User talk:DVdm/Archive 2016

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Archive 2018

→

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for all your recent work in dealing with a certain troublesome editor - I really appreciate it NottNott talk|contrib 17:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Troublesome and a wee bit puzzling . Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Another year down the hatch

Have an awesome 2016, too. I added some cheese to your beer, that should give you a smile. Or at least gas. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you very much for putting that sign on my deleted page i dot think i had enough info yet sorry to make you do that thanks a gain have a happy and magical new year

United kingdoms my home (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

did you just warn me for attacking myself on my own talk page

bruh, pls, explain, 2A02:C7D:1633:4E00:29D4:F99:B654:C7CD (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

having issues with editing and i have no idea how to fix the blue bar send help 2A02:C7D:1633:4E00:29D4:F99:B654:C7CD (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone has just sent help. - DVdm (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Galileo

Thanks for looking out for the Galileo article... I'm not sure if you're going to try to delete my paragraph again, but if you have suggestions on how to improve it then that might be preferable to me. For instance I don't know if my linking the word "sermon" to Caccini's page is correct style, and perhaps the word "famous" should be changed to something which better conveys "a lot of prominent people at the time heard it". If you have another reason for not wanting that paragraph to be there, we could discuss that as well. I wasn't sure if I should add it, but it seems interesting to people reading the "Name" section, and it is backed up by sources. A5 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems ok now. Thanks and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok cool. A5 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit in Billy Bowden page

I just had 1 question,Sir... Was there anything wrong with the edit that I made in that page?? Actually I thought that was looking better that's why I edited it in that way... So can it stay??? Cricket246 (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, but best to bring it to the article talk page and explain it to the other contributors. - DVdm (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir actually I'm new to Wikipedia... So it would be extremely kind of you if you guide me that what to do... Actually in that page by mentioning 84 Tests, 198 ODIs and so on I thought it looked better and became a bit more informative on 1st glance... So can it stay if there's nothing wrong with it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricket246 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2016‎ (UTC)

For info, I've directed Cricket246 to the cricket project for more help. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand properly what exactly I should do... Please guide me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricket246 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 January 2016‎ (UTC)

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

The best thing is to leave it alone. According to others the text box looks better the way it was, with the units. - DVdm (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin's noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Nevermind, didn't see your revert. I apologize. 174.17.192.79 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No need. I should be the one to apologise. Happy 2016 to you and to Favonian, by the way. - DVdm (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Read my lips: no ethnic galleries

Hi DVdm. The IP did in fact provide a rationale for removing the galleries, to wit a link to the outcome of a recent RFC, now set in stone as WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Favonian (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: OK, these are indeed ethnic galleries. Shall I undo my reverts? - DVdm (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be the proper thing to do. :) Favonian (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. - DVdm (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly how many wikipedians were involved in "setting it in stone" over the heads of all the individual article contributors without their knowledge? This case is illustrative and should be made into THE textbook example for all the world to see how wiki really works nowadays without consulting editors on a wide scale any more. 71.127.132.40 (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up at the proper venue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

AT&T Southwest

Hello I am currently migrating everything from Southwest Bell to AT&T Southwest the company does not use the bell name so the articles name is invalid. FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@FoxNewsChannelFan: ok, but to avoid being mistaken for a vandal, always use relevant and concise edit summaries. Edits like these really look suspect without a summary. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Grosse Ile High School

Ummm, I go to this school. What part of my edits were "disruptive" or "vandalism"?

Everything here is a factual piece of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Ile_High_School?diff=698827542

I even put a summary of the changes and their reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.57.226.50 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Oops. I have undone my revert ([1]). My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

World domination, January 8

Dear Mr. DVdm,

Most experts and intellectuals today agree that the United States attained world domination and the main dispute is whether the domination is correct to term hegemony or empire. The reference is to the article Pax Americana, chapters "Contemporary power" and "American imperialism." It is hard to develop article on the fact of world domination having denied the fact from the outset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.248.209 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Re this edit: see wp:CIRCULAR. - DVdm (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just want to say thank you for reverting the vandalism/nonsense on my talk page. I was at school at the time, and therefore unable to do so myself. Chesnaught555 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1,000,001

This page is about the number 1,000,001, so I added some information about a song called 1000001 by an artist called Shadow Shadow, which seems relevant to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownr18 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

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

It could be relevant if the artist Shadow Shadow would have an article here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

Which third party publishers are considered reliable by Wikipedia for an article discussing the existence of "Time" and proposing an alternative explanation for the time dilation consequences of Special Relativity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanCollins225 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

See wp:reliable sources, a link that you already have on your talk page. Alternative explanations for scientific subjects can be mentioned in proportion to their coverage in the literature—see wp:FRINGE and wp:DUE. Unless your views are discussed by relevant wp:secondary sources, they will not be allowed here, because Wikipedia does not accept wp:original research. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Where do stepfathers come from?

If you have a better explanation I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, you should abandon your prudish unrealistic view of the world and restore my contribution.67.1.152.13 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed that bad sentence again: [2]. However, the last edit that you had made ([3]), added wp:unsourced content, so, unless you can find a wp:reliable source for it, it has no place in the article. - DVdm (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My source is common sense. We're not talking about a living person here.

Get real. 67.1.152.13 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

By policy, common sense is not a wp:reliable source for Wikipedia—see wp:verifiability. - DVdm (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant

Your revert cited WP:ELNO, and I read all 19 bullets there and cannot see which one you referred to! Which one? Thanks. 176.221.76.3 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted again ([4]). Take it to article talk page and perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Possibly questionable links at Gravitoelectromagnetism. - DVdm (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You falsely accused me of making a mistake!

At The Drive In has reunited and is playing at many festivals in 2016.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1515398nick (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I misunderstood. I have undone my revert: [5]. By the way, please note that Wikipedia needs wp:reliable sources. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Gravitational Potential Edit

Hey, you reverted my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential#Mathematical_form

I'm not sure how you think it's incorrect.

Let's consider a unit mass at some distance very far away from a larger mass M. There's a force due to gravity. We wait quite a while, and the unit mass moves closer to the big mass, under the influence of this force. To find work done, we just take the integral F dx, since the force is in the same direction as the displacement, this is positive-definite, which is good, because we know from intuition that the gravitational field has done work on the unit mass to bring it closer.

Let's see what the linked page is saying - it says that the GPE can be defined as the work done by the gravitational field in moving a particle in from infinity to some position. Except that's strange, it has that work as negative-definite. That can't be correct.

But we *know* that the GPE *is* defined as being negative-definite. So what's wrong must be the description that GPE is "the work W done by the gravitational field F bringing the unit mass in from infinity to that point".

That's what I fixed, and I'm not sure why you reverted it. 90.195.207.202 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please look at the equations and the surrounding text of your edit ([6]), and at the rest of the article. If you think there's something wrong, then you'll have adjust much more than just that sentence. You better go to the article talk page Talk:Gravitational potential and propose what you have in mind. Be prepared to have a proper source to support your proposal. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're right that it is probably not a quick fix. I'll see what I can put together. 90.195.207.202 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have added 3 sources for the content as it was: [7]. - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A doubt

	A doubt
	I had written an article named "Soft Skills". But you had deleted it by saying that I hadn't provided any source. And I actually don't have any source because I had written it on my own. So, I hope you understand. Shriya Kumar (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Probabilistic Encryption

Hello,

Just let me remove my edits on this page, I will soon make a better improve of this page.

Good afternoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.5.230 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Please provide a proper edit summary for all your edits. Otherwise your edits can be mistaken for tests, jokes, mistakes or vandalism. See wp:EDITSUMMARY. - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding "Fedora"

Hello, this is TheFancyFedoraWielder, and I have a question about including Scatman John on the page "Fedora" in the section 'popular culture.' I believe that this person should be included in the section because of his amazing accomplishments and popularity as a musician. He wore a fedora as a part of his public image, and included it in nearly all of his cover photos and public appearances, and there is much evidence of it from photos to raw videos. The only problem is, I don't know a source that can be used for it! This may be considered a bit of a "newbie" question, I know, but I thought that a required source had to be a text article specifically stating that he wore his fedora. Only problem here is, there are virtually no articles written (that I can find) that specifically mention his hat, they show only pictures. Is there any other type of source that I can use that is more of a "visual" source, like a link to a collection of pictures or videos or something? Thanks for your time, --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think that the source that you added with this edit qualifies as a reliable source—see wp:reliable sources. I suggest that you open a little section on the article talk page Talk:Fedora and propose to add that (or some) text. So you can see what other contributors think about that. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Richard Feynman's First Wife

I didn't want to edit the content of the Richard Feynman page myself, but offer this for your verification and page modification if you choose.

The page says "Feynman married his high school sweetheart, Arline Greenbaum (often misspelled "Arlene")".

However, Feynman's autobiographical book "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" gives her name as Arlene, not Arline.

You would think that Richard would know the proper spelling of his first wife's name, so I suggest that "Arline" is in error.

