the number of different states which a system may have.

And that is exactly why Information theory uses logarithm to evaluate the size of the information (thus the number of digits necessary to represent it) with a logarithm function.

Aside the arithmetic, this is the most important property to understand about logarithm function. It illuminates almost all equations that uses logarithms.186.59.70.167 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my fixing your indentation—see WP:Indentation and WP:Talk page layout.

As I said, further comments belong on the article talk page Talk:Logarithm—see WP:Talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Leaving

Hi, I stopped contributing as of August 2014 and now I am definitely leaving Wikipedia. It was always a pleasure to work with you, and I hope you will stay here for a long time, since your contributions are extremely valuable. I hope everything is well with you. --D.H (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Likewise entirely—Wikipedia will miss your contributions. I hope all's well with you and yours. Take care and cheers! DVdm (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing a word doesn't make it true or change the definition...

Variable speed of light First paragraph says all.

Next time use a scientific dictionary and search for "Scientific Theory" also search for the definition of "Scientific Method", "Peer Review" and all data related to what really makes a Scientific Theory valid.--FaustoLG (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - I have reverted your personal attack on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

hello

Hello DVdm, Please help me delete my wikipedia account i don't want this account any more and i have no interest in contributing here. From: Mridul Sharma 117.197.157.67 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that accounts can be deleted—see Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Are Sherpa and Magar they are Nepalese?

hi, are magar and Sherpa Nepalese? I think yes they are Nepalese and they are different kind of caste but why not in name list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit makes no sense. Just look at the numbers you are introducing: 39,59,438 and 32,89,477 and 30,60,850 are not numbers. Please just stop messing up the article. - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Javas in Lithuanian and Sanskrit and Hindu

http://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2002~1367159484104/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.190.150 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Four-squares identity and spacetime

Hello DVdm! You so quickly removed my hint to a little review I wrote on the foundations of spacetime geometry in number identities! Of course, taken as a dry statement, it may seem a little faar-fetched and without prove; however, it turns out to be as obvious as the Pythagorean theorem. The article has been reviewed and officially published in the Bulletin of the Scientific Society of the University of Fribourg. I will replace the citation with a hyperlink to the publicly accessible pdf, as soon as available (there is always a time lag between the printed publication and the opening of the pdf-archives). Regards! Edgar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar-lausanne (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Hi. As I said, we need some solid secondary source—see wp:secondary source—in order to establish notability here. Wikipedia is not the place where we let the world know about our own work. It might take a few years before this is mentioned in the literature, so you'll have to be patient. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Even when it is reviewed and officially published in the Bulletin of the Scientific Society of the University of Fribourg (a wp:primary source), it still needs to be mentioned in articles and textbooks in the literature before it can be mentioned here—see wp:undue and, again, wp:secondary sources.

Also, please do not modify your own messages on talk pages after they have been replied to. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The Godfather Locations

Read please : http://www.scoutingny.com/the-godfather-the-new-york-city-filming-locations-then-and-now/ In this link we can see the complete informations about the locations in the film. I've put the information of location about "The Death of Paulie" but the users have removed my valid contribute , with the official source. 4:12 pm , 13 April 2015‎ . User: 87.15.145.211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.145.211 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Commented on article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

FYI, I don't really consider this to be vandalism. It's a good faith attempt to contact me. At most, it's borderline because the guy had already asked a similar question on my user page. --I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 19:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I dream of horses. Indeed the phrase "feel free to talk to me at ease" looks like an invitation to edit your user page. I should have been more careful. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers and happy dreaming - DVdm (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. We all make mistakes. :-) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 01:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Division by Zero and Relativity simultaneity

Not sure if I am targeted but this is second time that you are removing my comments. I found on the talk pages of above subject that there are other similar comments that can be considered as general discussion but you didn't remove them. They should also be removed. Why ? Explain please not only to me but also to your supervisor. This is not fair. Thanks162.157.210.127 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze

Perhaps I didn't notice some of these comments, or perhaps they happened before I was there, or perhaps someone replied to some (and/or removed some) before I noticed, or etc...

But do see this and this. And please have a look at wp:otherstuffexists: it's not because there's some inappropriate chat that managed to survive on the talk page, that we are free to add some more. Comments on article talke pages should be about improving the article. - DVdm (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OP is right to some extent if zero has no multiplicative inverse then why a number can be multiplied by zero to make it zero? Similarly there are infinite negative integers below zero that are also smaller than infinitesimal number in the logic explained by you. For example 1/ (-1)= -1. Since your talk page is not a discussion forum therefore I just wanted to let you know that I mentioned all related problem with zero including multiplication which may help viewers.162.157.210.127 (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze

I'm really sorry, I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. - DVdm (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about this first link this that you mentioned to me in second paragraph of your aforesaid first reply.162.157.210.127 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze

Yes, I know that you are talking about that, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. - DVdm (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I mentioned in my comments (removed) in detail “I guess it’s wrong to say that something divided by zero” but the logic you explained to the OP in the link is wrong by mentioning that the zero is still smaller than the infinitesimal number - If you follow the logic then you shouldn’t stop at zero because there are also infinite negative numbers which are smaller than zero as well as aforementioned infinitesimal number - so deviding a number (1 in our case) by zero, will result as a bigger number than infinity. But this is absurd since by deffinition there is nothing bigger than infinity. So division by zero is impossible. Such a number can not exist” - FYI, Infinity multiplied infinity is infinity.

I hope I explained things clearly enough for you to understand this time. 162.157.210.127 (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)eek

Please indent your talk page messages. Thanks.

No, I don't understand, I'm sorry. And I'm afraid I'm not really interested. Perhaps you can find some on-topic discussion group somewhere off-Wikipedia, like for instance at this place. Wikipedia definitely is not the place for discussions like this. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

h2g2

<boing>
HooToo needs some help h2g2
83.163.143.216 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Commented on your talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

<sadface> Well John already reduced the page even more, seems not to care about anything.<tit>83.163.143.216 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, talk about it ! <tit> tittering in the wiki guidelines 83.163.143.216 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your guide lines state clearly, to talk about changes. I linked correctly to the Talk page not to the Article.
Apparently some proclaimed gnoom can just rip an article into a repetetive and non informative stub if it is about an obscure blue website in one of the outer arms of the internet.
For what I read in the rules about social websites wp:social or something. The article is not supposed to cover the articles of ThePost but we should be able to mention it is there. As is so much more the gnoom removed.
<tit>83.163.143.216 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tvrtko I of Bosnia

NA SRPSKOM JEZIKU:

Moji argumenti su jaki. Zasnivaju se na obilnoj literaturi. Titula kralja Tvrtka je "KRALJ SRBIMA I BOSNE I POMORJA I ZAPADNIM STRANAMA.. IZ POVELJE KRALJA TVRTKA 10.APRILA 1378!" POGLEDAJ NJEGOVE POVELJE, BIĆE TI JASNO.

NADALJE, MOJA LITERATURA SU POVELJE BOSNASKIH KRALJEVA I MNOGOBROJNE KNJIGE...

SRDAČAN POZDRAV,

BOSNASRB RS

All I have on my side are facts and science Bosna SRB RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by BosnaSRB RS (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your feedback is welcome

Hey, your feedback is welcome here: Talk:Michael Kors (brand), whether the brand should have its own article, separate from the designer. Tinton5 (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tinton5, thanks, but as I have never edited the article or the talk page, and never even heard of the subject, I'm wondering what made you decide to invite me. Just curious - DVdm (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Help please

User talk:90.213.152.202 is continuing to vandalise political pages, now focusing on Liberal Democrats. He has been warned many times (assuming he set up ToryBoy1988 username as well) and continues to remove citations EVERY DAY! Please ban him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.107.157 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

User seems to be blocked now: [5]. You can always report such cases at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents aka WP:ANI. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Misleading figure in Derivation of LT page

Hi, I added a note in the above mentioned page and you messaged me saying you removed it. I have also left a note in the Talk section of that Wiki page. Please check that out. There is no citation to discuss, just a self-consistency check between the figure, text and result. I understand that it is old and accepted figure, but please check out the points I have mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achandrasekaran99 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Commented on article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page! I wondered why I was getting like 6 email notifications of the same person "leaving me a message on Wikipedia", but was too busy to check. Have a great day! --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do! - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

gears

Dear DVdm, I will add the citation and reference in some time which i forgot to add in the previous edit. I will add it some time later as I have some other issues now. Anyway thanks for reminding! --Chand3994 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No Animal sacrifices in Vedic religion and Vedas.

Sources which claim animal sacrifices in Vedas have no authenticity. Be it Max Muller, Keith Wilson, Ralph Griffith or any other non-Arya Samaji. Arya Samaj follows the norms of interpretations of Vedas according to the Vedangas, unlike any of the western interpreters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.245.212 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

As other contributors have restored the content that you deleted, you probably should take this for discussion to the article talk pages Talk:Animal sacrifice and Talk:Animal sacrifice in Hinduism. Don't forget to sign your messages on talk pages. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Complaint

Okay, so I had put in two errors on other pages, like misspellings, but I have just received a final warning for changing the death toll from 45+ to 50+ on a recent shooting, because I have read somewhere that the death toll was now over 50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguycalledharv (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Re your edit, yes, perhaps it is indeed 50+, but the cited source says 45+. If you want the article to say 50+, you will have to provide a relevant wp:reliable source and replace the previous source. - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker, edit conflict) @Aguycalledharv: If you change information, you must always provide a reliable source with it, especially if it's controversial information like this. That's why you've been warned, for adding unsourced, controversial content. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Fable

I've noticed your change in Fable (song) and I think you are because the song is very similar to Children (song) so I think that is a dream trance track — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Alas, what we think is of no importance on Wikipedia. What we need, are wp:reliable sources, as you should know by now. Please look at the welcome message on your user talk page, and follow some links to learn about how Wikipedia works. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverting me

If you paid any attention to my edits which you recently reverted, starting with 2015 Nepal earthquake, and most recently Sorting algorithm, you would see I was actually removing vandalism. In the former, an unregistered IP posted random content about the earthquake on a redirect page where it certainly doesn't belong. In the latter case, another unregistered IP blanked the page, which I then changed back to the last version of the article. You then reverted me, thus blanking the page. I don't think your warnings on my talk page are reasonable...Quackriot (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the last was not appropriate—I was too fast and undid my revert of the article. The revert of the warning did not work though. I have removed it manually now. Can you explain this edit? - DVdm (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, with this edit you also indeed repaired an article, but you failed to provide an edit summary, so it looked like vandalism. Please provide edit summaries for all your edits. I have now removed all the warnings from your talk page, and placed a little request about edit summaries. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the warnings, and for letting me know about the importance of providing an edit summary. Quackriot (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about "Topic:atheism" revision rollbacks

Hello DVdm,

I noticed recent rollbacks of Equivocasmannus' revision of the atheism topic. For example, he/she shortened "any supernatural deity" to the more succinct "deity." Since the deity page directly defines deities as supernatural, would it not be more appropriate to hyperlink deity instead of reverting? Thanks for your time.

Cheers, EphemeranceEphemerance (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The cited sources explicitly mention "supernatural" and we're not in the business of imposing our views upon the sources. See my warning at User talk:Equivocasmannus. Anyway, this is to be discussed on the article talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

86.128.149.112

FYI. That IP/range (though active most recently for a short period) is related to patterns of sock & block evasion (and disruptive/tendentious editing) that goes back quite a few years. Just FYI really. Guliolopez (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Complaint (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I really don't understand your grievance ...the website linked has no ads and links to over 30 hr. of open youtube discussion ....including a few debunks of Feynman errors made in a video linked in the footnotes. DoNotGod (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a grievance. Just an inappropriate link. See WP:ELNO item 11. And see wp:FRINGE. - DVdm (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

To describe the website as a "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" is inappropriate logic ...The entire website is devoted to defending kinetic force theory and some of the linked videos have la sage in the title. As for the fringe accusation I believe few reasonable people would not see the category "non mainstream" as synonymous with fringe. DoNotGod (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing that site that way is not related to logic. The site is a personal web page, and it is not written by a recognized authority, so per WP:ELNO item 11, it does not belong here. To me personally it looks like utter nonsense, but to be polite I settled for fringe - DVdm (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"a personal web page" apparently you are too web illiterate to know what that means (facebookish) .... "not written by a recognized authority" Who in the non mainstream catigory is a "recognized authority" and WHO recognized them, and by what credentials? ...(some dead links in the category by the way) ..."To me personally it looks like" 10 years editing and you haven't figured out this isn't a smart way to start a sentence in a dispute? What are your personal credentials on the subject of physics? DoNotGod (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DVdm is being too polite here. I had a quick look and it's an amateurish, self-promotional, disaster of a site. Wherever you found it you should advise the creator to take it down and start over with a more modern (as in this century) design and layout. If you are the creator then your time would be much better spent fixing the many problems with site. Make it good enough and others may start finding it useful and referring to it, even using it as a source. As it is though it should not be added to Wikipedia, by its creator or anyone else.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"it's an amateurish, self-promotional, disaster of a site" What link in the non-mainstream cat would you suggest as a proper "modern" design, without too much promotion of personal theory?... "many problems with site" like what, readable text and working links?... "it should not be added to Wikipedia" linking to the only current open discussion of la sage style gravity would be bad for Wikipedia how? DoNotGod (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions, one example of a non-mainstream authority would be, say Fred Hoyle. Check him out. In fact, Hoyle is my all-time favourite Non-Mainstream Authority. About my not so smart way to start a sentence in a dispute, my apologies. It is however what I really think about the site. My credentials are 100% irrelevant—see WP:CAI and WP:CRED—but if you insist, I have a masters degree in mathematics—with specialisation and masters thesis in astrophysics—and I also have a masters degree in information technology. This is of course not of much importance when it comes to dismissing the site as an external link in Wikipedia. In that respect only Wikipedia's content guidelines about external links are relevant—and crystal clear, I'd say. - DVdm (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"My credentials are 100% irrelevant" well if you are going to say something like "it looks like utter nonsense" seems reasonable for me to inquire if there is reason to think you know what isn't nonsense. Just as an FYI I am offering $1000.00 to anyone who can prove some "nonsense" ....anyway re: "only Wikipedia's content guidelines about external links are relevant—and crystal clear, I'd say" So in spite of the fact that all content on the site relates to a discussion of Kinetic Force Theory you think it is fairly described as a "personal site"? ... and you have a "masters degree in information technology" ...LOL and such DoNotGod (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The user DoNotGod is a YouTuber who is using Wikipedia as a platform for his own original research. He's since made a video on his site after this exchange titled "Wikipedia Junk .... DVdm is a petty fucktard". He's got no knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, and considering he's been terminated multiple times on YouTube for his extremely toxic behavior, chances are he'll be blocked here too. Just look at his channel, he is the very person that WP:NPA was made to keep off this site. Insidiae (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"DoNotGod is a YouTuber" I publish ummonetized videos at various locations and would not describe myself as a "youtuber" ..."using Wikipedia as a platform" my interest is the subject of partical gravity and I simply claim the link posted is perfectly consistent with the credibility of the other links in the category. ..."own original research" there are no "researched claims" on the site, just defended theory consistent with the other links in the category. ..."no knowledge of Wikipedia's policies" what fact bases this claim? ...."terminated...for his extremely toxic behavior" you have no evidence for this claim, and their is plenty of evidence that bigoted censorship was the cause. ..."chances are he'll be blocked here too" for what, daring to defend my reasonableness? ..."the very person that WP:NPA was made to keep off this site" because they might post a relevant link not suiting the personal bigotries of the "authorized" subject owner or mob. DoNotGod (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

In DoNotGod's defense, not sure how the 6th non-mainstream link http://www.mountainman.com.au/le_sage.htm isn't a personal page that doesn't include its share of original research? The page contains links to pages which index fringe Usenet discussions dating back to the mid 90s. Also, note this key insight from that very same wikipedia approved non-mainstream authority website: ("Despite this overwealming peer-reviewed state of affairs, there nevertheless exist, and have existed, individuals who have stated their disagreement with the contemporary theories of the physical sciences. Sometimes termed dissident, invariably termed "crack-pot", the scorn and derision of the status quo have not prevented these individuals to work away at their alternate theories concerning the nature of natural phenomena, here on earth and "out there", in the cosmos.") This seems like a classic case of the lone dissident being unfairly bullied out of contributing to the discussion by the self-appointed sentries of the status quo.Snowwhiteunger (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, wp:otherstuffexists. Perhaps some other links are there and managed to survive through wp:consensus. Feel free to remove more inappropriate links per wp:ELNO. Wikipedia is yours, so please be bold and go wp:FIXIT. - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Feel free to remove more inappropriate links" So you apply a "personal" standard of "nonsense" and censor links and than when challenged on the poor quality of your personal judgment you suggest MORE censorship? ..."Wikipedia is yours" kind of a totally insane comment in-light of how much work I am going to have to do to add one link. DoNotGod (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, DoNotGod's link should have a chance to survive through wp:consensus. It fits the mold of a "non-mainstream" link. Snowwhiteunger (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It has no chance, it completely fails the notability requirements. I hate to accuse you of being a meatpuppet, but considering you have three edits to your name, two of which are on this talk page and in support of DoNotGod, please stop engaging in meatpuppetry, sir or madam. Insidiae (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"It has no chance" even-though it can't be shown to be significantly different than any of the other links? ..."it completely fails the notability" can you provide a quote from that page relivent to a non-mainstream subcategory? DoNotGod (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OtherStuffExists. If you see links that you feel don't belong, you are free to remove them. I'm sorry Gary, but your link doesn't belong on the article. This is not a place to "expand discussion", it's an encyclopedia, and your page fails the requirements. If you wanna contribute here, cool, but you need to read and understand all the relevant policies and guidelines. I'll assume good faith for a moment and add a welcome template to your talk page, which contains all the relevant material for you to read. Insidiae (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it fails to qualify as a non-mainstream link. Please remember to focus on the content, not the contributor. It's counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a meatpuppet. DoNotGod's link contains information about the subject of the article. While I appreciate your concerns, let's remember: "Wikipedia does not "enshrine" old practices: bold changes to its policies and guidelines are sometimes the best way to allow the encyclopedia to adapt and improve." Snowwhiteunger (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: your messages

If you've really been on Wikipedia for 10 years then you should be aware of a couple of things:

1. You're not supposed to wildly template people with inaccurate warnings - I've left edit summaries for all the edits you're complaining about.
2. You're not supposed to use more than one template per issue, which you've done.
3. Using an IP address does not automatically make a person a vandal.
4. I'm not a "newbie" and thus the usual "do not edit in a way I don't like or you'll be blocked forever" crap isn't going to work on me.

Regarding the two edits I've made that you don't like: On Cornwall College - I've made a number of edits to counteract the mass-alteration of articles by an individual who seems to be pushing a political agenda. This individual has been complained about by several users and reported at ANI. On Brutus Beefcake - I've removed a paragraph of unsourced, speculatory material added by an SPA to promote an upcoming indie film. On both of those edits, I used explanatory edit summaries which only a blind cretin could have missed, thus your not-so-friendly warnings and false revert summaries consist of nothing less than an abuse of Huggle, something expressly forbidden. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You removed content with extremely misleading edit summaries, so you were warned about it. On the other hand in vue of of the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor making bulk changes against consensus (redux), pehaps I acted too swiftly, for which my apologies. - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

To keep your mind off the negative off-wiki stuff.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Cute . Actually, that off-wiki stuff is so interesting that I sort-of enjoyed it. Paradox! - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't apologize

Please do not apologize to DoNotGod for suggesting sock-puppetry. There were behavioral reasons to think that sock-puppetry was likely, with two registered accounts and one unregistered editor engaging in similar disruptive pursuit of their agenda. Just because CheckUser didn't find a relationship doesn't mean that you or I were wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

We'll see how things evolve at User talk:DoNotGod and at https://www.youtube.com/user/inmendham .... although I wouldn't mind apologising. Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Last warning

What is the problem? I am reverting the edit. -Richardparker207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardparker207 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you are systematically removing content in articles without giving any reason, despite the multiple warnings on your talk page. I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Have a look at wp:BRD: when you make a bold edit that gets reverted, you are supposed to discuss on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I should provide reasons for changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardparker207 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see in the messages on your talk page. And when someone reverts your deletion, you are supposed to start a discussion on the article talk page about your reasons. Don't just delete the content again. - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Richardparker207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardparker207 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Claims of Vandalism

You deleted a section on living person who's personal blog and opinions are is cited. It is relevant as they are a public figure. Unless you have some basis (not the actual person or a false source) please refrain from deleting material that is relevant and properly sourced. Your opinion on whether it is "helpful" is not a basis for suppressing fact. It is the verified author who posted this publicly so it violates no privacy or nondisclosure act. How is that "vandalism"?24.24.142.155 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your source in this edit looked like an unreliable source. A closer look reveals that it might indeed be reliable. I will strike my warning on your talk page. Feel free to redo on article. - DVdm (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not trying to hurt anyone. This is her actual storify blog and while it is controversial it is her opinion. I will probably do this in the next few days as there were reversions to my edits that could put me over the three revert edit. I did not see them as wa trying to clean up links while the reverts were going on. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I was too quick in my assessment of the site. Do be very careful though with wp:BLP articles. You know the drill . Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have undone my revert. Whatever happens next, I will probably not touch it anymore. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Better ISBN tool

Hey, I remembered you asking me about ISBN hyphenation. I've been working on a tool to better work with ISBNs, and I finally got around to throwing together a prototype. It doesn't yet do much, but so far it'll hyphenate and convert ISBNs, and it doesn't use annoying alert() messages for errors like the LOC tool. I figure you might find it useful. If you spot any issues, let me know and I'll try to fix them—there are probably a whole bunch as I threw the UI together without much thought. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: Thanks. I have used it to go over Special relativity, checking a number of instances, and hyphenating the bare ones. I also made a few tests with faulty check digits. The tool seems to correctly propose corrections. It should be a POC to add an extra field for the corrected input, and then present the result in the remainder of the fields. Tip: when the input presents wrongly hyphenated data, a little warning note would be nice. Super tool! - DVdm (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Complaint (3)

Ive been making free (non profit) study materials for a while now and would like that students all over the world benefit from those. However, it seems the links are being removed by a certain person who accuses me in self-promotion or whatever. Yet again the links to other profiting organizations are not being removed on the same pages. I always thought wikipedia is supposed to be a free source for knowledge but it seems DVdm is following a totally different agenda. So yeah sure - go ahead with your "moderating" and keep removing quality study materials.... all for the betterment of mankind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maido Merisalu (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See wp:ELNO item 11. There is no recognised authority here on your link. About the "links to other profiting organizations", here's the standard answer: sure, wp:otherstuffexists. Perhaps some other links are there and managed to survive through wp:consensus. Feel free to remove more inappropriate links per wp:ELNO. Wikipedia is yours, so please be bold and go wp:FIXIT. - DVdm (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing for a mistake

I am extremely sorry for my action it was a mistake I was just experimenting it won't happen again.Mentalist karan (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

How to give notifications to other users.Mentalist karan (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Just like you did here, by leaving a message on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

7/19/15 Question

It looks like you are an active contributor to the GPS page. As I remember that page used to have a section on how the satellite clocks were adjusted so as to run at the same rate as the earthbound clocks. Part of it went something like: 1) GPS uses the velocity of the satellite clocks with respect to the ECI frame to determine how much each satellite clock has slowed relative to a (virtual) clock at rest in the ECI frame.

2) GPS uses the velocity of the earthbound clocks with respect to the ECI frame to determine how much each earthbound clock has slowed relative to a clock at rest in the ECI frame.

3) GPS uses the results of 1) & 2) to compute the expected difference in satellite clocks rates vs the earthbound clock rates due to velocity.

And equations were included. Anyway, I don't see that section anymore. I'd like to see the "old" description in that section. Can you help? - as in providing the approximate date of the deletion and who made the deletion. Also, I'd be interested in the "Why?" in a few words and anything else you think might be relevant. Thanks!HarvPhys (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I merely vaguegly remember something like this. I had a look at the history between now and September 2012. The only significant unreverted removals I found are this and this. I don't think this is what you're after though, so I suggest you try asking on the article talk page. Beware of RBH. Succes! - DVdm (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to look through that time period. I will put an entry on the article talk page. ThanksHarvPhys (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert on one way speed of light.

Just so you know, this claim is likely based on Feenberg's claims [6]. There's some additional material saying this was refuted however, which should be included if Feenberg is mentionned.