References

Harryhef (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a typo in the book. See Google Scholar and Google Books. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This source has something interesting. I have added that source in the text: [8]. Thanks for having noticed! - DVdm (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Number26

Hi, I didn't include a source because it would have been https://number26.eu and I didn't want it to be misflagged as an ad. 2A02:2149:8101:B400:206E:E567:599:3FCD (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Better find a wp:secondary source. That would establish the notability of this occurrence. - DVdm (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think notability is of no concern, seeing as this is about disambiguation. But the topic should at least be mentioned at the target article. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the notability-in-the-Wikipedia-sense is of no concern. I was thinking of notability-in-the-everyday-man-on-the-street-sense. And of course, DAB too :-) - DVdm (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I guessed so. I was mainly saying it for the benefit of 2A02:2149:8101:B400:206E:E567:599:3FCD. People occasionally get confused. :D Paradoctor (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Maiorana surname

Hi User:DVdm, could you help me out by editing the Maiorana surname article? Such as researching it's origin, country, people (for example Norman people). I'm trying to get it back to a version similar to this: [9], where it says it means Mayor in Anglo-Saxon, unless the current article is more valid as an Irish name. Could you also add categories, such as countries, language, type of surname (for example occupational)and images, such as coat of arms (if possible). Also if you could add more famous people with the name and give it a name infobox. I would really appreciate your help. Cheers

Feel free to remove existing information and categories already there. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you better go to the article talk page Talk:Maiorana. Not much going on there yet, but you'll find a pointer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, where, if you are interested in editing surname articles, you can add your username. You might request for help on the project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Google is another friend . Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Commas, not comma's

The plural of "comma" is "commas". without an apostrophe. It's not a possessive, nor an abbreviation. Agree? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@DOwenWilliams: agree 100%. In Dutch the plural is komma's with an apostrophe. Immediately after that string of edits of my old cite templates I looked at my watchlist, and did a Facepalm . It was too late . Thanks anyway! - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's a rather newfangled idea. SCNR :D Paradoctor (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not all that newfangled. SCNRE - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Proton radius

Hi! I ask your input about proton radius measurement details by scattering as mentioned on talk:charge radius and talk:proton.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Electron (ionic) radius

I ask you a similar input pertaining this time to electron (ionic) radius as mentioned at talk:point particle, talk:ionic radius and talk:electride. Thanks.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sulphur Hexafluoride

I modified this article to correct the reactions of SF6 (which currently does not have any references/citations) and you have reverted it back to incorrect information stating that I need to cite sources. As a chemist working with a very skilled Inorganic Chemist I know that I edited correctly but don't have citations. The current page doesn't have a citation so maybe the entire sentence should be removed? 31.205.3.72 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

No, let's find a source for the changes. If you have doubts about the current status, you can add a {{cn}} tag to it. I'll see if I can find a source for either way. Please do so too? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

See, for instance, [10]: "Sulphur Hexafluoride is a very inert gas and is reported to not react wilh molten sodium unless it is boiling.'"" - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I made a slight modification to the text, with source. See [11] - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Crowborough

See my reply on my talk page. Where is your source for the measurement of the area of the common used for golf as it is incorrect.Fragum1 (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The place for you to go, is the article talk page Talk:Crowborough. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume you have removed the reference to Conan Doyle being a past Captain of Crowborough Beacon. If so why? I am still waiting for you to tell me where you got the information that less than 50% of the common is used for playing golf. You accused me of vandalism for amending and adding to the article about the club. Your vandalism is even greater by deleting the additional information I gave which makes the post much more rounded,Fragum1 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)factually correct and informative.

Dear @Fragum1: I have restored sourced content (removed by you), and removed new unsourced content (added by you). As I said, you really need to go to the article talk page with your remarks. You will find other contributors (like Ehrenkater (talk · contribs)) there with whom you can find agreement over what is to be done with the article. Try it, it will work. - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be easier if you could just answer the question and not evade the question like a politician, or maybe you have made up the measurements. I cited the source for the measurement yet you still deleted it. The Defra letter source was cited yet you deleted that also. Do you have a grudge against the golf club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragum1 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

You removed sourced content here: [12]. You added unsourced content here: [13]. Sticking something like "<ref>Extracted from archive records at Crowborough Beacon</ref>" to your text, is not even close to adding wp:reliable sources. Read about adding sources here: wp:Citing sources. - DVdm (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

OK - I will rewrite the article with sources documented for every statement I make. Where the source is CBGC archives then a note will be added to say they are open to inspection on application. Please insert your source for saying that less than 50% of the land owned by CBGC is used for playing golf because I can't find any reference to this. Newspaper articles are often an unreliable source unless the information in their articles is confirmed by all parties mentioned in an article. Let us hope that by adding sourced material the article can be published with reliable facts and provide a source of information for the benefit of all. Several facts are mentioned in the Golf Club centenary book to which the club hold the copyright. If you wish to add any facts taken from that book then application to reproduce them should be made to the general manager. Fragum1 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't open a new section for each message that you write on a talk page, and please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.

You can write all this on the article talk page and discuss with the contributors of the article. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Govind Singh

I don't know how to talk or reply your message, if it is not right place than please remove it and i'm sorry about it. I removed some information from that page due to that was not authentic, I've mentioned proper references to political career. Private websites or news websites could not always authenticate data.Thanks. 122.175.141.231 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, with this edit you seem to have added a reference without having added any content. Moreover, you added the reference to a section header, which is something we can't do—see MOS:HEADER. - DVdm (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Excellent work! Thanks for helping keep the place tidy :) — MusikAnimal talk 18:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, so to speak. In turn, thanks for the often blazingly swift responses to some of my reports . - DVdm (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Inertial frame edit

Please note the difference between the axis of rotation vs angular velocity vector. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#cite_note-D.Hestenes-11

I believe my edit was correct. Cmfuen (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Re your edit [14]: please note: "The angular velocity vector Bv of a rotating object points along the axis of rotation."

References

There's some more of these to be found with Google Books. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh

Excuse me, can I ask you a question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefyrin (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

If you get unblocked, by all means, ask away. - DVdm (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

speedy A7

With respect to Pratap Singh Khachariyawas. members of national or state legislative assemblies are notable, however incomplete or poorly written the article. I'll follow up with the new editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. But I remain skeptic about the future of this, ahem, article. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Huggle patch

Hey, can you please send me your patched version of huggle to benapetr /at/ gmail /./ com? Thanks Petrb (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb: Gmail seems to refuse the attachment, even without the compiled exe. Email sent and zipped source copied in shared dropbox folder, with an invitation. Let me know when you have it? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb: I have left a new version 2.1.27.2 in the shared dropbox folder. This one traps the HTTPS warnings at an earlier stage, and thus for all the API-calls.

By the way, have you read the email and have you found the folder? - DVdm (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for changing my error greatly appreciated DumaTorpedo (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

03:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DumaTorpedo (talk • contribs)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for dealing with all the sports-related vandalism. GABHello! 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yum! Thanks - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

regarding Rook

I don't think we're supposed to include sources on disambiguation pages to avoid cluttering them. Rook is introduced in "The War for Dimension X", more details about this are present on the TMNT wikia, I can cite dialogue from the episode if necessary but thought we were not supposed to add references to disambig pages, just articles. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but I actually removed your entry from the wp:DAB because the word "rook" didn't even appear in it. The unsourced warning was a poor choice, sorry. Anyway, I notice that Bkonrad took care of it. - DVdm (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument

Hi

I noticed your correction of a small typo (chance -> change) in someone else's post, and then in your Edit summary write: " just a stray typo, this now largely being off-topic chat per wp:TPG". I'm confused. Firstly according to that ref you gave the thread isn't off topic as it is discussing ways to improve the readability of the article - exactly what Talk pages should be used for. But I'm also confused as to why you should make the claim in such a way, as a byline to such an unusual edit. For me it seems rude to correct someone else's post in that way, or indeed in any way, but to then use doing so as a platform for criticising - what? The thread? That particular post? - seems doubly odd. You didn't think or mark your edit as Minor so that also makes it seem you meant to use your minor edit as a vehicle for your criticism. I'm confused. Would you share your thinking behind your edit. LookingGlass (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @LookingGlass: as you can verify with the signature, this edit was a typo correction of my post . Yes I know, the thread started as a discussion about how to improve the readability of the article. But after my reply, in my opinion it somewhat slipped into an explanation of the subject, other contributors good-naturedly helping a fellow editor, which alas is not what talk pages are for. On other articles I usually make a little remark about that, or, with unexperienced or new editors I put a friendly formal warning on their user talk page, but in this case I merely stopped commenting. Glancing the thread, I noticed my typo, so I corrected it, and I took the opportunity to let you (and the other editors) know why I had stopped commenting after my first reply to you. That's probably why I didn't mark it as minor. It was not meant as criticism, but as a motivation for my abandoning the thread. OTOH, in my edit summary, in stead of the word "largely" I probably should have used "somewhat", for which my apologies. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for my oversight and thank you for pointing it out. The distinction between improving the account/explanation the article provides and explaining the subject in the Talk page seems a fine line to me as the two seem inextricably linked. If the subject is not explained clearly then the questions raised and discussions that result indicate in what ways the article should be changed to better suit it to its primary purpose: general readers not subject matter experts. The "explanation" aspect of articles is a primary not a secondary feature of Wiki. In this case I have not noticed any exchanges on the Talk page that do not further the article's clarification, but we can agree to differ. LookingGlass (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A fine thin line indeed. Sometimes it is quite thick though: [15] . Cheers and happy wikiing! - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Tank thingy

So...

What is going to happen to the page? If the page were exclusively on British tanks (i.e. Churchill) then yes, it should be spelled 'armour', but seeing as most tanks across history are American, the default should be American English.

Also, how do I find pages that need work? Most pages on the site don't, and I want to help where help is needed.

Helpingoutagain (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you will find a wp:consensus to change it, but the current longstanding variation of English on article Tank should of course be discussed at Talk:Tank. As for your other question, I recommend that you take quite some time following the links in the welcome message on your user talk page. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're fast

;-) fredgandt 10:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Huggle 2 is back in business, at least it is for me . See above. - DVdm (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I really should try. You'd finished while I was looking up the first template name . fredgandt 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Way back, before I used it, I used to copy the HG-messages left on user talk pages by other users. At the point where I decided to create my own warning templates, I decided to try Huggle first... and I guess that was a good idea. Magnificent tool. Apply for rollback again, pratice a bit, and try HG. - DVdm (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"again" - mhmm - maybe not. I was just reading about Twinkle, Huggle and ended up reviewing teh rulez; I think there's room for another tool, I have some ideas about building. Larry the Insane went from a 31 hour block to indefinite after appeal; a short and useless tenure. fredgandt 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I admit, that mere 31 hours had made me frown. But apparently he took the rope and tightened it a bit... - DVdm (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks a tonne

Hey man I really appreciate how you reverted my edits and left a nice stinky little turd on my page, great job man, two thumbzup 0_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradgalena (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't me: check this. - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My good sir

Dear sir,

I question your knowledge of doves if you are so quick to call my edit, as you say, "vandalism". Have you heard of dove chocolates? They are actually present on Wikipedia and I ask you to please refer to their page if you would like to learn more. I fail to see anything wrong with the post I made, and I hope you are willing to correct me on these points to better both of our understandings.