Whether to include Feenberg or not is an entirely different matter. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a matter of wp:DUEness. Probably to be discussed on the article talk page, if at all. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be most grateful for suggesting any additional sources and references, related to this synchronization and one-way speed of light measuring method --Olgmtv (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

light cone and causality

Well, it is true that The light-cones define a causal structure not only in SP, also in many models of GR, but not in every one, take for example Godel's models. In particular, it does not follow from GR that "These sets are observer-independent" (in fact you are citing SR sources). As far as I remember, "the light-cones can be used to reconstruct the space–time's semi-Riemannian metric, up..." is Penrose Theorem, but its statement needs some more assumptions (exactly about causality). Yes, perhaps I am a bit pedantic, and the problem probably is uninteresting for a casual reader, however that paragraph [7] makes an exact sense only in SR, it makes some sense in GR only with additional assumptions. Cheers (PS. Maybe we can discuss in the talk page ot the article, my IP will probably change; anyway, I am not sure to have time to go on studying physics. But I want to be certain about what I learn ;) 78.15.165.142 (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the article talk page is the place to discuss this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Spamlinks

try out the links added before you delete them. the models are made using Open Source Physics, can check the source codes to check the equations used as physically acceptable equations.Lookang (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea is not that we check the source codes. Have a close look at wp:ELNO. - DVdm (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

i believe these links serve the public good. some day Wikipedia will accept them instead of the java versions that is not support in chrome anymore. Javascript runs everywhere. Lookang (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And see also wp:COI. Wikipedia is not a place to present our own work. - DVdm (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed a bunch of these links (and removed a bunch of self-serving/promotional-tone content from the article you created about yourself). DMacks (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks. There's still some links to the site: see Special:LinkSearch/*.iwant2study.org. Needs a cleanup too perhaps? - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bunch. Interference (wave propagation)#External links, Lunar phase#External links,and Wave#External links are each a whole pile of such things. Could you take a look if some should go away as WP:LINKFARM? DMacks (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked the remaining links. Two in three articles. Afaiac they serve some purpose, so perhaps they can stay. - DVdm (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking! I guess we'll call this cleanup {{done}} for now. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep an eye on the search results... Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On modifications to the history of calculus, and subsequent reversion, though much that was changed was also not sourced.

CA to DVdm, DVdm, are you there? Are we in contact?

If so, I'd like to start by thanking you for letting me know about the reversion, and giving me a chance to talk. I hope we can reach a satisfactory result for all parties, most importantly the truth as best we can ascertain it, while keeping this as positive an interaction as possible. Fighting about this is in no way my aim--I've been editing, with various IPs, since 2006, and while I've never touched something as...radioactive like this, to my memory, I will begin by suggesting that if you need a source for the primary headline change, there are many possible, but one should probably use that of the original inquest--which was universally considered, for 200 years after, even initially in Germany, among the intellectual community, to have made the correct judgment, and with very good reason; European society, including many or most German citizens and the entire intellectual community, actually made a much more decisive judgment against Leibniz on the matter than the inquest itself had--only parts of what's now Germany back-tracked). Contra present revisionist and forgetful modern historians who like ideas like parallel intellectual development, it's much more improper than my edits to give Leibniz a full joint-authorship of this branch of math, just because we live in an era where knowledge on the subject is has been temporarily lost, is, I believe, entirely improper.

I've got my two advanced degrees, and I understand sourcing perfectly well (though one of wikipedia's virtues used to be its ability to spread knowledge well without the academy's gatekeeping, which is small-c conservative.

I'd like to say more, but, well, I haven't the time right now--this isn't my profession, I'm afraid. I've never edited a page unless to fix something within my areas of expertise--and I know history and math well enough to say it's grossly inappropriate to list Leibniz as a full co-creator of Calculus, without severe qualification--OR, as the article does, use Leibniz's calculus work notes as references,or discussing them as evidence (as the article does), without immediate mention that one of the results of the inquest was the finding that he'd heavily backdated and falsified the most important areas of his working notes, and that similar backdating and reworking of his old notes was to be found throughout his other work. In other words, we're talking sources, and Leibniz's notes are a deliberate falsification of reality.

Nevertheless, this isn't my profession (wikipedia, or the science and maths section of its history content). I've always done what I could to do my part, but my time is limited. On that note, the page was WRONG when I found it. If you want to keep the headline the same, to avoid people's heads exploding, fine, but I'd appreciate a reversal of the full reversion. Much of what I did was individual tailoring of statements to on unsourced statements with an unsourced assumption and both unevidenced and incorrect implication, reworking the material to be more simply neutral. I'm sure my work wasn't perfect, but I assert it was an improvement, and request that reversion at least be sort of 'paused'--again, leaving Leibniz the credit at the top, even though that is not well-supported by history, tradition, traditional history, or a preponderance of evidence either traditional or contemporary.

Here's a citation for the headline. It's hardly perfect, but it's much better than an incorrect conclusion, which is seemingly the alternative: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton/CommerciumAccount/CommAcc.pdf - (accessed 8-5-2015 at12:29pm)

Most examiners (as it were) these days, the assumption that the Academy's Inquiry into Leibniz should bear no weight because of bias--and on these grounds dismiss it and claim it has been 'shown' that Leibniz developed the technique on his own. The problem is, that all these revisionist historians don't actually read the details of what happened during the investigation, which is that Leibniz was found to 1) have extensively tampered with his research papers (including the backdating) 2) Produced some stuff that fits with the reasoning from Newton's report above 3) Been found to have a fairly advanced Newtonian manuscript (i.e. in Isaac's hand) working with Fluxions in with his own notes between 1673 and 1676, and when asked about it, he became angry, refused to explain and claimed it didn't matter and he didn't remember what exactly it was doing in there, because that was four decades ago, and insisted that they look at his own 1676 manuscript where modern calculus notations appeared, insisting there was no relationship with the Newton manuscript that he was keeping in with his own notes on the subject.

In 1849, another researcher went over Leibniz's papers, like, all of them, and found another manuscript of Newton's next to a drawing up of the same problem by Leibniz, and a copying of Newton's solution with Newton's integral/derivative notation replaced with Liebniz's own derivative notations. Another manuscript dated to, I believe, 1676--and which I suppose would seem to prove Liebniz did not believe (in 1676) that Newton's manuscripts and their relation to his own precise methods 'did not matter'. Now that's in reputable print, sourced--and doubtless on the internet, somewhere, too. But I am definitely out of time, now. Please do not just revert--it will be a disservice to the truth, I humbly submit. Thanks for your time and patience, CA - (Non-Newtonian partisan, fan of busting up historical myths, but limited just now in being able to adequately source the evidence to disprove a largish consensus on a history issue outside his field, notwithstanding that probably thousands of old print volumes contain the requisite material, with evidence strong enough to override the dubiously based modern consensus). Cheers.

PS - Leibniz died in disgrace over this (well, also Theodicy. Mostly this)--no one in Europe but his personal secretary was willing to go to the funeral (which WAS held in Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.77 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

There are many contributors to the Calculus article. Please take this to the article talk page Talk:Calculus. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Thanks for your message. I recently removed all content from Talk:Global Closure Systems because I thought the content was not relevant. I don't think the talk page is the right place for what it was written. You're right, I should have explained why. Mistake of a beginner! May I please ask you to restore it - without content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireDavaine (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On talk pages, please put new messages at the bottom, provide a section header, and always sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Talk page content is usually not deleted. It can (and should) stay where it is, no problem. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Gerard Bursztein page

Hello DVdm, I would like you to change the name of the page Jean-Gerard Bursztein into Jean-Gérard Bursztein, so that it is possible to link this page to the french and german versions. Is it possible for you? Thank you in advance, --Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Article is now Jean-Gérard Bursztein. There is also an article Jean-Gerard Bursztein with a redirect to the new article. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you now link the three pages on wikidata? I tried to do so but I don't manage to it because there is a problem that I don't understand. Thank you in advance, --Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with "on wikidata". Can you provide the link to the page? - DVdm (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to create a link between the french, english and german Jean-Gérard Bursztein pages using this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17305738 and this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1684891 (why are there two pages for the same person?) but I don't manage to it. Thanks, --Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea and I'm afraid I can't help you with this. If you put a {{help me}} template on your talk page (check the documentation by following the link), someone will hopefully come to rescue. As I still really have no idea what you mean, make sure you provide a clear explanation. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

edits

Hello DVdm thank you for your email. As you know I am new to the site and I am grateful for the links you have shared. My problem is I now understand that I have a conflict of Interest with the Bio Brian Anderson (boxer) because I am the subject matter. However the additions that have been added are biased, misleading and without context. Some of it has been sourced from articles which themselves have never been validated. I believe that it is to biased to have been written from a neutral point of view as it omits significant material from the articles it quotes. Please can you advice me of how I can rebalance the Bio without infringing the conflict of interest criteria.

Regards Banderson1961 (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian. I think the best thing you can do, is to open a section on the article talk page Talk:Brian Anderson (boxer) and explain your motivation to modify the article. You can then discuss with the other article contributors. They probably have the article and the talk page on their wp:watchlist. If, after a few days, nobody joins the discussion, you can go ahead and make the edit, but make sure to refer to the talk page in your edit summary. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear DVdm Thank you for your response and advice it is much appreciated

Kind Regards

Brian Banderson1961 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(reformatted for talk page indentation)

No problem. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Everett Stern

Please help with the Everett Stern page. The comments made by the Wikipedia editor on their talk page are damaging and malicious. I have emailed support. This is a long standing issue with this user. This user was reported months ago. There is a major conflict. Not with the subject but with the editor. I'm greatly concerned that this article is possibly being written or edited by Stern himself and/or his friends and family (see link here where he directly says so). In my opinion this falls under WP:Conflict, as neither Stern (who stands to gain from positive standings as he is running for a gov position) nor his family should be editing in his favor.Ladysif (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly a bit of Search engine optimization (SEO) editing for "Tactical Rabbit" too. 220 of Borg 14:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Your comments against Everett Stern are libelous and false. The article is strongly sourced and was recently upgraded status. Ladysif appears to have a negative agenda against Mr. Stern. Ladysif was cited for attacking this page before and Wikipedia staff were notified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This article recently received a C- status. I'm interested in seeing articles follow Wikipedia proper formatting and policy, and I have never "attacked" this article nor have I been "cited." I actually recommended it for improvement, and then recommended it for deletion based on the opinions of several commendable and long-term Wikipedia editors. I would remind you to be civil in Wikipedia talk pages. See WP:Civil Ladysif (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC) I am greatly concerned that the editor Ladysif has a political agenda against the subject of this article. The article is sourced correctly and strongly. Furthermore the statement "possibly being written or edited by himself and/or his friends and family" can be said for any article. There is no proof of a WP:Conflict or Search engine optimization. Lasysif making the statement "possibly being written or edited by Stern himself and/or his friends and family" undermines the credibility of the article erroneously when the article is sourced and was recently upgraded status. Lasysif states that the subject "stands to gain from positive standings as he is running for a gov position" indicates that there is a possible political motive by Ladysif. There does not appear to be a conflict or evidence of such and the information contained in the article is properly sourced. The conflict tag should be removed as there are no factual grounds to the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ladysif attacks the subject on her Talk Page "Honestly, apart from the HSBC scandal, he has not made national news or had any media attention, and his campaign has not been given any mainstream attention. He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam, more or less. You can see his attempts to draw his attention to himself here and I have reverted a couple of edits on at least pages where someone had gone in and added his "conclusions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Ladysif, on attacks Everett Stern by stating that his company is fraudulent, therefore, he is committing a crime. A conflict? Neutral? "his website is a pay-per-use scam Ladysif" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article editor Ladysif states the following about Everett Stern "He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam." A great number of Americans disagree and this statement is libel, false, damaging, and malicious.