1) Doves were messenger birds. True! This happened in many kingdoms, even the Holy Roman Empire. This is also reflected with the television show "Game of Thrones" in the former of ravens.

2) Doves were a source of food. Indeed! While a more regal and expensive meat die to their use as messengers, doves were eaten by royalty as exquisite meals. I ask you to try it sometime. Quite tasty.

3) Dove chocolate. Coming full circle here, we know dove chocolate exists and is present on this very encyclopedia. They are quite rich, like the bird they represent.

Sir, I understand why you were quick to jump to this edit. This is a necessity for you to edit these pages to insure high quality posts. However, rushing to delete an edit without fully reading them is usually frowned upon by most editors, I am told. I apologize for any misunderstandings we have had, and I hope you have a wonderful day today. Spencertmiller (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spencertmiller: I never mentioned "vandalism" in my warning ([16]). With this edit you added unsourced content, so I gave a friendly warning on your talk page. Wikipedia needs sources. If indeed this is true and worth having on board here, then it will be very easy for you (see wp:BURDEN) to find a reliable source for it—see wp:VERIFIABILITY. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnoflannigan/Archive - I'd left this one unblocked, or rather the editor that did the blocks for me did. Now of course blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: too bad for the good sir. Thx for letting me know. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits to floor functions

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.

---

Sir, I do not know what you are trying to get at, but there is no way to cite the values given by a mathematical function. It's inherently given by it's own definition. Like you posted a minute ago, in my eyes it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. I don't see why you are saying it needs to be cited or exactly what needs to be cited. I was told the only issues I needed to fix were not to disclude htan and other possible functions from the paragraph. Also, that's utter bull to say it's original research. You are essentially implying that I came up with that, which is by all means completely false. I don't know where I heard about it originally. This stuff is all over the place.

I should also point out that it's rude to assume that I necessarily saw your post (and give me a second warning) and that it isn't very well probable (and obvious) that I was editing at the same time as you and your edit got ignored by the system. XD TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Partly copying from preceding thread: Wikipedia needs sources. If indeed this is true and worth having on board here, then it will be very easy for you (see wp:BURDEN) to find a reliable source for it. Otherwise it has no place here. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not really answering my question. I was told that my edit was allowed as long as I fixed the wording. Now you are all of a sudden saying I need "citation" which is ridiculous because how can one cite the value a function returns? You're not being clear at all what needs to be cited. You're being incredibly broad in saying something needs to be cited yet you will not be specific in what I need to cite. It's a simple equation. I don't see where there is anything disputable about it, or what you are asking me to prove. TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you were told, the content that you want to add, must be sourced, plain and simple. See wp:BURDEN. If you want to write that it is "Worth noting as well is that computer programming language do not generally use floor as their implementation for the comparison operator. They will instead use an algorithm of some kind.", then you need a reliable source to back this up. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@TheGreatDuckINH: There are a number of ways that text is deemed appropriate in Wikipedia. One way is a reliable source. Can you find a textbook that gives the formula you are providing? Alternatively, one can establish appropriateness for Wikipedia via another mechanism. You would need consensus among editors to go with the "routine calculations" approach: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Personally, I do not find the calculation to be sufficiently meaningful. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That isn't even something related to the article. I was just trying to say that I'm not referring to computer science when adding the information, because, unfortunately, someone decided it was a great idea to make the floor function a mathematics and computer science article. That's not even information that I'm attempting to assert or prove. I'm merely saying that this information is not intended to inform about the computer science version and that from the standpoint of this article, we do not know what goes on with it. -_-

Also, @Leegrc I should point right now that I have yet to see or hear of any textbook that uses floor in any capacity. So, while I have seen that formula used around the internet and things, I can't give you any material containing floor in any capacity. As far as I was aware, everything on that page beyond the most naive definitions is routine calculations.

TheGreatDuckINH (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@TheGreatDuckINH: Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.

This is now off topic here. We have the article talk pages for this. I tend to reserve user talk pages for discussions about user conduct. - DVdm (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2016 (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.

Thanks for the input and feedback

Hi DVdm, I just wanted to thank you for your input, edits, and feedback with regards to the Unsourced dyslexia category issue. With hindsight I must conclude that you were right with regards to the cavalier nature of the categorisation additions I made. I am also happy to see it has started a conversation on Village Pump about a related issue on the Village Pump about a related issue. --Discott (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Discott: glad to have been of some assistance, in a way. Verifying the edits, I learned something too here, for which thanks in return. Cheers and happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Discott: by the way, I really liked that picture . - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I just got a little bit weirded out after receiving that weird message on my talk page. Perhaps I will put it back up after I get to the bottom of that.--Discott (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty weird indeed. Probably no reason for panic, but worth keeping an eye on. Good luck with that! - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir!

I noticed this morning that my edit on the Gold Rush (TV series) was reverted by a bot, and that the bot's edit was reverted by you. I appreciate you doing so, I was shaken by the bot's removal of my edit, and I'm happy to see that others agree with it. Means a lot, especially for me, a newbie to Wikipedia.

Cheers, mate! --Hunterm267^Talk 16:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Our Cluebot usually does an excellent job spotting vandalistic content removal, with every now and then a false positive. This was such a case. Welcome and cheers back to you! - DVdm (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Entropic force

please see Talk:Entropic_force#MET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterixf2 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Delayed boomerang. - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Roberts Cycles / Chas Roberts

Thanks for the prompt; citations now added. I understand the need for objectivity. The rest of the content is on direct observation at the Roberts facility whilst production was still active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.119.180 (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Trolls on Xavier University

Hey, thanks for reverting. I already requested semi-protection for it. It is attracting trolls due to some basketball game (see this news report [17]) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, whatever keeps them happy {{slimey}} . - DVdm (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you mistaken?

I clearly explained why in the edit summary. I deleted those few words because they're wrong. Black holes are stars, and they're the densest, not neutrons. 146.151.96.202 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article about black holes, you will find that a black hole is usually not defined as a star. At best a remnant perhaps. The centres of most galaxies, being supermassive black holes, certainly are not called stars either. - DVdm (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I have added a solid source: [18]. See https://books.google.com/books?id=cCDlBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically, they are "dark" or "dead" stars. Black holes and neutrons are both remnants of star collapsion. The difference is that the stars that collapse into black holes are a lot more massive. I guess due to historical reasons, black holes are not called stars. Stars are known for thousands of years, whereas black holes' existence has only been confirmed in the last few decades. Since I cannot find a source that says black holes are stars. I guess it's fine the way it is right now. 146.151.96.202 (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Note that neutron stars were conceived perhaps a mere few decades before black holes, yet the scientific community (and the standard dictionaries) chose to define only the former as stars. I think that you will find that, technically, stars are defined as luminous objects governed by forces in equilibrium between graviational attraction and radiation (or "quantum") pressure. Black holes don't satisfy these conditions. Furthermore, as I already said, there are black holes that have nothing to do with stars—see our articles on supermassive black holes and micro black holes. Not even stellar black holes are called "stars". I think that, where many authors would say that a BH has sort-of infinite density, many will argue that their density cannot even be defined. - DVdm (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here's one such source: section 2.1.2 on https://books.google.com/books?id=XVmKcwcOxYEC&pg=PA12. - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

All medical edits

This is a list [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps this is some some sort of test. We'll see what happens at wp:AIV. - DVdm (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting your reversion to Brian Schatz

Hi, I reverted your reversion to Brian Shatz. I believe the IP editor's changes were valid, & you removed a valid URL that the anonymous editor had place. Peaceray (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceray: see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. Usually they make either wrong or irrelevant edits, to be reverted on sight. Probably a coincidence, this. Thanks for letting me know and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The "lot of properly sourced content" that I removed

I created the entire Depiction of God section, and I accidentally typed in info that I already put because my editing was interrupted. I removed the paragraph doubles, and that was "the lot of properly sourced content". I never committed disruptive editing.Gonzales John (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. See my comment and strikes on your talk page: [20]. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As for my recent edit on Pseudophilosophy, I was trying to show the views of the people who call certain religions "pseudophilosophies", because those religions lack "an original and genuine religious experience" in their opinions. Sorry about that.Gonzales John (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

An IP just tried to report you for edit warring. It's clearly the same IP that was recently blocked for making personal attacks against you, so I've reverted the 3RR report as blatant harassment and block evasion. I've also reported the new IP to AIV, but if they've hopped IP once they may well hop again, so I thought I should let you know. Marianna251TALK 19:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Marianna251: more or less what I had expected. Interesting. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Following up through Special:Contributions/2001:4C50:19F:9C00:*. - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

sorry

i am sorry User:WP MANIKHANTA —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Normally I'd use the thanks feature, but thanks for this. I've decided to respond to the IP-in-question instead, since he seems determined to get himself blocked otherwise. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your message about article-Time 's talk page

Ok. if the comments flaut Wikipedia's rules-and-regulations then they're to be deleted.

However, my intention was not to do a 'general discussion'. If I could recall the terminologies, I would directly found-out the pages on WP, & when found, I would link them in 'see also' of the page Time . Since I could-not search them out again for days after days, I tried to display it to other editors.

The terms were not 'unrelated', they are highly related. Though psychological or cognitive,they are 'properties' of time. Moreover I told to include them only in 'see-also'; not on main article.

Understanding of a concept, exists not in isolation. it exists in correlation with other topics. I respect wikipedia's link-features, such as hyperlinks, see-also, disambiguation, not-to-be-confused-with, etc. & I'm very-much benefitted from these also.

No matter, if I find them latter, I would link them in See-also section.

Thanks for informing about wp:Reference desk/science.

Thanks. Rajarshi Rit 14:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs) Rajarshi Rit 14:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome.

About the wikilinks: yes, the subjects are related, but these articles are already linked in the article and/or in the infobox. Therefore they should not be mentioned in the Seealso section anymore—see MOS:SEEALSO. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Minimum total potential energy principle

If something seems unsourced to you, use "citation needed" tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.8.55 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

No, not for new content—see wp:BURDEN. And certainly not for nonsense, for which no reliably sources are available anyway. - DVdm (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Without "citation needed" tags, it is unclear what exactly is unsourced. I am ready to provide a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.8.55 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For your education, mass IS potential energy. It follows from E=mc2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.8.55 (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

In my messages on your talk page you find a few interesting links about reliable sources, and how to add them to the text. Please take some time to read them. - DVdm (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am ready to provide sources. But you should say which particular statement is unsourced. For example, the formula which you keep reverting comes from the lead-in of Gravitational binding energy. I have provided a link to that Wikipedia article. It is just above the formula. 89.110.8.55 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your entire statement is unsourced. And note that wikipedia cannot be used as a source—see wp:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, conclusions that you draw from looking at formulas are wp:original research. - DVdm (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is just one formula. Restating a single formula in verbal form is not OR. 89.110.8.55 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but drawing conclusions from it, is original research. Meanwhile I see that you have been doing your best to provide sources. But i.m.o. you are still doing original research through synthesis—see wp:SYNTH, so I'm giving you some time to settle down. Your edits were now undone by someone else (ping Izno), 3 times as of this writing. I strongly advise you to stop now, or you will be blocked for wp:edit warring. And note that you are way beyond wp:3RR at this point. - DVdm (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: your edits and possible history are discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Strange things at Minimum total potential energy principle. - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And spi case filed. - DVdm (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Help.

Hi. You seemed like an experienced user. I would like to ask you if you don't mind, can we cite information from National Geographic website in deceased person's article? Like for page Nefertiti I found some information on the website . Worldandhistory (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Oh, perhaps yes, but it depends of course on the text that you would like to write in the article. Best to ask this on the article talk page Talk:Nefertiti, where other contributors with relevant knowledge of the subject can comment. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Einstein

Hello -- and thanks for reverting that talk page bot revert -- I'm not even sure how it happened; I haven't looked at the Einstein talk page for quite some time. It certainly wasn't intentional! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I hit the wrong button at least twice a day—sometimes even before breakfast . - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Olatunde olalekan

Hi. This ANI query ^{(Archived here)} refers. You commented here that when you "checked the so-called references of the first instance of the article. None of the refs held. They either pointed to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles".

Right. This user is back under a different account. I quickly checked his contributions to Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, see here and I also found the same thing. Essentially a closely worded copy (but not so close as to attract plagiarism)of a single article, but with references pointing to unrelated material. I am now looking at the massive Nitrogen dioxide poisoning and I think I can see the same thing, but hard to tell as I only have access to the abstracts. I am struggling to see how " Exposure to high level of Nitrogen (II) oxide may lead to inflammation of the mucous membrane and the lower and upper respiratory tracts" can be sourced to "Determinants of nitrogen dioxide concentrations in indoor ice skating rinks." Or how "The symptoms also resembles that of pneumonia or viral infection and other inhalational injuries but common symptoms includes Rhinitis wheezing or coughing, conjunctivitis, headache, throat irritation and dyspnea which may progress to nasal fissures, ulcerations, or perforation" is connected to "Is a quantitative risk assessment of air quality in underground parking garages possible?" I don't want to make any allegations without a sound basis, so is there any way of getting access to these articles? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OK I see what he has done. See this. He copies verbatim from other Wikipedia articles, meaning that the plagiarism detector won't work. Thus in the Nitrogen Dioxide poisoning article he copies bits from the Chlorine and Beryllium poisoning articles, then cites completely unrelated articles. Isn't that a bit dangerous? I mean the Nitrogen Dioxide poisoning article has been copied all over the web, yet probably entirely false. Peter Damian (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Damian: I recall the somewhat disturbing biography episode with the socks.

Regarding the poisoning article, it looks like other editors have only made style, grammar and spelling changes ([21]) since Wikicology created it. Not much has changed to the content. That could mean that the content is correct, or that the other contributors, about ten in total, have not verified the content and/or the sources. I have no access to the sources either, so perhaps you could tag the article, requesting expert review ({{Expert needed}}) with the above text (or more) on the article talk page. Example:

{{Expert needed|Medicine|ex2=chemistry|talk=Doubts about content and sources|reason=Doubts about content and sources|date=March 2016}}

Something similar perhaps for the Gibbs' surface article. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Damian:

It looks like Nitrogen dioxide poisoning has been redirected to a section in Nitrogen dioxide.

I have redirected Gibbs's thermodynamic surface to Maxwell's thermodynamic surface: [22] and commented at ANI: [23] and [24].

There might be more.

Good find. - DVdm (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There are more. The root causes of this are more disturbing. How was this person allowed back on the project, given the history? Peter Damian (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Damian: I think that our philosophies of assuming good faith, giving multiple "final" warnings and "second" chances, encouraging anonymity, and allowing incompetence, are overall beneficial and obvioulsy have made Wikipedia into what it is. But honest, well-meant—and some naive or alas downright silly—judgement mistakes have been made and will of course always be made. Then it goes wrong. And then it gets put straight again. Or only partly. Or not. C'est la vie. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is not an airport check-in desk or a subway carriage, where such judgement errors demand lives. - DVdm (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem is that many doctors do use Wikipedia. You may say they are wrong, but what if it's my doctor? Thanks anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Damian: of course they would be wrong. But yes, it's likely that some indeed do use Wikipedia. After all, some even use this. On your next visit ask your doctor, and tell her what happened here. - DVdm (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For reference: two examples at User talk:RHaworth. - DVdm (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Quadratic Formula

Hello DVdm. New to Wikipedia here. I've submitted an external link which links to a module on Quadratic Factorisation on the page Quadratic Equation which you reverted back a while ago. To be sure, I did go through the External Link Guideline and didn't find any apparent conflict of interest. On the other hand, I do believe that the module which I linked to is highly relevant in the topic of quadratics, as it goes in depth into elaborating an alternative way of proving the Quadratic Formula, along with a comprehensive list of additional techniques on factorising any quadratic trinomials - which I think add a lot to the current discussion. With that said, I think it would be great if you can take a closer look and notify any issue if exist. Thanks! Mathvault (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Given http://mathvault.ca/about/, see wp:ELNO, mainly item 11. Wikipedia has no guarantee that this site isn't full of errors. Anyone can create such a website. - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And of course, obvioulsy there is a conflict of interest—see wp:COI. - DVdm (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. In a sense it boils down to whether our site is construed as a blog (which in a sense it is, since we're using a blogging platform to publish long-form earning modules), or whether we are notable enough (which we probably are not). On the conflict of interest front, I was more thinking from the public-interest standpoint. Wikipedia's Guideline doesn't seem to provide much detail on that front, except that owners should avoid submitting their own links, which, on the other hand, should be judged by the nature of the content rather than the organisations standing behind it. So it's within a gray zone. Mathvault (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sites such as this pop-up on a regular basis in external links sections. Some manage to stay in some articles, but that is usually on a per-article basis, and after some kind of discussion on the relevant article talk page. Usually a link survives if it is recognised as valuable and relevant by some of the article contributors, and if it has something that is not present in the article itself. But if that is the case, Wikipedia prefers to add content in the body of the article, properly referenced to the site—see wp:Citing sources. That in turn requires that the site serves as a wp:secondary source, in order to avoid wp:original research from a wp:primary source. I had a look at your site, and I don't think that you will find a wp:consensus at talk:Quadratic equation to make an exception to item 11 at wp:ELNO. - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

I can edit or remove any content from Wikipedia if the reason is justified. My edit of the Caesar cipher page is based on the fact that it popularises an organised criminal organisation. Do you agree with that? If not, explain your reasons. Otherwise this back and forth will continue. Theblogger01 (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

@Theblogger01: well, you can remove content from Wikipedia if the reason is justified, by wp:CONSENSUS, which is usually established on article talk pages—see also, for instance wp:BRD. So the best thing you can do now, is to put a little entry on the article talk page Talk:Caesar cipher. I will then make my comment there, explaining why I don't agree, and then perhaps we'll see what other editors say. See you there—and don't forget to sign the talk page message. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining. Theblogger01 (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Theblogger01: um, you can just type the 4 tildes, not the nowiki tags. You can also click the link (marked Sign your posts on talk pages) above the edit summary box. And on talk pages we are supposed to use wp:INDENTation. I know, there's a lot to learn on Wikipedia, right? Go ahead, give it another try here... - DVdm (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Good, the tildes did their job. I have now manually corrected the time stamps. Otherwise it would look like I answered before you posted . - DVdm (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Herbert Dingle

You said leave a message at the bottom of page, so here it is:

In the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle#cite_ref-whitrow_1-2

The following fragments are wrong:

1.)"As Whitrow explained in his review of "Science at the Crossroads"...", <- this is not correct.

I checked the Obituaries document by Whitrow mentioned in the page, and there is nothing about criticism to "Science at the Crossroads"! So please remove that statement because it is wrong.

2.) The formulae at link [13] ("The Lorentz transformation is x'=(x−vt)β" Blablabla) are given without citation, so that means some religious relativist decided to reinforce his own propaganda.

So as you don't provide a citation, don't ask me for citation for removing that pathetic attempt to cover up a contradiction similar to one noticed by Dingle!

This is matter of logic and science: if the two systems are equivalent, then their conditions are the same. There is no need to quote anybody, it's simple logic. So *your* argument that the "these ratios apply to two different conditions" fails.

So there *is* a contradiction.