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

This should probably be discussed on the article talk page, not here. All I know about this, is that you removed a comment from the talk page ([8]) and I put a message on your user talk page ([9]). Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mary Gordon Ellis

Ellis is to all intents and purposes a native of Kingstree. She actually grew up in the town itself - which I did not know when I began the article - and I have readded her and sourced the entry to note this. She was at least as much a resident of Kingstree as she was of Jasper County. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I'll leave that to the other contributors. Good that you have removed the fact that "she was one of ten children." Indeed, though perhaps interesting in an article about the person, that was not really relevant in an article about the town. Good thinking! - DVdm (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It slipped in accidentally when I was copying the ref from the article. Don't know how, but similar things have been happening to me over the past couple of days; I suspect some kind of browser issue is getting in the way. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: List of women in mathematics

Excuse me, first you complained that I added material without citing a source, and now you're complaining that I removed unsourced material??? 49.183.171.12 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not cast in stone, but most of the time new or changed unsourced material is removed or reverted (as I did here), whereas long standing unsourced material is tagged (as you rightfully did here). Removing the entire paragraph in response to my change is what we call wp:POINTY. If, after a month or so, nobody has shown up with a source, feel free to go ahead. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Jullianne Moore

I know you mean well, but I'm sure Loeba is fully aware of the rules and doesn't need the likes of you arriving to her page to wave a finger in an aggressive manner. And here's a tip: check who you're talking to next time before adding patronising tags. It was Loeba who authored Jullianne Moore to FA status, so any "guidance" on referencing is irrelevant and may come across as insulting. Cassianto^Talk 18:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. See this. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Twin Paradox Redax

Unsubstantiated Authority

You redacted my 'Cockings twins paradox' for lack of citation/ reliable reference. The author was me [catch_22], so you deem me unreliable. I'm a newbie [to Wiki], told no lies & tried to abide by the rules. I expect people to think for themselves & expect a scientific rationale [at least]. Apart from slighting me, I feel you are hindering scientific progress. PeterKenC (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Alas, that is not how Wikipedia works. I have put a large welcome message on your user talk page with lots of links that explain how things work here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DVdm, Thanks for your conciliatory response & links to help a 'newbie'. I'll take your word for it that its not how Wiki works. ?Are you the sole author, censor & guardian of the TP page or can you introduce me to the 'responsible owners'? Please pass- on my comments to them.

I still think my attempted 'Cockings/ Symetric Twins Paradox' was highly relevant to the TP page & shouldn't need a citation/ reference. As you should know, a Thought Experiment is a [hopefully] logical device to give insight into a subject [& perhaps show inconsistencies]. Anyone may pose a TE [hardly a theory], like AE, me or you [ie: its the thought that counts(!)]. If A.Einstein had posed the Symmetric TP [rather than his Earth- ref' one], perhaps his GRTheory would be different. I may not be the 1st to pose the STP but have heard of no other source. If you dislike my name being advertised, then I concede that ideas & scientific progress are more important than giving my name to something. From the TP page, it seems that no professional scientist has really addressed the Symmetric TP situation [& has not 'seen my point'].

AE & his Relativity Theories have such cult status that many professional people fear to criticise in case they loose reputation. Since 'high school', I have always interpreted AE's TP symmetrically & gradually 'failed' to accept his SRT. Now that I am retired, I have little reputation to loose. Before I die, I hope to see a paradigm shift in 'Relativity'. I note that some Physicists are at last exploring new theories of gravitation [& relativity].

It seems to me that the TP page is highly biased towards 'established wisdom' & tries to deny any controversy. There is no link to 'Relativity Sceptics' [or equivalent]. I do not argue with 'experimentally verified' results, only that the predictive theory is flawed & that its about time the theory was improved- upon [now that AE can no longer be personally hurt].

Long-term Considered Regards, PeterKenC (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Re "highly biased towards 'established wisdom' ": indeed, that's Wikipedia in a nutshell. See, for instance, wp:FRINGE and the carefully crafted essay Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat.

Re "the sole author, censor & guardian of the TP page": nah, I'm just the messenger—don't worry about me, I'm insignificant. Try to concentrate on the message here: wp:NOR. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DVdm, Thanks for your links to Fringe & NOR, although these are very discouraging.

While I don't peddle any alternative/ fringe theory, I have sympathy for outsiders & non- professionals who find it almost impossible to get ideas published in 'reliable, peer- review' journals. It seems that WP is even more conservative/ blinkered than the establishment & can hardly be equivocal/ honest about any fringe/ controversial issues. If an editor uses his own logic, discretion, experience to illuminate a subject, 'he' will likely be accused of bias, OR & lack of justifying ref's.

Apart from this, Thanks for referring me to the TPTalk page, which you also contribute to & is a lot more encouraging! PeterKenC (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, Wikipedia is maximally conservative. After all, that's what encyclopedias are all about—by nature.

Re "for referring me to the TPTalk page": I don't recall having referred to the TP talk page. Do keep in mind that article talk pages are strictly reserved for discussions about the article, not about the subject—see wp:Talk page guidelines and, for instance, wp:NOTFORUM. I'm afraid that your comments would not be welcome there either... - DVdm (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DVdm, Thanks for your advice - I'll try & keep my subjective opinions to myself in any future on WP. Perhaps the WP system sent a link to the TP talk page. Thanks for suffering my frustration. End of this talk? PeterKenC (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. If you like my advice about your edit ([10]), feel free to ask. Perhaps I can help. - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Proof

My edits are constructive and the article rAJ tv deserve it beacuse the page was created with such information so that it deserve it now to so kindly accept my contribution to Wikipedia in Raj tV page.Please accept Luise1998 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Luise1998: you should definitely stop adding improper {{nutshell}} templates to articles. Continuing this will get you blocked. - DVdm (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@DVdm: ok i will not add any more nutshell templates but please don't revert my edits.-Luise1998

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

If your edits comply with Wikipedia policies, they will not be reverted. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

Contrary to what you say, I did put a refrence at the article, like this: Michael Crichton states it as follows: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mth128 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

@Mth128: see wp:primary source. Such point of view might be appropriate in an article about this person, but in article Scientific consensus this is wp:UNDUE, unless of course other relevant scholars mention Crichton, and think his comments are relevant. In that case you would need references to these wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

DVdm, please add back what I wrote for the talk of the page Hafele-Keating Experiment

DVdm, the page has a serious mistake about the interpretation of clock time in the experiment, which is to mislead readers. Please add back what I wrote to correct the mistake. Please aware that it is not a place for people to continue their misleading. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinhangshen (talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See my message here on top: "If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it." I already replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Calculus

Hi, Thanks for contacting me--please excuse the irritable tone of what I've already written, if that comes through. It's very late where I am, and I'd clean that up, but I'm also sick of baseless reversions to...the baseless. Modern scholars are very fond of the independent, dual-invention hypothesis, especially as applied to something as august as the calculus--but there are also matters of fact and history involved, and I'm tired of making sure something that's close enough to the truth of this matter is up on the central location for any casual scholars (I apologize for the self-righteous tone I realize is coming across. This isn't really something I want to be dealing with--it's merely an obligation to me, and one I'm taking care of at 3:30am). Here's what I've written on the subject. Thanks for taking the time to read it. _____ I DID provide a source, sir, or madam, and thus I ask you to stop reflexively reverting the page. This is a historically a settled issue (90%--obviously I wanted to include more nuance on Leibniz's contributions, but the header was too big already; the solution is not to move it all back to a 'controversy' page for 'lack of consensus'--this is known, AND a source was asked for and I provided it. The rules specify that online citations are acceptable. Wikipedia is better than most (more on that at bottom of next paragraph).

Since more than a half-century after the initial controversy finally boiled down, this has been a very-near-settled issue (I would simply say 'settled' except that the issue is too old, and the older, the more noise; the 1849 discovery in Leibniz's papers is reasonably well known and that and other distortions are documented and accepted--that's why they're on wikipedia already--I won't pretend it's certainty, but it's quite close. Many historians consider it a settled issue.

Now: regarding the revisions to 'The Calculus', and the assertion that 'wikipedia is not a reliable source' as a justification for a SECOND reversion back to the previous, and, I have to add, inaccurate, accreditation for the creation of 'the calculus', (no, I'm not English despite my punctuation, and no, I have no particular love for Isaac Newton in particular, only the truth as best we can get it), I reject that claimed inaccuracy of wikipedia as a source (THIS source) is not enough in this case, from that page. It seems to me, rather, that some evidence to the contrary would be appropriate for a reversion. Why? Wikipedia pages vary, but last time I checked, comparable pages between Wikipedia and a 'normal' encyclopedia show the same average number of errors per thousand pages, according to the best study. Other encyclopedias are valid sources, therefore, so should be wikipedia, provided it's not a frivolous page. If I err, please...well, where do I err?

Again, if the critical claim is inaccurate, why not find a contrary source? Accusation of wikipedia's inaccuracy (in the page on the Leibniz-Newton 'discovery' controversy? That is an unreliable page?), is not alone an adequate reason for reversion, it seems to me. Thanks for your time. It's my opinion that something resembling the version I wrote up, perhaps with qualification for derivatives, should stand unless contrary and compelling evidence is brought to bear. Thanks for your time. -RA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Adhemar (talk • contribs) 07:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

See my message here on top: "If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it." I already replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again,

Okay. My status on wikipedia is changed, gently welcoming me as a novice scholar. I apologize for not knowing the ins and outs of format. You asked me to respond on your talk page, however, so, I'm doing so, now. Moving on, I thank you for the kindness, but I'd point out you appear slightly in error about wikipedia being used to cite itself (skip to the end if you're short on time--the big paragraph, skip that. Do I have a point to make, yes. Absolutely necessary, no.):

   'of course wikipedia cannot be used to cite itself because that is circular and therefore invalid/self-defeating'

you say, or words to that effect. Okay. But you're relying on a false assumption as concerns wikipedia's nature, unless it's all written, sourced and edited by one person or a very close cabal, of course. IS NOT Wikipedia, in fact, a series of separate efforts and articles based on widely varying sources included by different contributors with differing sources of evidence? Like most encyclopedias, that is (older, in some ways better, ones, at least)--only a bit moreso, of course, because of Wikipedia's democratic nature? I assume so--therefore, obviously, hypothetically, obviously one contributor could borrow solid material from another portion of this vast, disunified, and disparate work which is constantly being improved on, no? Perhaps I digress, or perhaps I merely wish you to know that privately casting aside humility that gets in the way, I have three degrees from three universities, and I do know how scholarship and citations work in a way that's functional. All that said, sure, taking from another page (on a dead issue--but you know how scholars like to push their careers by reviving dead issues to make a splash) was a little lazy, on my part.

So, as you requested, here's your outside source. Just a webpage, but likely the original (or deriving from the same) that the text cited in previously from within wikipedia came from. http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Leibniz/RouseBall/RB_Leibnitz.html

Control-F for 1849 to confirm you have the necessary info within--the source. It should pop up right away. I hope that suffices to fulfill your request for outside sourcing. The discovery of the 1849 papers and all that. I hope that takes care of that, as I believe you suggested it would--it's not my desire to spend more time on this just now (or in general). Thanks for your time. I can google you up two to a half-dozen more sources, or you can check it out. But there it is. Thanks again. R.A.Randall Adhemar (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (minor edit)Randall Adhemar (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Randall Adhemar (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your original edit mentions that Leibniz "agressively claimed discovery," and that "researchers unexpectedly found critical portions from Newton's early work borrowed and recopied in Leibniz's hand." As far as I can see the word "aggressive" does not appear in the source http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Leibniz/RouseBall/RB_Leibnitz.html . Furthemore, the source says that "... it was implied that Newton had borrowed the idea of the fluxional calculus from Leibnitz." The content of your edit seems unsupported by the source.

The best thing you can do, is go to the article talk page Talk:Calculus and open a new section there. Make sure that you have a few sources (with exact page numbers) that explictly support the content. Expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content is not a good idea—see wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

___ DVdm: You wrote: Expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content is not a good idea—see wp:BURDEN.

I already explained enough of who I am (scholar/knows and avoids fallacies) to know that the 'BURDEN' link above, obviously is a link to a page that will explain to me the fallacy 'shifting the burden of truth'. Am I wrong? I much doubt it--in any case it doesn't apply to the current situation on this page. My statement was not fallacious, as I provided evidence as requested--twice--and suggested that the revision at this point ought to stand unless, indeed, there was some good counter-evidence (which there is not). It is indeed a shifting of the burden, but it's certainly NOT a fallacious one, not the recognized fallacy of shifting from your own weaknesses by shifting the burden of truth.

("When the evidence changes, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" -John Maynard Keynes)

To reiterate and continue, what we actually have here is something else: adequate evidence--your demanded citation--has been provided, along with easy instructions on how to find the information on that page. Therefore, either you haven't actually read my previous post, are possibly too biased to be 'managing' this page ("the content seems unsupported by that source?" you wrote? I'm afraid I feel I have to challenge you, or others, to examine that statement or citation, and politely request you remember that finding the relevant section is as easy as doing a CTRL-F on the page for "1849". Or you can use the section already provided from the 'controversy' wikipedia page, which was previously provided, as the text is the same, and a search for "1849" will get you to the second sentence of the appropriate paragraph, right at the beginning of the relevant section, just as easily).

Regarding the source, it's an older text (you can tell by the spelling) that says many things, for and against (more 'for'--you've cherry-picked your favorite statements amid a long page). However, that doesn't actually matter tremendously: the issue at hand in such a case was the sustenance, as evidence, of the 1849 papers (Newton's early work redone in Leibniz's hand and notation). The source (among many, many others) obviously sustains that, and is therefore valid. There are newer and fuller analyses of the details of those issues.

However, we ARE dealing with a fallacy, however, merely a different one, and yours: shifting the goal posts. You asked for ONE citation. I accepted your objection to the first, and found you another that fit your criterion, yet you still refuse, based on the false allegation that I haven't directed a reader to the important evidence contained on the page. Since that's not true, you would seem more or less obligated to unrevert the page, based on your own requests and promises. You've gotten the evidence you asked, and your answer is, effectively 'No', plus a not-so-subtle suggestion that you will refuse to discuss the issue further, go somewhere else. I will. But not treasure-hunting for you any further, given the circumstances. I'll be re-reverting the page--unless, of course, you've managed to pre-emptively removed my ability to do so. -Regards, RARandall Adhemar (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC) __________ Brief further addition to previous discussion:

   "Your original edit mentions that Leibniz "agressively claimed discovery," and that "researchers unexpectedly found critical portions from Newton's early work borrowed and recopied in Leibniz's hand."... The content of your edit seems unsupported by the source.
    - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)"

I agree with the first statement, certainly. However, it's most certainly, and a little bizarrely, irrelevant; a general scholarly rule is that if you can find something stated three places, at least with reasonable ease, it's established fact, and citation is not needed. The 'aggressiveness' I mention is frankly legendary in the history of mathematics. I, or anyone, could find 3, 30, or 300 citations for it, whether we're talking, say, of the famed, and infamous, 1704 anonymous pamphlet falsely accusing Newton of plagiarism of Leibniz's original calculus...and a little later discovered to have been written by Leibniz himself, or other evidences. Absolutely no citation is required to document such an incident. I question whether you, managing such a page, have adequate historical knowledge of this matter to be inserting yourself into the editing of it.

As for 'expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content', that statement is false/nonsense/whatever, as simply explained in the section immediately above. Obviously I dismiss the unfounded accusation out of hand.Randall Adhemar (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Randall Adhemar (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read your message—see wp:TLDR.

I will only comment on a few bits here:

• Re "I'll be re-reverting the page": if you do that, you will find yourself blocked in no time—see wp:edit warring and wp:3RR, policies.
• Re "Absolutely no citation is required to document such an incident": a citation is needed for every bit of challenged content. See wp:verifiability, a basic Wikipedia policy.
• Re "I question whether you, managing such a page, have adequate historical knowledge of this matter": I do not manage the page. The body of contributors does that. Changes are to be discussed on the article talk page Talk:Calculus, where these contributors can take part—see wp:CONSENSUS, probably the most basic Wikipedia policy. And I would not even need adequate knowledge of the matter to request a proper source for added content.

Note that your edit was reverted by someone else (user NeilN) too ([11], [12], [13]), so I will only repeat this:

The best thing you can do, is go to the article talk page Talk:Calculus and open a new section there. Make sure that you have a few sources (with exact page numbers) that explictly support the content. Expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content is not a good idea—see wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Poincaré & the Nobel Prize

Dear DVdm, I put back the info about him not having received a Nobel Prize into the article. I added more sources, do you think it's ok now?--VorerstGescheitert (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear VorerstGescheitert, the sourcing of your edit seems to be ok, but this looks somewhat overloaded. This says more about the Nobel Prize than about Poincare, so this information might put too much weight on this—see wp:UNDUE. I will leave it, but if this gets reverted or trimmed again, before editing again, you definitely should put a comment on the article talk page (Talk:Henri Poincaré) first, where other contributors can comment too—see wp:BRD. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, originally I had intended to put this to Nobel prize controversies, but there it was also reverted on the grounds that in order to qualify as a "controversy", a more persistent coverage was needed. I simply stumpled upon Poincaré's high number of Nobel nominations and thought it might be interesting to have this info added somewhere to Wikipedia. Don't you think so?--VorerstGescheitert (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. That's precisely why I had kept that particular part in my amendment to your original edit . - DVdm (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Other contributions by 182.149.192.142

Besides 182.149.192.142's contributions to Special Relativity which you reverted today, he/she has also contributed to Abraham–Minkowski controversy. That whole article being rather fringe, I'm not sure that that 182.149.192.142's contributions are out of place. What would be the best course of action? Abraham–Minkowski controversy began being usurped by "alternative thinkers" maybe around 2013 or so. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stig, I had seen those article edits too, but decided to let it go for now. In that article the content seems to be at least on-topic and there's a Nature source. Can't judge the content merits though. Perhaps a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics could be helpful. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Abraham–Minkowski controversy Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Whitch Hunt

threatening? what is the problem with correcting a false information on wikipedia? could you pls show me in the list of nations Islamic State -as you want to refer to it? why aren't you argue with the fact if you think I am mistaken instead of trying to cut my edit privileges? you know what? go on make your day and supress someone again, I am sure it's not the first time you felt you have the powere...

I still stand by that

“This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims, and Islamists,” France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement. “The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats.' -it actually an offending term for me, but who cares huh?82.19.200.204 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs wp:reliable sources, not our opinions ([14], [15]). - DVdm (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

in the edit I did provide a link to the quote. btw where is your source of righteousness? i asked in an earlier edit to show me it on the map, show me if any country in the world accepted it it as a nation, show me any proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.200.204 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

The source that you provided ([16]) does not qualify as a wp:reliable source for Wikipedia. See wp:V. - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

so where is your proof then? stating it is actually a valid term to call it ismlamic state?

similar content to proof http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/19/us-general-rebrands-isis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/05/daesh-john-kerry-starts-calling-the-islamic-state-a-name-they-hate/

are these MSM for you ?

-as it seems you are the one who makes the rules, pls let us know what are valid sources and how many links each edit need to prove that one is not against the greatness of wikipedia, but try to work for its success?

what are actually valid resources? reuters?82.19.200.204 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

These are opinions. For reliable sources, see—again—wp:reliable source and wp:V. If you insist that your source qualifies as reliable, then the next thing you can and should do, is to go to the article talk page Talk:Witch-hunt and propose your change to the article and establish wp:consensus in a discussion with the other contributors. That is how Wikipedia works—see also wp:BRD. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

obviously not reliable enough for you. but these are not opinions. but now i had just about enough of your ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.200.204 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pipe symbol space ("| ") sets key article of category

A brief interjection from a talk page stalker, in case you don't get a helpful answer to your very reasonable question about why someone would add a pipe "|" and a space at the end of a category: It sets the current article as the key article for that category. Note how Tide is now the first page listed in Category:Tides instead of being listed under "T". This is alluded to in WP:CAT and somewhat more fully explained in the {{cat main}} section of the categorization FAQ. It's abstruse syntax. An edit summary, even "set key article", would have been helpful. Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! See also. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Honorific Prefix

Please explain the reason of reverting my edits on principal government officials in Hong Kong. Principal government officials are entitled to the prefix 'The Honourable' and should be included with their names when being mentioned. This is similar to the practises in the UK. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Foreign_and_Commonwealth_Affairs Notice on the info box, it says 'Incumbent The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP since 14 July 2014' Wymanb (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said on your user talk page, see wp:HONORIFICS. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your accusation of "vandalism" would get you far in this discussion. I have noted the link you have posted, but it says it could be discussed on a case-to-case basic. It is a common practise to include prefix in countries/regions follow the Commonwealth traditions. Please do respect it. If you believe what you are doing is correct, please explain why other Great Offices of State of the UK pages prefix is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymanb (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this is by no means vandalism. I have changed the messages on your user talk page accordingly. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If some honorific is included elsewhere, see wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to remove it or to propose to remove it on the article talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand your concern. But could you kindly explain what do you mean by 'styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles'? Certainly adding prefix in pages is not an idea just sprung up from my mind. I do it because I have noticed other pages about government minsters have included prefix. If you think they should not be included, would you please remove pages have included prefix, there are quite a few, so we could keep it inline with the same standard. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymanb (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please always sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

The phrase "styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles" came with the standard warning templates {{uw-mos2}} and perhaps with {{uw-mos1}}. I already had replaced my wholy inappropriate vandalism template warnings before I had seen your last message here. In fact, now having noticed that you are not new here, I shouldn't have used templated warnings at all. I should simply have left a little message on your talk page. Again, my apologies. - DVdm (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Aldren America

Hello DVdm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Aldren America, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: deletion was not requested by the account holder. He may be the IP that blanked it; I'm happy to leave it blank, but not to delete. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

paraphrase

hi my friend could you plz paraphrase this ____ Potter publishing was never at her best when writing for a clearly defined audience._____

thank you Alborzagros (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Google translate can help. - DVdm (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Trigonometry

Hi this is Xtarification, responding on the subject of the change I made to the trigonometry page. (I hope this is where I'm meant to write this)

Just want to apologize about my mistake. I didn't notice how the steps taken to move the i to the top of the tan(x) function.

Xtarification (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Xtarification

No problem. Happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dedekind source

Hi, I'm Georges Theodosiou. About Dedekind's axiom I have given link to http://faculty.uml.edu/jpropp/dedekind.pdf

With regards and friendship Georges Theodosiou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.110.51 (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Hi Georges, yes, I had seen the source. Alas, it does not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia standards. See wp:Identifying reliable sources and wp:Verifiability. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

G4 speedying

Maybe it was a misclick, but in case you're misunderstanding speedy deletion policy - WP:G4 only applies to recreation of material that went through an AfD, and explicitly excludes prods and speedies. You flagged Multibit print technology as G4, when its previous incarnation had only been speedied. Obvious in this case you can just speedy it again under the same criteria, and I've gone ahead and done that (plus duplication of dots per inch for good measure). --McGeddon (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for letting me know. Meanwhile I already have reported this user for vandalims after final warning. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Witch hunt

You reverted back my changes on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt , the numbers I provided in the table I calculated myself with a calculator. I divided the population at that time by a number of trials from the table. The info about imprisonment I drew from a lot of sources, mostly documentary films and scholar lections. Osupka (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Wiipedia needs reliable sources—see wp:verifiability. If you can list the sources, and they are reliable and notable, then the analysis can be taken on board. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Osupka: Actually you may want to take a look through WP:OR, where it says that is actually not allowed. We are not allowed to do the math ourselves or make connections through use of multiple sources.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

On the Lorentz Factor page

I am not opposing your reversion on Lorentz factor, but what motivated the edit was the occurrence of the vector form on other pages. Most of the contributions I make to Wikipedia are motivated by improving consistency. I was thinking it might be better to include the vector form on that page and explain it a bit in case people were confused when reading about it. Aside from the fact that it may not be written verbatim in the source, are there other reasons why it shouldn't be included, or are there other conventions that should be followed when including it? I'd just appreciate your input so that I don't mess anything up. Ushakaron (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, consistency is a good thing. But I'm sure that verifiability is more important for Wikipedia. A referenced source that does not include the cited formula immediately following it, is definitely not done. So the missing of the vector form in the source was one reason, and as I said ([17]), it wasn't really necessary in this particular article. But but but.... your edit in the Occurrence section used vectors x and x' whereas the surrounding text only used coordinates (x, y, z, t) and (x' , y' , z' , t' ), which was't very consistent either. So I decided to stick with the source and undo your edit. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that x was used to simply represent a position vector whereas (x, y, z, t) was used to represent the components of the coordinates. I may have confused myself a bit there.Ushakaron (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

message to user

About my edit of frank zappa page:

I did not find how to add source but there is a recording od this last two performances https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIOBSUSAikY there is a czechoslovakian state TV report on Zappas first visit February 1990, thousand people welcome him in countre where no single one record was released till moment he come https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXOUA9h1e2s I have been there as 17 years old, it was fascinating.