And it can't be solved by Special Relativity itself. Check the book "Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity" by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik, at page 34-35 the section "2.9 The Twin Paradox", where it is showed the two systems are in contradiction and it is suggested the resolution by General Relativity in the further chapter 5 of the same book.

174.113.238.66 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You better bring this to the article talk page Talk:Herbert Dingle, where other contributors to the article can comment as well—see wp:BRD. Don't forget to add a section header. - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

And something hopefully entertaining to watch while sipping it. ;) Assassin of Relativity Paradoctor (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost two hours, so I had a pot. Interesting lecture. Thanks. I just did this at Friedrich Adler (politician). (Oops, need a visit to Duluth now) - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You and your dry humor! :D Paradoctor (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted changes to mass

Hi, You reverted not just some, but all of my changes to mass, asking for a references. OK, except that two of the changes did provide a reference; did you find it to not be acceptable? I think I can find others, for example, Ernst Mach is discussed in Misner Thorne Wheeler and also in Weinberg and probably Resnick and Halliday. None of my changes are controversial -- Statements like "the definition of the Dalton might change" -- there is already an entire WP article devoted to it: proposed redefinition of SI base units, which deals with the matter in greater detail. Do I really need references for something, when there's another WP article that deals with it? The statement about the heat of energy of melting ice is basic undergraduate college chemistry: I can cite some chemistry book; standard books on stat mech presumably state something similar. I also removed the link to the Gell-Man-Okubo formula, its absurd to think that this has anything at all to do with the basic definition of mass; its about flavor symmetry. I mean, if you're going to link that, you may as well link to articles on neutrino oscillations or CKM mixing matricies (since - after all, the mass eigenstates in the standard model are not the eigenstates of the electroweak forces: its a mixture!). None of the existing article even tries to talk about the mixing of mass and flavor eigenstates in the Higgs model, so just dumping the link to the Gellman Okubo formula is just way out of place. The point is that this is inappropriate for a basic article about mass -- its particle physics cruft which is interesting but unrelated to this article. (p.s. I have a PhD in theoretical particle physics, and had homework problems on Gell-Man Okuuo, so feel comfortable in saying this). So, rather than just getting into a bunch of random arguing, perhaps you can clarify what it is that would be acceptable? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, with this edit you added 4 paragraphs, one of which more or less properly sourced, even if some might object to it. But afaiac, feel free to redo the first statement. But yes, for the other three you have to provide wp:reliable sources—see wp:BURDEN. Standard books are usually very ok. If you have doubts about the quality of some sources, you can ask on the article talk page. Or you can add the source and see what happens. Best to use standard citation template {{cite book}}. See Template:Cite book. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've edited to exhaustion. The section about Ernst Mach now has five references. The section about thermodynamics is rooted in Planck, and there is even an English translation of that, on-line, where he gives the mass of various thermodynamic systems.67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Much better already. Good job. - DVdm (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

black hole information problem

Hi! I don't have references for the solution I gave to the black hole information paradox. It was my own idea- you were right to delete it. It was inspired by an idea I had 10 years ago relating to Bell's theorem and the experiment done in france by Alain Aspect on this theorem using correlated photon pairs. Originally I thought that if two correlated photons in space separated and one fell into a black hole then the polarization of the photon outside the hole could be measured and would tell us what the polarization of the photon inside the hole was because the photon pair have linked polarizations- Einstein's so-called "ghostly action at a distance". Hence we would know something about an electric field in the black hole. However because the universe must have escaped from gravity at the big bang I assume now that inside a black hole -also a singularity- matter has escaped the curvature of space time or curvature is zero in some places allowing matter to exist away from the geometric centre.This matter could potentially interact with hawking radiation and impart information in the form of polarization ,redshift, etc to the hawking radiation. My post was merely my own biased view on what I believe logic says must be happening in a black hole if information is not to be lost.

soopdishSoopdish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 12 April 2016‎ (UTC)

conservation of energy in general realtivity

I once started a discussion of this idea with some professional physicists and they didn't seem very sure.Some said energy was not conserved and that this was not a problem in General Relativity. I thought up my own classical solution: if microwave background photons lose energy as space time advances then the remaining matter in the universe is slowed down less by smaller curvature of space and so galaxies moves further away from each other and gain potential energy to compensate. Galaxies furthest apart travelling close to the speed of light will not adjust their potential energy for more than 14 billion years because gravity travels at the speed of light. Soopdish (talk)SOOPDISH —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 12 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. I have added dates to make sure that the archive bot won't get confused.

Note that Wikipedia needs wp:reliable sources. I will put an additional welcome message on your user talk page, where you find a lot of pointers to our cogs and gears. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Article Ondo state

I must have made the mistake of not citing the source. I will do that now.. Can you reverse the deletion please? ThanksLaru0004 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to reverse the deletion because doing so would result in addition of unsourced content. The job of adding properly sourced content is really yours—see the relevant pointers in messages on your user talk page, and wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: April 2016

In what part of the world is a Nobel-winning discovery a WP:FRINGE theory? Verify it! The section on aether drift at https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/smoot_lecture.pdf And by what logic is adding to an article one sentence or two sentences about a viewpoint held by practically everyone who works in that field (CMB anisotropy) WP:UNDUE weight? Finally, the citation is not to a WP:PRIMARY source but a WP:SECONDARY source that compiles and synthesises a lot of primary sources. Not only are these primary sources WP:VERIFIABLE, most of them are outright public!-- pretty IittIe Iiar 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You might bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Jesubalan primary source, fringe, undue. - DVdm (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Help Me

Math doen't need to be researched it is math. I don't know how to publish my work and if I show a source that makes part of the wiki wrong. Can I delete that part of the wiki. (not add anything) Because 0*x=0 doesn't prove that 0/0=x equals anything. It actually allows us to narrow down the answer.

Why? In algebra you need to do the same thing to both sides of the equation. They didn't. They did this 0*x=0 0/0*x=0/0 x=0/0 In doing this you gave a value to the object in question. 0/0=1 This is like me saying x=-1 in the equation x^2-x-1=0 because the first x=0. Well x can't be both 0 and -1 so which is it. If you did the math the right way you would have found that x=1.6180339887498948420

Basically you guys said that phi is -1. 1=2. 2=pi phi=-pi/2 And they aren't. Math is now useless because you made a mistake in algebra.

The correct way of doing it is 0*x=0 0/0*x=0/0 This equation loops in itself forever luckily all it does is multiply by x x*x*x...0/0=0/0 This makes 3 equations where x<1, x=1, and x>1. All should work because x is any number by definition of 0*x=0.

For (x<1)^infinity=0 0*0/0=0/0 For (x>1)^infinity=infinity infinity*0/0=0/0

This gets tricky. 0/0*0=0 Unless 0/0=infinity then it equals to infinity. 0/0*infinity=infinity Unless 0/0=0 then it equals 0. Both redefine the equation making themselves the answer. (and it is still undefined)

If 0/0=0 then 0^0=0 infinity^0=0 infinity/infinity=0 infinity-infinity=0 0*infinity=0 if 0/0=infinity then all of those are infinity

why 0/0=0^1*0^-1=0^0 infinity=x/0 infinity/infinity=x/0*0=0/0 infinity^0=infinity/infinity infinity-infinity=1/0-1/0=0/0

Also this should have been obvious.

Also distribution of (1-1)/(1-1) makes 1-1-1+1=0 EmpCarnivore (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Also I tried to say this on the talk page, but it was deleted. Without a real reason. 0/0=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpCarnivore (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I can't help you. If you have something to add to, modify in, or delete from an article, you should go the article talk page, and explain what exactly you would like to do. Note that all additions of modifications must be backed by reliable sources, and that it takes a wp:consensus to make a change to an article. Don't forget that an article talk page is not a chat forum where the subject or some aspect of it can be discussed. It is a place to discuss changes to the article. That is why your comments were deleted—and will be deleted again, unless you have a concrete proposal for a change to the article. - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Realistically all you need to do is delete all of the algebra section. Because if your going to have a algebra section it needs to be right or else it isn't algebra. 0/0=x can't be taken from 0*x=0. x isn't all numbers. I am seriously trying to help in changing the page but no one will even consider my words. They just delete what I right. EmpCarnivore (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.

They also have explained why they deleted what you wrote, as have I. - DVdm (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Time dilation ... another explanation.

Very sorry. On 27/04/16 made an editing error. I initiated Talkː Time dilation ∕ Archive 2016 ǃǃ

That is not a tentative to cheat ǃ

But I cannot revert that.

I suppose you can.

By the way , a well know quantum physicist like Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond is not a reliable source for Wiki ?ǃ --Chessfan (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chessfan: no problem. I have requested deletion. You also could have simply blanked the page. Someone else would then tag it for deletion.

As for the source and your edits to the talk page: please note that the source is not a published work, but just a set of slides, and that the article talk page is not for discussions about the subject of the article, but for explicit proposals about additions or changes to the article. - DVdm (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The archive has been deleted now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your changes on the talk page Pantheon Mail

Hi there. I see you reverted my removal of the topics discussed on the page Talk:Pantheon Mail. Just to be clear, I was not removing the discussion page, but just closing old topics that have been merged into the mail article I maintain. Are you using a bot or something like this that has been triggered by my edit, thinking it was vandalism? Wget (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wget: We never remove old topics from article talk pages—see wp:Talk page guidelines, and specially WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE—unless of course in cases of vandalism or soap-boxing.

I use wp:Huggle. It can be configured to highlight all kinds of removal as candidates of vandalism, tests, errors, or even good faith cleanups. I noticed that your action was in good faith, so I manually undid it, and put a little msg on your user talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Leibniz quote

Hello. Please see this. Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: I'll have a look later today. Have to go now . Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Talk:Natura non facit saltus#Primary source needed. - DVdm (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your message

Why are you threatening to block me? I was not the person who put the word "fucked" on the main page. I was the person who pointed out the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.197.226 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 May 2016‎ (UTC)

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

See wp:NOTCENSORED. - DVdm (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Song title capitalization

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles before correcting any more song titles. The Zappa web page, or indeed any other web page, does not supersede the Wikipedia MoS. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 OK, I assumed that an official website would take precedence over MOS. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Dayton Miller

Regarding Dayton Miller edit: Please provide the exact edits that need a reference. Seems to me that replacing "small" result with specific value that is cited other places in the article is more accurate. I was in the process of going back and providing citations that already appear in the article when you removed all the edits. Surely citations that already appear in the article are credible. Rww4truth (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)rww4truthRww4truth (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The current references to www.orgonelab.org are not source citations, but they serve as footnotes with dissidents examples. Adding content from such self-published sources is against our policies about wp:primary sources and wp:secondary sources, combined with wp:FRINGE and wp:UNDUE. I have removed the statement that was accompanied by a ref to ether.wikiext.org, because (1) the source did not back the statement about urban cities, and (2) the source is another Wiki with an article written by a single anonymous author, which can never qualify as a wp:reliable source. - DVdm (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not use capitals for emphasis

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Normal number, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Re [25] edit: Your edit summary is emphasized in no use. Please follow this. Thank you.--Takahiro4 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Takahiro4: note that this manual of style guideline is about using capitals in article content, not about using them in edit summaries. In most cases capitals for emphasis in edit summaries are a bit uncivil, but they can be useful to effectively get the attention of editors who tend to overlook edit summaries. You apparently failed to see my message in this edit about spaces after full stops, after which you made this edit, making a new spacing error. So in my next edit I used capitals and explicitly added "Shouting". The standard user warning template that you used here to notify me, is not applicable and therefore inappropriate. - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Also I just didn't use space on talk page. I thought only about edit of normal number at that time, I didn't know that "full stop" is meaning of period. So, not that I failed to see your message, you failed to communicate that message for me. Sorry I am non-native. It is written on my profile. --Takahiro4 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that on your userpage you say that you can communicate with an advanced level of English. I hope you don't mind my saying this, but looking at your article edits, talk page messages and edit summaries, I think that perhaps you shoud replace that {{Babel||en=3|ja-5|zh-2|de-1|es-1}} with {{Babel|en-2.5|ja-5|zh-2|de-1|es-1}}. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

He should use en-1 198.39.100.21 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I create a few spaces and some message at your recent edit. Of course you aware, don't you?----Takahiro4 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about your comment

"I have never seen you formulate a single sentence in proper English". Is this correct fact? Are you blind man?--Takahiro4 (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is Babel:en-2.5? 11 years old wikipedian, teach me. You are the worst patroller in people which I know. I congratulate that. --Takahiro4 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not one of the seven sentences by you in this section is grammatically correct. A look at your edit history bears out that impression. That is not an "advanced" level of English. I'd rate your English competence a weak en-2. It certainly suffices for talkpage discussion and some kinds of edits, but your English copyediting needs to be corrected every time, AFAICT. That does not mean you shouldn't edit, but please do listen to other editors when it comes to grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and spelling.

Finally, please do not get so WP:PERSONAL. Nobody is perfect, disagreements happen, but without WP:AGF, this place can't function. Paradoctor (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Deprodding Dual q-Hahn polynomials

Hi DVdm,

Sorry, I had to revert your proposed deletion. Once an article has been deprodded, a proposed deletion is considered controversial, so per WP:PROD, cannot be prodded again. You may take the article to AfD instead. --Mark viking (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - DVdm (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mark viking:  Done: [26], [27], [28]. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Mark viking (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

HG

Hello, did u find a way to upload ur Version of Huggle 2.1.27? --Traeumer (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Der.Traeumer: no response on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126357. As you can see above, I have sent one to user Petrb, but I have no idea whether he got it. Meanwhile I have a version 2.1.27.4 that's preforming pretty well. Perhaps you can ping Petr about it. Anyway, if you send me a valid email adress, I will invite you on that shared dropbox folder. You'll find a zipped source, plus a compiled exe. Whenever I have a new build, I will put it in there. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thx, my Email is der.traumer /at/ gmx /./ net . Regards --Traeumer (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Invitation sent. Please let me know if/when you get it? Thx. - DVdm (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Im sry, spelling error. der.traeumer /at/ gmx /./ net. Pls try it again. --Traeumer (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Invitation sent to new address. - DVdm (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, its working on german wiki too. I will test it later more. Greets --Traeumer (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb and Der.Traeumer: new version 2.1.27.5 in shared dropbox. Caught another bug: stripping of html diff table is corrected. The original program counted on finding single quotes in result, but API returns double quotes. Removed a few dirty error traps. - DVdm (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb and Der.Traeumer: there's one thing that I really have great difficulty with: in H3, when new entries are added to the queue, the user warning level (1,2,3,4) is correctly shown in the coloured blobs in the queue ^{(not in the strips or in the user windows, but that's an H3-problem).} Since quite some time, this does not happen in H2 anymore. I have tried to trace the reason for this, but I really can't find it... - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I never note it, so i can life without it. --Traeumer (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb and Der.Traeumer: new version 2.1.27.6 in shared dropbox. Caught bug reading resources file WarningSummaries.txt. Separator char CRLF was used instead of vbLf, resulting in a corrupt lookup table. I made the config reader try both split schemes. User warning levels (1,2,3,4) correctly appear in the coloured blobs in the queue. Please try it out. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb and Der.Traeumer: new version 2.1.27.7 in shared dropbox. I also did something with a pull request at Github, but I have no idea whether I did it right. The Github logic and interface are a mystery to me. - DVdm (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I am extra busy but I will eventually merge it Petrb (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb: no problem. There seems to be a problem too with expiring tokens or something: after some 30 minutes I get "'Invalid token" and I'm forced to logoff and logon again, losing my tabs and history. With H3 as well, it seems. Take all the time you need :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Petrb: I know you're busy with H3, but do you think there's any chance of somehow quickfixing that 30 minutes token problem in H2? Becoming very annoying, this. Cheers and tia. - DVdm (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know, if you ever are able to fix H2. --Traeumer (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Der.Traeumer: I will, if I ever. But don't hold your breath... . See also Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback#User status not updated in Huggle 3. Feel free to weigh in there. DVdm (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Geoff Wilkins

Just to check - any reason not to take HW70s80s to SPI for this, if there are overlapping spam edits? (User:GeoffDandridge also added the same link to the Alan Turing article last week.) Would press the button myself, but am curious if there's a good reason not to. --McGeddon (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: I was on my way to SPI . Do you, or do I? - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to pull the lever, I'll go ahead and make a post. --McGeddon (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: ok, If I see something to add, I will. Master = Geoffw1948 no doubt? - DVdm (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's all I'm seeing so far. Will post momentarily. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help there. {{linksummarylive}} is a handy template for listing spam URLs, if you've not met it before. --McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: ah yes, seen it before. It's a bit like {{spamlink}}. Thanks.

Perhaps this one is worth checking because he lists it as one of his web sites (although he does not put his name in the footer):

bbohp.org.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.bbohp.org.uk

- DVdm (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Although that link was added to some articles by IP-sock User:80.177.4.109 in 2013, it doesn't seem to be breaking WP:ELNO, at first glance. We should be cautious about penalising an organisation who hired someone as their web developer, simply because that developer took up spamming their personal projects years later. --McGeddon (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. - DVdm (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He's at it again? Talk about persistent. Given that Wilkins has been spamming Wikipedia again and again for a decade now, I think it is time to blacklist his sites. Paradoctor (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Geoffw1948/Archive. His (current) black backgrounded sitelist page is listed there. If/when one of these turn up, I'll go for the blacklist. Feel free to beat me to it though... - DVdm (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I try to keep away from WP these days, except for the occasional minor edit. Being me, I might beat you to it regardless. :P Paradoctor (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding LTA

I think that once an LTA page establishes a pattern of behaviour using existing SPI reports that admins will be able and willing to act on AIV reports without the formality of an SPI each time. A good example is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP who is seen and blocked about 10 times a week. I am not an expert at either process but this is my impression. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a look at this example. Next time I will go for AIV only, and will keep a private record. We'll see how it goes. We can then decide to go for LTA. - DVdm (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed, I've got 2 thank yous in a day (from two users to be precise) since you stopped being disruptive. Be sure to mention those in you LTA case. I'm ready to reference all my contributions, not just ones that I leave for you to see trough my contributions page. 141.136.254.128 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Favonian, HighInBC, Materialscientist, MrX, Widr, and Some others: as this user (Asdisis) clearly needs less effort to continue than I need to report, explain and revert, and as I want most of his targetted articles off my watchlist, I'll leave him in your hands. Unlike you, I need more than a few clicks to have him stopped for a few hours . - DVdm (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my comment on continuity, and you stating there is no difference

You only mentioned the left hand side limit must exist, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_discontinuities

No! That's the example of a jump discontinuity. Left hand side limit exists, and right hand side limit exists, but the L- does not equal the L+. Therefore, I propose to add:

", and the right hand side must exist, and the left hand side limit = right hand side limit". Why was the change rejected?2602:30A:C04D:830:DD6C:EEE5:DF3E:9B14 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was rejected because:

• the first part of your added condition ("the right hand side must exist") is already stated in the first condition: "f has to be defined at c",
• the second part of your added condition ("and the left hand side limit = right hand side limit") is nonsense, because the right hand side is not a limit. It is a function value.

This is a definition. If you see limits at both sides of the equation, then your clearly don't understand what this is about. It also looks to me that you are confusing "left and right limits" with "left and right hand sides of an equation". You might try getting help understanding this at our wp:Reference desk/Mathematics. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Divine view aka theory of everything

Hello DVdm, please review the work on theory of everything and decide for yourself if there is truth to what I put forth, the work is not cited in any popular journals, if you concur with the truth i request you to kindly put it back on the page it belongs for the world to see it. The divine view aka theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but universal singularity of i, expressed mathematically as zero = i = infinity 172.74.114.35 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. Thanks.