If you want to add the sources, it would be really nice. There are also few writen sources on the web, but mostly in Czech language. Is it possible to add link to google trasnlation of such pages? I do not know much about wikipedia rules and I do not want to break it.

But people over the world should know this interesting story, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.102.209 (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think these youtube sources are allowed here. We need a book or a newpaper article that supports the content. Do you have an online pointer to a web source? I'll use Google translate to check it out. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Few writen resources:

- CZECH Chapter from memory book of Magdalena Kratochvilova (manager of Zappas's 1991 Prague visit) regarding this concert http://www.labea.cz/book/kapitola_6.html

- CZECH Web page of Czech state television of this concert http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/135011-prazsky-vyber/29135616040/

- ENGLISH Some info and talk about vinyl recording of this concert http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/related/Adieu_CA.html

- ENGLISH Some info about later Budapest concert http://frankzappa.blog.hu/2005/07/03/zappa_in_hungary_1991

hope this is enough, check it. If you need more investigation in Czech language, you can mail me to 'lazna at volny dot cz' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.102.209 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Thanks for the effort to find these sources. No problem with the Czech language, as Google Translate does a good job to help making it understandable. But alas, I'm afraid that none of these sources qualify as really reliable sources for Wikipedia—see wp:Identifying reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for anwer. One of the sources is web of Czech republic state television, institution with almost 60 years of history. If this could not be considered as trusted resource, than what? Could it be something wrong with wikipedia rules or as you interpreter it? 78.108.102.209 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Trivial remark

This edit was obviously correct, but the edit summary is terrible! --JBL (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OOPS! You are absolutely right. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Jessie

You may want to re-look at the warning you gave when you reverted here. The edit was obviously vandalism, and given the content, it deserved a harsher warning; however, I didn't want to step on any boundaries, so I figured I'd contact you instead. Regards. Amaury (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. A closer look at the subject reveals that it was vandalism indeed. I changed the warning. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Boldly requiring (rather unnecessary ) sources where no man has particularly bothered with them before...plus, seriously, all the real work was stringing together continuity because of language change in a disjointed, obscure article

Hi, May I ask if someone objected? I have time to contribute, but writing clearly and accurately while mussing as little of existing material as possible can be a big commitment, especially when the header gives no clear idea of its subject (I believe it mentioned that they fired at a lower angle than a trebuchet--which is half self-contradictory, since the article later [confusion I tried to remove through context] treats its subject AS a trebuchet, and which article is also written very substantially without sources entirely, including the header. It says 1,2,3, at the very beginning, and then proceeds without support for, well, quite a while. It goes on, quite a while and without citation, also without giving an idea of the basic structure of mangonel, or, frankly, an understanding of the presumed basic nature of the engine--please check the talk page, on whether 'mangonel' should be merged with the onager based on the controversial but still-dominant, understanding that the two machines were each variations of the same torsion-powered engine. The idea has only been described as 'controversial' recently--a controversy I, but not the article previous, acknowledged. Though I did find one dismissive comment (also lacking in citation and source) on the traditional and still-usually-presumed-correct understanding of the machine (not that I dismissed the other idea).

So, well, why, when I write, largely to clean up definitions and link the first part of the article to the latter part, which spends great effort on diagrammed, nonstandard mixed-power experimental devices of little military importance is my modest contribution detailing the very basics of the structure of the device described in the header, do I meet with, well super-editorial objection? And, with all due respect, may I ask your areas of expertise, or why I am running into you again? Why you prefer to revert an obscure article on a medieval war-engine (wikipedia groups them under 'petrary', and I'm fine with accepting that terminology here--less confusing--but its primary usage is not, in fact, any such engine; rather it tends to be a middle english word for 'catapult' (a 'traction-powered' stone-throwing engine, in Roman times--any such machine these days, obviously).

So, why not insert a few (citation needed) bits, may I ask? Especially since most of this family of articles is so little cited, and besides trying to clarify the confusion of all the different uses of 'mangonel'--and leave the article somewhat more...internally fluent, rather than separates pieced together, is this raised with me? There is the addition of mangonel-as-torsion engine, at least explicitly, but that's not much of an addition. Much more is said elsewhere, again: no citation required? Plus, hell, scholarly books and journals on medieval warfare are expensive when you no longer have free access. If you'd like a source with a good deal of description of the medieval torsion mangonel, a source which acknowledges no other type of mangonel, there's 'Sieges of the Middle Ages', by Warner, Philip, but I'm afraid I don't have a page number on hand (it's on kindle). I'm sure it's covered in, oh, 'Medieval Warfare', too. Or Sir Charles Oman, but I wouldn't use that text at this point.

Yeah, So, anyway, would a revision of the article that continued to leave out the concept of torsion be acceptable? I'm not sure that's possible to do in a significant way--I'm obviously interested in correct information, and lack the time at this point in my life to....cite basic details where others are not required to (I'm looking over these other articles and...oh, hell--of course you're asking a double stardard. Or, if not, go ahead, how am I wrong on that? I listen.)--but I suppose I could still do the continuity and cleaning up, terminology, etc, which would still make the article better on a basic level, if missing fundamentals. Would that be a sort of thing you would find acceptable not to revert? Be well, and warm if you're in the northern hemisphere, RA Randall Adhemar (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Re "So, why not insert a few (citation needed) bits": because the article was in bad shape already before you made it somewhat worse by adding even more unsourced information and original research—see wp:NOR. Also, phrases like "This article tends to proceed, in lower sections, to discuss..." are entirely unencyclopedic, and in fact orthogonal to an encyclopedia, so to speak. So I undid the edits and added a few tags to unsourced sections. The idea is not to add more unsourced content, but to find sources for what is already there, all the spirit of wp:verifiability. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

_____ I made this article "Even worse"!! Did original research? I did that, did I? Wha-wha--how did you know! You...how could you have known--did you miss the earlier tipoff on my actual research from the three books I mentioned? Yes, well--I'm used to you not actually paying attention to what I write, actually, so no surprise there. But, what, you saw me somehow at The British Library with the gloves on and a nervous curator not letting me turn the pages or touch the decaying mangonel remnants, while CCTV beamed it into your magic satellite? Or...did you think I was at a dig site! Indiana Jones I am, that's true!--well, no, and the IP or something probably should've given that up. But, hold on, hold on--beyond that, you're certain I'm definitely not speaking the common consensus of historians and medievalists, those Sorbonne-folk and Cornellians and people at Kalamazoo, or from 'De Re Militari' on the issues at hand? You're sure you...definitely have no idea what I'm talking about. Do you? So this 'original research' accusation, this would be based on your own personal expertise in, no, no, forgive me, but obviously, no, that didn't happen. And 'De Re Militari'...that's the scholarly fellowship with all the military officers...not the flawed treatise on the Roman army by Vegetius...they give papers? Publish? Anything. Yeah, I didn't think so. So question is, what am I doing, seeing you up HERE, far from previous locations this site, at me AGAIN, the one time I happen to remember my login name and use it, so I can do 'minor edits' instead of making the edit-list huge? You, with accusations of "original research" (shock!...also, again, no, not really), you wouldn't make if you knew anything about this field at all? And by the way, copper, you got me on primary research and secondary, just don't drag me in, please.

Granted, the 'original research' thing is a tough call given you delete anything I write while logged in in a median of about seven hours, and quite obviously without reading much or most of it obviously you can't be, can you? Granted, it's a tough call given you typically give me about six hours before you erase everything I've written whether you know anything about it or no, based on utterly spurious and I suppose impressive sounding, if misspelled, criticisms like: your edits are —"--Orthogonal to encyclopidia."

Oh. Right, then. I'll just step away from the contested, and avoid any slightly non-standard voice in an article, rather than either rewrite the entire thing or be "Orthogonol". And to encyclopidia (sic...but what about "orthogonal"? What's that? 'Opposes' didn't work for you? Or 'perpendicular'? That closer?). More to the point, what about THIS one of yours:

"The idea is to...find sources for what is already there."

You'll understand, of course, I hope--me giving that a miss, that is. Yeah?--and no, any other reader, what's dropped in the ellipsis doesn't make the statement much less damning or condescending, but you can look just up-page to make sure. DMdV: my job is not to 'find sources' for dubious and/or incorrect material. Rather, mine, and yours obviously, are closer to being about finding and writing down the truth for the public, best as you can, if you're in a position to do so. Case being, here, I can see you're not. Whereas, well, yes, actually. Of course, in past experience I've noticed you don't even bother to read my text--critiquing me for things supposedly lacking that WERE right in front of your eyes...literally, actually). You'll even strike my material on occasion if it stands by scholarly consensus, barring your involvement. So far, perhaps everything written with this name has comes down with a rapid case of premature removal by precisely you, DVDm--who I can't remember having had anything to say on the god knows how many edits I've done without logging in. Nor, frankly, upon rechecking them, having any major issues with rewrites and alterations.

I will be clear this is a formal, direct request for you to please cease harassment of any work by me on this site, done under this name, or IP, I suppose. First time in, I suppose, ten years, I've EVER had to say that about a scholarly matter--meaning I've never said something like that. Here, or in the stacks and classrooms or conferences. And IF am indeed doing the damage you obviously assume (the 'original research' bit gives away...both your incompetence to comment on an article in this field without, at least, much more effort, and a rather crude assumption of my incompetence). You're the only one who does it, only one who's ever done it, and if you're somehow a serious student of medieval warfare and their engines...well, that's just it. You're clearly not--little knowledge. And the only connection between this material where I've done previously under this name (my only name) is YOU--in this case trying to shut me down without knowing what you're about. So please, fin. If I'm 'making things worse'--I rather think someone else will step in reasonably quickly and set it right. No more repeated sendings of the wikipedia welcome page, and no more misspelled orthogonol criticisms without adequate knowledge. Whatever you think you're doing, it's to excess. Please stop. You lack adequate knowledge on this subject, and you're being oppositional. I'll restore what's appropriate with all the beautiful sourcing your heart could possibly desire--some is already on the page. You, off of me. I'll write the truth within the limits and flaws of my expertise, perfectly adequately sourced. Since my going assumption is obviously that you're not competent to judge that--the difficult study of medieval mechanized war engines and our historiography and reconstruction of them, and since, more importantly, that presumption seems to be...quite correct (seriously), kindly send a DIFFERENT self-appointed overseer, should you feel the need. But you, you're really just harassing. Me. It's irritating and unproductive; please, stop. Don't like to be antagonistic.

Am I wrong? D'you know your medieval warfare? Oakeshott sword typology, not the whole typology--but, for example, you'd know why they switched, in the West, from Oakeshott XIIs to XIIas, and when they moved to the XIII and XIIIa, maybe not even the typology, but any understanding of that development, back to 'Norman' at least?

What's the difference between Springalds, ballistae, and the espringal? Do you consider Legnano to have hindered or helped the dominance of heavy cavalry in Europe--in the long run, of course? Is any of this just nonsense--me messing with you--or do you even know enough to tell that? Yet YOU'RE the one out there "cleaning up" that article. Hm....

   WAIT, though. Here's a key one: do you consider ancient torsion-based catapults to have existed in some form in the medieval world? Not sure? Here's something I picked up a few light-nano-seconds-away, in the general page for catapults, well, the medieval subsection actually. Direct quote:

"Mangonels are also sometimes referred to as Onagers." And this matters because Onagers are torsion catapults (tension/traction powered catapults were called by the Romans just 'catapults'.) So the main page on catapults HERE had a major conflict with THAT page you so rudely 'reverted' me off of. How are you feeling about your editing work? Please don't actually answer. All right. And, seriously, don't say "cheers" to someone when you're being a dick. I mean, seriously. Yeah, cheers, sure.