Alas, this is not the place for this. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought—please have a close look at WP:NOTFORUM. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Pi as a Ratio

Thank you for explaining your reversion. Doing a little more research, I see the "ratio of circumference to diameter" is the accepted formulation, though I'm still trying to understand why :P Carleas (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Gyroscope

There is a belief in math, but math can PERFECTLY describe using incidental variables that are totally unrelated to causality. This is huge, and if you would take the time to watch my video, it may open your eyes. Where in REALITY do you find the Right-Hand rule? Why is it not a Left-Hand rule? YOU COULD HELP, or CONTINUE with the SHEEP! I've tried everything, and I need some help. Label it controversial if you must. At the very least, please watch the video and then comment. Causality is much more fun, try it! ~~Jnhrtmn~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnhrtmn (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Your reversions

I am confused by these reversions (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angular_momentum&oldid=prev&diff=731784871), since the page to which you link does not say that roman typesetting $\mathrm {d} x$ is proscribed. Moreover, the use of italic here is sensu stricto not correct; $dx$ properly denotes a product of variables $d$ and $x$; the typographical convention is that symbols (operators or numbers) with constant meanings are roman (e.g. Euler's number ${\rm {e}}$, the imaginary unit ${\rm {i}}$) while variables are italic such as $e,i$ (a variable called e or an index called i).

The effect of your reversions, as I see it, is to increase ambiguity, and to decrease the quality of the mathematical typesetting, with no offsetting benefit. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: Sorry, I should have pointed to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Roman_versus_italic: "For single-letter variables and operators such as the differential, imaginary unit, and Euler's number, Wikipedia articles usually use an italic font." See also the remark in that section about making changes to articles vs MOS:RETAIN. That is why when you look at Help:Displaying a formula#Subscripts, superscripts, integrals (and at almost every mathematics related article) for places where differentials are used, they always use the simpler $dx$ form. Surely you don't plan to overhaul 7954 articles? . This has been discussed many times on the talk pages of some heavily dx-loaded articles, and of course at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics—see for instance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 20#Symbol for differential and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2011/Dec#Upright "d" versus italic "d". Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm pleased with the MOS basically demanding incorrectness (although this is far from the only place in which it does so). It also doesn't say anything about the typesetting of mathematical constants (Euler's number is no more a variable than "2" is a variable). The number of articles and the difficulty in fixing them is just an appeal to inertia, which I'd say is irrelevant – lots of articles aren't MOS-compliant, but that's no reason not to fix them when they are found (and in any case, there are bots for this sort of thing). But in any case, my appetite for trying to improve this any further has been duly suppressed by the usual tedious Wikipedia politics.

Just one request. Could you please just remove the allegedly MOS-noncompliant stuff rather than just reflexively punching the revert button? That kind of response really disincentivises people from improving anything. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: Fair enough: [29] and [30]. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I get it back

I noticed that just now my edit in the page:Pythagorean theorem has been removed because I failed to provide a reliable source. Can I quote the verses from vedas..As the proof I showed there is vedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surya Sunkara (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

@Surya Sunkara: The text was not good either. Please go to the article talk page Talk:Pythagorean theorem and propose your addition, in order to get a consensus with the other contributors. - DVdm (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia ,by the way I didn't understood what you saidSurya Sunkara (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

kinetic energy correction

Hey Dvdm, not sure if I am doing this right. I wanted to reply because you corrected my change to the wikipedia page about kinetic energy. I was going through the relativistic corrections to the Hamiltonian of the hydrogen atom and calculated the same result as shown in the first lines on this page:

Compare it with the wikipedia article and we are missing a minus sign in the Taylor expansion. Did I get something wrong here? 192.41.132.143 (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes, that page expresses T as a function of p, whereas our article expresses it as a function of v. Note that p = m γ v = m v / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). - DVdm (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I double-checked and you are right. Naively, I expected that the expansions in v and p should bear the same signs, I guess this is a good reminder to be aware of the differences from Newtonian mechanics arising in special relativity. Do you mind if I complete the formula for p in the article and make a reference to the article on the hyperfine structure of the atom? 2A02:168:203D:3:9C03:2B94:86D3:CD64 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Be my guest! Don't forget to add the source:

References

- DVdm (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead: See [31]. - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Hello, we've never interacted before, but I see you've spotted the Asdisis sock-puppetry running rampant through a number of Balkan-related articles. Here's a few other IPs that ought to be investigated:

1. 89.164.128.37
2. 89.164.138.228
3. 82.214.103.5
4. 141.138.54.39

Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@23 editor:: thanks. See [32]. Fee free to add. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why all those 'howevers' were removed

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.

---

WP:EDITORIAL says this: More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, possibly inappropriately undermining the validity of the first statement while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

Your revert also brought back the word famous. See WP:PUFFERY;

... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique ...

Therefore is optional. But I don't think Wikipedia should read like an essay that is trying to prove a particular point.

It also brought back the word argue, claim and maintain. See WP:SAID;

... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify ...

Argue is a synonym for assert. Maintain is a synonym for insist.

To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

The most famous of which is is obviously puffery. I am against positive and negative loading. I just want Wikipedia articles to be neutrally loaded. I have never heard of what happened in 1887 before.

So that most famous experiment of the 1880s can't be famous at all to me. Famous is subjective. LittleBigPlanet won't seem famous to you until you've heard of it for a while.

--Turkeybutt (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page Talk:Speed of light, so other contributors can comment. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Turkeybutt JC: I went ahead and copied your comment to the article talk page: [33]. I also replied there. - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (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.

Time article

I made the smaller jiffy secifically quantum physics because there is another place specificaly for the electronics jiffy. The information about the electronics jiffy has no need to be repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.193.183 (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, my mistake! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of 'unexpected'

Just because sources say that something is unexpected doesn't mean that the article has the right to say it is unexpected directly. I read a Wikipedia guideline somewhere that we just have to present facts, and avoid using the words unexpected, surprisingly, or coincidentally. You say a source cited says so. What was that source? I couldn't find it anywhere in the article. :( --Turkeybutt (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page Talk:Comet Hyakutake, so other contributors can comment. Thanks.

Unexpectedness is sourced (in the article), so by wp:policy it can stay in the article. If you don't like it, you should take it to the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I am now disputing the neutrality of the Etymology section on Little Rock.

We can discuss this here at the bottom of the article's talk page. I don't think there's any policies or guidelines justifying articles directly stating opinions as if they were fact just because they're mentioned by cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeybutt JC (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Then there is no need to come here to my talk page. I have told you that twice already—see above. - DVdm (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Well-known stars"

I don't know what "well-known" means. Every catalogued star is well-known, so that would mean we'd have to list all the other stars.

I don't know what "notable" means. How do we know if something is notable or not? It can be notable if multiple sources say different things about the subject. But many stars are referenced by all kinds of sources, so we can't use "notable either".

The word "well-known" in this context is unnecessary. It'll suggest that we know absolutely everything about those stars when that is not verifiable. --Turkeybutt (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know what well-known and notable mean, then perhaps you should not edit the English Wikipedia. Apparently you also don't know what "on the other hand", and "as a consequence" mean, and what "to note" means. Please consider finding another way of passing your time. It looks like you are wasting your time (and some of ours) here.

In three sections preceding this one I have asked you to not to come here, but to use the article talk pages. This is the fourth time. In this case don't bother going there, as the rationale for the revert is stated in my edit summary. - DVdm (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Pythagorean theorem

Hi DVdm, I changed my request to unanswered because I replied to JohnBlackburne's concerns. If this isn't the correct procedure then please let me know. Jgdowty (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jgdowty: Indeed, it isn't the correct procedure. See Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests:

Once the request has been responded to, the responding editor should disable the protected edit request template by changing the |answered= parameter to "yes" — e.g. {{edit protected|answered=yes}}.

The question was answered. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but answered nevertheless. Within reasonable limits you are of course free to insist and continue discussing, but it's best not to reinsert the same request a third time. The original formulation(s) will remain there for others to see. - DVdm (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: Thanks very much for getting back to me. You say I'm free to "continue discussing", and I assumed there would be a right of reply, but I can't see any mechanism for doing that... or do you mean just keep on editing my (denied) request?

I think the current section is really quite bad, to the point where it would be impossible to follow it unless you already understood the Conant-Beyer theorem. But it seems to me now that there's a barrier against someone granting a semi-protected edit request (the granter has to fully read the request and be prepared to put their name to it) and a much lower barrier for someone to deny the request. So I'm thinking of just making 3 more Wikipedia edits somewhere so I can then edit the Pythagorean theorem page myself. Then I'll use the talk page to propose my changes and explore their main merits and deficiencies, and try to reach some kind of consensus. What do you think, is this the right way to improve Wikipedia?

PS. Actually, I think I already have 10 edits under my belt, so I can already edit it. Also, the information box on the request says "set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request", so I think that's where I got the idea of doing this to continue the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgdowty (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jgdowty: Yes, the right way is to make your case, so to speak, on the article talk page Talk:Pythagorean theorem. You already had a comment from me, and from user JohnBlackburne, so for now it looks like there is no support to take your proposal on board. Going ahead anyway, editing the article before you can get some kind of wp:consensus from other editors, would probably not be a good idea, as the edit would be removed per wp:primary sources, wp:UNDUE, wp:PROMO, wp:NOR, and wp:COI. - DVdm (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: Thanks very much for your help. OK, great, I'll proceed as described above. By the way, I think your criticisms, repeated above, would at most justify the deletion of the last sentence of my proposed changes, not the whole thing. And the comment from JohnBlackburne is not a valid argument for deletion, as I argue here. I think my version is clearly superior to the current version, for the reasons given here, which should be obvious to anyone who's read both versions. Also, I don't have a lot of ego invested in my proposal, and I'm happy for it to stand or fall on its merits. So I'm a bit disheartened and slightly mystified by the strong opposition to it that I've received so far. Jgdowty (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

OK, can we put it as an open question for the reader? Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.174.242 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Um, no we cannot do that per our policies—see wp:verifiability and wp:BURDEN. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

4π in force equations vs flux equations

Though new physics students are often surprised to learn it, this is not a controversial claim.