BOILERPLATE FINISH: This is a formal request to stop harassing me immediately. I'm sure if I'm doing so much terrible damage to wikipedia, someone else can be there to oversee that matters are conducted with propriety.69.200.228.170 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia needs sources—see wp:verifiability. If you want to share your knowledge with the world without providing proper sources, you will have to go elsewhere. - DVdm (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ff

,by mistake Zed negi (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Speculative evolution

What are your questions? Just go to links and sources I added and watch. Maybe, there may be any grammar mistakes. I'm Russian, and speculative biology is one of my hobbies. So I think an additional info must be added to the article. In Russian Wiki there is no article of such kind. 109.126.195.79 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

You haven't provided reliable sources—see wp:reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Just read Baxter's book and go to the sources mentioned. Also I know the projects I added, and their authors also.109.126.195.79 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources that you mentioned are not reliable sources. They are amateur websites and worthless for Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, how do you sort them? Why Snaiad is reliable, and Ambarra - not reliable? What are the differences between them? Just list them here, for example. I know the author of Snaiad, he is a human like you and me. Gert van Dijk (Furaha project) is also human as we are. What are the differences? Why their sites are reliable, and other's aren't? Next, about the books - Baxter and Lionni. I want to say one thing to you: I translated them into Russian, and I know what I say, because I know what is written there. Why do you think these books are not reliable? Because you, personally you, had never read them? So, don't hasten to delete another's links and changes. Just check first. 109.126.195.79 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the books. I'm talking about the websites that you included. I also haven't looked at other websites, because the presence of bad websites as sources is no excuse to add even more of them—see wp:OTHERSTUFF. What you claim that you have done is irrelevant for Wikipedia—see wp:EXPERT. What matters for Wikipedia is wp:reliable sources.

Anyway, if no other contributors of the article object to your addition, then I won't stand in the way. I made one change though, for the reason stated in the edit summary: [18] - DVdm (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So, what prevents you to check the sites? I see it is easy for you to say repeatedly "irrelevant" and to delete changes. What are YOUR criteria of "relevant" and "irrelevant" sources? I see it is highly subjective estimation here. Then, maybe, you will read the book by Leo Lionni, to estimate its reliability to the article? In my opinion, it stands at the edge between SE and pure fiction. 109.126.195.79 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ishaangrewal2001702

I am ishaan grewal I am extremely sorry for adding unreasonable content on some articles as I had done so unknowingly and was just trying to help Wikipedia. I will now only put good and useful content on articles. I am very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaangrewal2001702 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

No problem. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tough Solar

Did you try a search on Tough Solar? It leads to a whole family of unsourced ads for Casio products. Dozens of them, maybe hundreds. The whole lot should be speedy deleted. I don't even know how you would go about cleaning up this kind of mess. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ouch. I just checked two randomly picked "articles" Casio CTK-401 and Casio EX-S20. Not much there, but I don't see which criteria_for_speedy_deletion would be unquestionably appropriate. I can also imagine that the same goes for other types of obsolete HP and TI calculators (and/or watches) though. Tough call. - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking G11, but my guess is these would actually have to all go through AfD, and that would be impractical. I wonder if there is any kind of bulk AfD process. Is there a spam noticeboard or Village Pump section where someone would know? Or I could just try to ignore this... Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm... perhaps opening a little section with a request for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam? - DVdm (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutron Star

With due respect, I did not vandalize the pages but added relevant information on the topics. No need to be upset with me on undo it, unless you are sure you know better. Again, please do not be upset. I understand your concern. Thanks. Bfaster (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not upset and I did not say that you vandalized. I am just making sure that Wikipedia does not get flooded (Special:Contributions/Bfaster) with promotional links to a special purpose account's personal work. References are supposed to link a particular part of our articles to a particular page in a book. If your book is indeed used to add content, then surely someone else will refer to it. Starting again while being logged out (Special:Contributions/173.74.73.150) is not a good idea. See WP:Sock puppetry . - DVdm (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey

Hello DVdm, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuqi333444 (talk • contribs) 30 November 2015 01:53 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tidal force removal of edit

I only added examples of the abstractly numbered bodies, these examples were taken from the previous sentence. Editing in these examples I think increased readability. I might have misunderstood the first body to be the tidal water from the previous sentence, but I don't think I have. I reverted to my version. If the case is that I'm wrong I would like to know what the "first body" refers to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojje (talk • contribs) 30 November 2015‎ 15:22 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Read the sentence that you are editing ([19]). It is about "the perturbing force on the Moon" (ON the moon) and a colon follows it. - DVdm (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you. Wojje (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dropbox

I have e-mail traffic and result. You can see them at the link below in anonymized way:

https://www.dropboxforum.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/202835839-I-d-like-to-cancel-my-PRO-payment-and-get-refund-my-charge-?page=1#community_comment_205940256

If you wish, I may share e-mails with their headers. 193.140.70.19 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Thanks.

Email traffic, blogs and comments are not reliable sources—see wp:Verifiability. Furthermore, the comment you pointed to, does not back what you wrote here. - DVdm (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I have not any personal problems with Dropbox. Dropbox has problems with LAWS. I've said I can provide my e-mail traffic. You said "No". I've provided a link to Dropbox forum. You said "No". What do you expect from me to prove Dropbox's lawlessness? A signed form from Dropbox saying that "well, yes, we do not care laws. Sincerely". How about this? In Wikipedia, some famous people has bad reputation texts. And you've guessed correctly, those texts usually have not any proof or are not from reliable sources. They are possibly gossips. Like humans, the companies may have bad reputation. Please do not delete my addition once more. If you do so, I will add them again until you give up deleting or make this topic controlled. I repeat once more: "I have not any personal problems with Dropbox. Dropbox has problems with LAWS".193.140.70.19 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The source does not say that Dropbox has problems with laws. You got a final warning on your user talk page. If you add this one more time, you will get bocked. - DVdm (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My edit of the Danielle Renfrew article

I agree the way I edited the page wasn't very constructive whatsoever, but I had major issues with it. It made no sense, almost all of it couldn't be verified or even cited, and was legitimately a resume, not an article.

I didn't mean to just delete the entire article for no reason. I thought if I did, the "help create this page" notices would replace the page if it were deleted. Anyways, sorry about my mistake, but I seriously can't think of any reasons for that "article" to be up.

AychAych (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, OK. The way to go, is to bring this up at the article talk page, or to go for article deletion. See wp:AFD. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Suppressing my speech doesn't make your wildly unbalanced Pro-trump article any better, friend

Friend, please stop deleting my contributions, which are merely suggestions on a Talk page as to how you can improve an article which reads like an advertisement for the Trump campaign, not a serious encylopedia article. Please, that article is hideously unbalanced and deleting anyone who points this out is not a reasonable way to proceed. Thanks. 2600:1017:B42C:4945:E5C4:EDC4:4041:1433 (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Speaker's corner is over here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if I agree with everything you say, Wikipedia needs reliable sources. If you continue the way you have edited up to now, you will be blocked, and you will accomplish nothing here. If you try to follow the rules, you have a chance of making a possibly lasting contributing. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not soapboxing. There are plenty of references but you have the article under lock and key. How about this (with 4 references) and exceedingly neutrally worded:

" Trump has been widely accused of fascism by both Republicans and Democrats for his proposals such as requiring Muslims to carry identification cards, creating a national registry of Muslims, and barring further Muslims from entering the country, as well as for his descriptions of Mexicans as "drug dealers" and "rapists," and his calls to deport approximately 25 Million Mexican-Americans, including full American citizens of Mexican descent born in the United States whose families did not emigrate legally."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:b42c:4945:e5c4:edc4:4041:1433 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

So you better list those references on the article talk page (not here), and wait for response from the other editors. You could also add a properly sourced piece of text directly to the article, but make sure the tone is neutral (wp:NPOV) and the references are relevant (wp:V). - DVdm (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That page is owned by paid staffers of the Trump campaign. They're going to suppress it, destroy it, or not add it. They will not let anything even slightly negative be said about him. You are the last hope, friend. Do the right thing. 2600:1017:B42C:4945:E5C4:EDC4:4041:1433 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please indent talk page message treads—see wp:indent. Thanks.

If you think that the page suffers from inappropriate ownership, you can find what to do at Wikipedia:Ownership of content. DVdm (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you agree with my position, and I've found you 4 references like you asked, and I've worded it neutrally, why not just add the text, since I cannot? That article is crazily slanted to have no mention of Trump being widely called a fascist for saying that Muslims should be banned from the country. I've supported with references (all from republicans, so no calling me partisan.)2600:1017:B42C:4945:E5C4:EDC4:4041:1433 (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please indent talk page message treads—see wp:indent. Thanks.

I can't judge the reliability of the sources, and I'm not inclided to edit an article about such a controversial subject. Best to be patient and see what develops on the article talk page. Try to be unemotional about it. If that is impossible, try to at least look unemotional. If that is impossible too, take a break. Emotions are orthogonal to encyclopedic writing. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Grow

Grow up you moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.119.48 (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok - DVdm (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the replacement of "Lead" with "Pumba"

Hi, thanks so much for your message! 10 years on Wikipedia... wow! You must have pretty significant editing privileges. Would you mind changing the title of the Lead page to read "Pumba" please and thank you? Again, I, a mere neophyte, am honored to have received a message from a Wikipedia veteran. Pbtimon (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your work to reduce the scourge of vandalism. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Relativity

I saw your refutation of Dingle's refutation of Einstein's special relativity. I haven't tried to check it, but am quite prepared to accept your version. I'm writing just to comment on a curiosity that seems to be of similar nature: someone called Ludwig Essen D.Sc., C.Eng., F.R.S., I think a respected experimentalist, wrote a 2-page article in the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal "Wireless World" (some sarcasm here) for October 1978 proving that special relativity was incorrect. Consider two clocks in motion relative to one another. An observer at A will see the clock ticking at B slower than his own clock. But the observer at B sees more ticks. Therefore ticks have gone missing, which is absurd, therefore relativity is false, proven by the loss of ticks. I wrote a letter debunking this (very simple and understandable by any non-expert), but it wasn't published. I've just searched and found it, but haven't reread it; my comments are from memory. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Herbert Dingle and Louis Essen (Louis, not Ludwig), same story . Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that, thought it was just a weird crackpot article, didn't realise that it was from someone notable (I'd also remembered name wrong), or that the WW article had been the subject of discussion (I didn't follow it up after writing my letter). The loss of ticks argument is embarrassingly obvious, I thought this was just someone technically minded but not into theory. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, during the greater part of their career both men were respected physicists, but just a few years after their retirement somehow lost their mind. Indeed it is just a weird crackpot article. Funny and sad at the same time. - DVdm (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from 50.179.194.186

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

50.179.194.186 (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Josephite Fathers edit

Dear DVdm, A few minutes ago you deleted a correction I added to the page titled "Society of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart." This morning I discovered vandalism to this page and another, titled "Josephite Fathers." These two pages refer to a Catholic male religious order/congregation in the U.S. known as the Josephites. I am an historian who has been researching this orderfor several years and was shocked to discover their vandalised Wikipedia pages this morning. On my IP address page you asked me to insert a citation for my correction (that you deleted). I am happy to provide many pages of bibliography for the history of this religious order. However I have never, despite many years of causal consultation of Wikipedia, ever made substantial edits to any Wikipedia pages or worked out the coding process for inserting footnotes. I'm an historian, not an IT expert. I ask your assistance to insert the citation you requested. The alterations and wrong changes to the two p reviously-correct Wikipedia pages on the Josephites are so egregious that I sought to flag the errors this morning and correct the most outrageous error regarding the founder (a correction that you deleted). I ask if you could please kindly reinstate my correction and insert the following footnote citation for my correction: Stephen Ochs, Desegregating the Altar: The Josephites and the Struggle for Black Prists, 1871-1960 (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1990), passim. This book is the definitive study of the history of this religious order and confirms, throughout the book, that Fr. John Slattery was the founder of the U.S. order and served as its superior from 1893-1904. Fr. Charles Uncles was the first black priest of this U.S. order and an excellent man, but he was simply *not* the founder of the U.S. order. The egregiously wrong text that you reinstated on the page "Society of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart" must be corrected. The correct text, under the section titled "History" should state: "It was founded in 1893 by Fr. John Slattery ..." with footnote citation to the Stephen Ochs study noted above. I have also contacted the Josephite Fathers at their headquarters in Baltimore to report the vandalism to these and other Wikipedia pages on Josephite history. Thank you. 66.87.87.170 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Indeed, the article that you edited is in bad shape, as it has no sources. Since you had made an unsourced change to the article, I undid it. I now checked the source that you provided, and another one (http://www.thefossils.org/fossil/fos352.pdf). Indeed, on its page 7 the latter contradicts the original content. It says: "Uncles was among the priests who opted to join the new St. Joseph’s Society of the Sacred Heart, under the authority of Cardinal Gibbons, in 1893 (Ochs, p. 84)" So I reverted it, and added the Ochs source: [20]. Can you specify the page number in the book? Is it on page 84 too? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

On what point would you like a source added, re: Leon Nieman/Colghosz

Yeah. Most recent. Since I've copied some notes from my defense/intervention regarding your complaint against me--to my discussion page--I'm notifying of that as your name, for obvious reason is mentioned. There's nothing active happening, nothing I should think it useful to see. Best if precedent is established by this pro forma obligation, me to you, being followed by lack of interaction. Delete it quickly should you choose. END OF LINE.

Dear sir or madam,

I observed your, that is, wikipedia's, article, on W.H. Mckinley's assassin. I notice you (as per norm) request a source for well-established material. I can accommodate, but request specifics. Could you please be more specific as to what matters you would prefer to see substantiated by a source (the altered material is all contained in a single, modest paragrah, of completely new generation--the text, that is, the content being uncontroversial 100-115 year-old history). The altered section was 'legacy', obviously it's bizarre that the ascension to office of a new and near-radically different political leader to the office of the US presidency, one of the most famous such men in US history, was not mentioned there, nor a brief summary of those consequences. That it happened is uncontroversial. That his influence extended at least through the 1912 election into the policies promised by the Democratic candidate in that election to fend him off is likewise uncontroversial, though I said nothing at all so specific. Would you desire more specific language? Do you desire evidence of a policy shift from 1901, as described. Do you desire evidence that the source of this national political shift found its legs in TR assuming the presidency? Do you desire evidence that Csolghosz's shooting of a bullet into the sitting plutocratic president W.H. McKinley effected Roosevelt's assumption of the presidency? I believe that part is stated elsewhere, without citation. Please let me know what you found needing sourcing--all changes are encompassed in a newly generated, perhaps four line paragraph, and all are extremely easily substantiated. For example, in less time than it took to wrote this, I could have given between two and four sources. You will of course understand that since nothing written is controversial or outside basic knowledge of the the political period, it is for this reason I request specifics on what you desire sourcing of. Sourcing on any of the mentioned issues, or anything else written there can easily and quickly be provided, by, say, historians, journalists, the organizers of President Obama's 'Osawatomie Speech', given in the same place and in homage to TR's speech of the same name, in the same place, 100 years earlier. Just tell me what you want cited. I note, however, that you requested exactly and only 1 citation. RA 69.200.228.170 (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Re "...more specific as to what matters you would prefer to see substantiated by a source...": you added unsourced content ([21]). Wikipedia needs sources. See this archived talk page thread. - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Things that are not in question, are well-established historically and amid the scholarly community and more, do not require citation. This is a rule of scholarship. You refuse to actually post words in response to my query, while directing me to a mangonel page I have not looked at in months, but which is just as wrong and full of misinformation as when I first saw it, not even including the three, not two, sources of power for such medieval engines (but which obvious yet easily soluble and uncontroversial problem I am unable to correct because you revert my posts). I posted above an extended description of all aspects, plus context, in the brief paragraph I added to Cszolghosz's page--noting that none of it required citation because. You do not respond. Instead, you quote back at me text you've quoted at me time and again, that 'unsourced content' must be sourced. If you are a genuine scholar, you know how disingenuous this is--shall I point out the sky is blue during the day, and shall you then require of me a source? That is roughly equivalent to the situation we presently are in--I have noted previously that you do not even read my content before discarding it. The assertion that in my contribution to 'encypclopedia' (since, as you put it, my writing is 'orthogonal' to encyclopedia is sheer nonsense, since the text of encyclopedias must still be written separately, without citations that the sky is indeed blue, at least until dead night.

You are indeed achieving your objective, sir or madam, DVDm, of chasing me off this site via harassment. I hope that satisfaction is worth the continuing gross inadequacy of occasional pieces I've been correcting without problem for a decade, just doing my part on minor little matters, as desired by an encyclopedic project like this, but with your continued harassment and baseless reversions--I say again, facts completely uncontroversial in nature REQUIRE NO SOURCING--as should be obvious from, like, any article.

But before I go, and don't ignore this, what are your qualifications, as a scholar, DVDm, other than diligence in eliminating minor corrections by myself? I have three degrees and, I don't know, a decade, doing formal scholarship in the English-language academic system. What have you, as qualification to eliminate anything I write, as qualification for threatening to ban me? Don't wait for the translation, answer it now!69.200.228.170 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(talkpage stalking) What part of WP:PROVEIT is unclear to you? As you claim to be an expert, a word of advice: Wikipedia articles are not scholarly articles. Our citation standards are actually more strict. You might wish to read WP:NOTBLUE for further elaboration. Paradoctor (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And see wp:EXPERT: "Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise." - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeh, I'm not going to read that. Writing the uncontroversial truth for the benefit of others and challenged by none (well, a few nutters), interests me. Censorship standards (Excuse me: citation standards....though of course I note I am routinely reverted, only by you, only ever by you, for articles that otherwise are not cited at all. But if I make an obvious correction, I must cite. Cute. #instititional-decline

And you constantly suppress my work...then when I come to state the obvious objections, i.e. you have suppressed inarguably accurate information...you accuse me of "talk page stalking". Right. Islam, also, is above criticism, yes? As well as any actions taken in the world by name of Islam? That also would be "talk page stalking"

Ridiculous. You are suppressing wikipedia contribution while claiming privilege not to be challenged on the matter. Further, this is a secondary way of justifying that you prefer to suppress minor, uncontroversial edits by me (suppressed by you, often clearly having not read them, or not knowing the subject), based on a doctrine that there is no official way of assessing whether you have any qualifications, something you hide behind, seeing as you have not the qualifications to assess accuracy. Tell me, why do you object to my alterations to articles which are nascent stubs which HAVE NO CITATIONS before I get to them. By your standards, shouldn't you be eliminating the entire article (often uncited completely, but a good starting point), rather than simply blocking my modest revisions to the grossest of their inaccuracies?

Very well. You refuse to present qualifications as a scholar. In contrast I have such. But moving on, What qualification do you have to suppress, selectively, as noted above, anything written from this IP--a uniformly counterproductive activity. No matter what I write, or where, or how uncontroversial, you 'revert' it. Something about this smacks of bias to me. I say now as I have said before: get off my back, and send another editor, without a vendetta, to check my work and see if it's in some way unobjectionable. I record all that I write here, and all that you baselessly delete. Again, find someone else--I'm too old, and too qualified to be "taught a lesson" by you for correcting simple problems. I seek only to do what I've always done here: correct obvious mistakes and make modest additions within the mainstream of scholarship, scholarship so mainstream it needs no justificatin--according to the rules of scholarship. No one has ever had a problem with this before. Ever. Why would they? Again, I am suddenly faced with a new situation; I have changed one word, ONE WORD, in this encyclopedia, that, to my knowledge, aside from all the other minor revisions by you, demanding sources on pages that have no sources otherwise, being censored away. You overreach. Now, as I've said before, and for the last time, get off my back--if my contributions need oversight (they probably don't, but extra eyes usually help), send someone else.

I will ask: do you have an official position in this encyclopedia? On what basis do you simply revert all written here (almost universally minor revisions to bring wikipedia articles within the mainstream of scholarship), and on what basis do you view that as some sort of positive contribution, as opposed to being censorship? Again, it needs no citation to state the sky is blue, therefore why do you require one? Why is wikipedia giving false information as to the power source of medieval war engines, refusing to include the noncontroversial fact that such engines were powered through three, not two, mechanisms? I will guess your answer: blah blah blah citation. You already know mine. Citations of the uncontroversial are both unnecessary and an irritating waste of time. Further, I level again to you the charge of harassment and censorship on noncontroversial subject matter, presumably for the satisfaction of your own ego in winning a pointless intellectual argument, the casualty being only a few modestly and uncontroversially improved articles.

ALL of your suppressions ignore the fact that much of wikipedia's content is unsourced (and often the better for it, as with any encyclopedia). Do we live then in China, where any statement or argument in a paper must by justified by the statements of a communist party elder? An equivalent to this appears reasonably close to what you desire--at least as regards any contribution by me--again, even to articles otherwise utterly and completely without citation. Even minor edits to such work by this IP you revert. This has gone to the point of absurdity. -RA69.200.228.170 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I note further and finally that your justification as regards your censorship is that "what we do in wikipedia is not scholarship." Check above, the words you said are rather precisely to that effect. That's...well, it's quite an impressive justification, isn't it. Please drop the 'we' concerning suppression of contributions, however. It is only you. Good day, madam or sir.69.200.228.170 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"not going to read that" Well, if you're going to ignore the publisher's requirements, why are you so surprised that your contributions are not published? Paradoctor (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"words you said are rather precisely to that effect" That is the danger of not reading: you're wrong. What I said means that scholarship alone is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Paradoctor (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Paradoctor:Excellent to have high standards, in encyclopedia as elsewhere. But, certainly without disrespect to you, and also having taken your point---I was at one point in Wikipedia on and off a decade or more, and, not counting college, let's say 5.3 years as full-time or more than. In the academy. That experience in mind, I think...you may wish to reconsider the assertion that wikipedia has a "higher standard" than academia. I mean...that first endnote, the 1, just that, often means, say, 2000 worth of work digging and scraping. With finds confirmed and later reconfirmed by multiple members of a team of experts. And that likely leaves out the man-hours it took to get the funding for the 2000 man-hours and other costs. Sometimes not-- But...just food for thought, is all. P.S. you weren't a flight-medic or USASF medic. I ask only because of your handle. Could just be good. No obligation to answer I'm sure your time is limited. Who cares. And nice handle. Moving on, all in one--"why am I so surprised...not published." I'd have to recheck to make sure, but I believe the words didn't indicate eventual surprise so much as rhetorical surprise, i.e. if you want good writing, you'll want people sovereign of their mind (if of a high moral and communicative standard), and also simply to assert such individual sovereignty with a broadly swept hand, that ideas of it being given away, that the decision of what is correct, moral and accurate to write not be ever thought to be something the individual saying such a thing will negotiate on. Establishing that standard is important. I think it means here and now probably to give up one's place; but finally one might expect the articles still to be published because they nearly always were for most of Wikipedia's existence. But that's hypothetical, since such things seem most aggressively enforced. I understand this has achieved great success in accuracy, but find myself perhaps more than half the time thinking this accuracy is much more than counterbalanced by a lack of diversity of view and dynamism of thinking. Every thought must be sourced from another book? Well, I give thanks that seems an unachievable standard, for its result would quite obviously be very little more than a large dictionary, and obviously thus a great diminishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Adhemar (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you were arrogant enough to openly declare that you're "not going to read" what others post in reply to your unfocused diatribes, any effort at composing replies for your benefit would be wasted, wouldn't it? Paradoctor (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@69.200.228.170:(also a stalker) Guidelines such as WP:No original research have a long-established history on here. There is a long-standing consensus that articles must be supported by inline citations for WP:Verifiability. There aren't any exceptions to this rule for anyone, no matter what their experience. Remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, because if you blatantly ignore policy like this you'll likely find yourself blocked from editing in the future. NottNott talk|contrib 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask why you refer to 69.200.228.170 as a stalker, sir? Of who or what? Has the case been determined against him, then? Please, sir, the public knows so little, but you, I imagine, you have had some occasion of study, whereas this one's role in the study of 69- was marked by a distinctive avoidance of any knowledge given. To my knowledge, 69.200 was on trial without advocate, and the administrative jurisdiction was run through his talk room or rooms sometimes causing confusion. I believe that ultimately he was able to make modest points about his charges, but later this seemed to be much undesired, and if the process of giving information began, in that user's own facilities--or merely bearing his name--he was repulsed. To this day I have been curious how long 69.200.228.170's initial reign of terror, so to speak, ran. And if there is considered to have been a later section. Seriously, I, for example, don't know those dates. Not at all. So, if you remember, and are willing to speak your memory. Well. Oh, andOf who or what, and what was the period of.Randall Adhemar (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for imposing, but I understood that he (I believe he), or an initialed member of his gang, was now, or formerly under inquest. No details were ever provided the public. Would you care to comment. Yes, actually. No idea, you see--what's going on, none at all. As regards the charges. Or their invisibility to the public, any small details. I don't believe you need be worried by the defense somehow stealing advantage in this. I've been given to understand he was burnt tragically in an asylum, couldn't take the stress. In reality I suppose we all know he's hiding, but, he or his lawyer won't be able to make it to trial, now will he? Thanks for your time.Randall Adhemar (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"May I ask why you refer to 69.200.228.170 as a stalker, sir?" NottNott was not referring to you, but to himself, see WP:TALKSTALK. Paradoctor (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: ANI result - DVdm (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)