The 4π in Coulomb's law comes from the fact that there are 4π steradians on a unit sphere; notice that in Gaussian units, Coulomb's law clubs the 4π into its definition of charge (similar to how Newton's law in SI clubs a would-be 4π into the gravitational constant), and Maxwell's equations in Gaussian units have 4π's in similar places to the GEM equations. Notice that Lorentz–Heaviside units like SI have a 4π in their coulomb's law, while Heaviside-Lorentz-Planck units go even further with a 4π in both their Coulomb's & Newton's laws. —wing gundam 23:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wing gundam: I know, but statements containing "because" need a good source, preferably a textbook, as opposed to a question and answer site . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ten Bells

Why are you editing this, points are factually correct.

Jamie OLIVER has never had a beer or a doombar there. There is a chalk line outside. Vandalism on a wikipage, leave it out. ToppersHarley (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You can leave comments about the article (not about its content) on the article talk page Talk:Ten Bells. But see our wp:talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.134.12 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Tamar (daughter of David) revert

I'm sorry I didn't explain why I removed some content in the article for "Tamar (daughter of David)", but I did it because the information was inaccurate. In the Background section, there's a paragraph that explains Tamar's colourful robe as meaning she was a priestess, healer and "mistress of dreams." The purpose of the colourful robe is actually stated in the the Bible (2 Samuel 13:18), "Now she had on a robe of many colors, for the king’s virgin daughters wore such apparel." This alone makes the the current information inaccurate and I would like to see it removed, thanks. --Sage Endeavour (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages. Thanks.

The best place to discuss this, is the article talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI

I know you're using Huggle, but here's no need to give another warning for an edit like this one. Any admin worth their salt would block on sight for that and somebody who made an edit like that is unlikely to be worth yet another chance. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but most of the time it's more efficient (and a lot easier) to undo and warn (one click) than verify, undo and decide not to not warn (17 clicks) . - DVdm (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's more "efficient" (ie: faster) to do a half-assed job more quickly that spending time doing the job properly, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's not a race. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

But I don't agree that "undo and warn" is half-assed. The warning might not be needed, but I does no harm either. And in this case it was a final warning, so... - DVdm (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Does Huggle not have an option to send something straight to AIV? If not, perhaps it should. It baffles me why we bother giving people like this four chances. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: yes, report user, does the job. I used that today here, immediately following this 3rd level warning. I guess I could have done the same with the Nicola Sturgeon vandal after my 4th level warning. The thing is, Huggle 3 does not always correctly show the current warning level of a vandal—Huggle 2 was much, much better at that. - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hatfield rail crash

I'd be interested to find a reliable source that shows a company being imprisoned and escaping to Canada. [34] Is the head office fitted with an outboard motor? :-) (PS: I blocked indef for vandalism) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A really small operation might physically fit into a vehicle. What is bugging me, though, is how you can escape to Canada while in prison? Paradoctor (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That entirely depends on where the prison was, no? - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the UK? Or does their Canadian embassy have a hoosegow on its grounds? Paradoctor (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

help in making an article

Hi, everytime I make an article, it is always put up for deletion. Why is that??? Rosanna48 (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but perhaps you make articles about subjects that lack notability for Wikipedia. I have put a new welcome menu on your talk page. Please do not wipe it, but follow some of the pointers you find there. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

hello

i am not vandelizing shit people died cuz of this man and his pseudoscience bullshit and still you allow this because it talks about the person and not the scams he practices if you guys really believe this all of wikipedia is fucking bullshit cuz con artists can just use it to gain more and more credibility, this site should be to aducate people not to lead them astray to a path that could lead to them murderig their own children while they try to save them. i main come on this man is a menace for the world every person that believes him is in turn a danger to society for people are ignorant and allot of them need to be guided to not fall in the traps of evil people like david wolfe. i know this will most likely not get me anywhere but i hope i might spark a discussion between you editors about how you deal with pseudoscience on a site that mainly deals with factual information and how you deal with the people that exploit ignorant or less intelligent people for their own goals(mostly money) in my opinion he should be able to be in wikipedia but its should be stated multiple times that nothing this man says is based on facts or scientific evidence so if you choose to believe him its your choice, you have an obligation to protect the people that come in this site here to find out information about people when this information could be really misleading and lead to people thinking this guy is legit when his is obviously not.

yours truly a worried dutch guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44f:2661:0:8c33:625e:d306:c27b (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Concerns about the content of an article should be made on the article talk page. Preferably in readable sentences, and preferably in English. - DVdm (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This is somewhat better already. I replied. Go on... - DVdm (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

haters

Leave me alone $avage (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I will, if you behave. - DVdm (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok sorry, my friend. You know Tom savage is a real person enrolled at bad axe high school. He is famous at the school and local area. $avage (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Olympic stadium

Hi DVdm i do not remember making any changes to the article as i was not even logged inTamblingb (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tamblingb: I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to. Can you elaborate? - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

on the 2012 olympic stadium page there is a message stating that someone has edited it, if this is meant for someone else then i am sorry for wasting your time.Tamblingb (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tamblingb: ha, you mean the article 2012 Olympic Stadium, with this revert. The message was sent to an anonymous user at User talk:176.126.229.55. If this was not you, then you just have learned about the benefit of signing up for a username. Enjoy and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Michelson Morley Experiment

Hi,

   Surely Lorentz's words as quoted on the Wiki site are sufficient to validate this addition to the page?

If one examines the evidence one can see that the ether theory is not proved to be invalid by the Michelson-Morley experiment, in fact the Lorentz transformation was invented in order that the ether theory could remain viable. S the ether theory should be acknowledged as a possible alternative, otherwise the information on this page is incomplete and biased.

Also, referring to another Wiki page is common practice and should be valid as evidence, as any wiki page has an equal standing to any other wiki page - thus it does not diminish the validity.

Can you please reinstate my edit?

Regards, Declan Traill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declan Traill (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

@Declan Traill: your edit was removed by four users now, so you probably should make your case on the article talk page Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment, where everybody involved can contribute to the discussion.

Do note however that "referring to another Wiki page is common practice and should be valid as evidence" is definitely not true. Other wikipages are indeed pointed to with wp:WIKILINKS, but sourcing challenged content with wikilinks is not allowed: see wp:CIRCULAR, and of course wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added a section to the Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment page to discuss this. Regards, Declan Traill (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

people are saying, we don't believe in Wikipedia, because you can change, edit, publish whatever you want!! So i just wanted to make sure that's right or just propaganda!! I still have doubt about Wikipedia, because i'm English learner, i wanna use Wikipedia to develop myself, vocabulary, expressions, idioms. and please make sure to me, those information written by native speakers, because that's very important for me to make sure the structure of my speaking is correct. Thanks Suren lonely (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		100,000 edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits on English Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

You can add this template to your user page:

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

—MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

W00t! :) Paradoctor (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) L00ts of automated edits, but that many? Thanks DVdm (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Einstein's papers

Dear DVdm, please have a look at my suggestion there (Talk:Annus_Mirabilis_papers#Doctoral_dissertation) since I'd like to have your opinion. Jean Fex (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Been away for a little while. It looks like someone already replied there. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for destroying vandalism when you see it, and actively seeking vandalism to destroy. Adotchar| reply here 13:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone must do the dirty work, right? Thanks - DVdm (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dude why

It's a fact that smarties don't make you smarter Superkai64wamboi (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocking Vandalism

Hi I'm Ltblood and I reverted some vandalism on the page Osbourn Park High School and when I went to leave a warning on the talk page of the person who vandalized the article and I saw that you left a warning that he'd be blocked next time he vandalized the page and I thought I'd tell you because I don't know how to block someone. Ltblood (talk | contribs) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ltblood, you and I cannot block users. Only wp:administrators can. All we can do, is revert and warn, and after a sufficient number of warnings, report to the administrators, who in turn can block the user. See, for instance, these edits: revert and warn level 3, revert and warn level 4 (final), revert and report at wp:AIV. These 6 edits (3 reverts, 2 warnings, 1 report) just took 3 button clicks, using the antivandalism tool wp:Huggle. Check it out. See also wp:Vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Isla Falta Calzado

I deleted this article because it is entirely fabricated. No such island exists in Lake Gatun. The only hit on Google search is the Wikipedia article. The "Gallidemia Woodpecker" mentioned in the article doesn't exist. (The only Google hit is for the article.) There are no Harpy Eagles on small islands of Lake Gatun. The "extinct Golden Toad" that supposedly occurred on the island was from Costa Rica and never occurred in Panama. The "Isthmian Alligator Lizard" supposedly recorded from the island is only known from Costa Rica and westernmost Panama, and never occurred anywhere near the supposed locality of the island. Hurricane Mitch, which is supposed to have destroyed the research station on the island, never hit Panama. This island is not a field station of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute or the University of Panama. Essentially everything in the article is false. These facts can easily be checked.

My name is George Angehr. I am a professional ornithologist, the author of the Birds of Panama, and have worked with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute since 1977. I know Lake Gatun and Panama's wildlife very well. This article has clearly been posted as a joke. It is complete nonsense from start to finish. 190.141.80.155 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. Hoping you don't mind, I have moved your signature.

Interesting. See

• Isla Falta Calzado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Isla Tres Perros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Godspeed1715 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sultaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suggest that you put this message on the article talk page Talk:Isla Falta Calzado where other contributors to the article can comment. If nothing happens there, you can also open a little case at wp:AFD, as I don't think that this article might still qualify to be templated with {{Db-hoax}} for speedy deletion as a hoax (see wp:G3). I will keep an eye on the talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly a hoax. Checking the citations will show that none of them actually say what is claimed. I suppose I should notify Matt Larsen, the Director of the Tropical Research Institute, that we are being linked to nonsensical and fraudulent information. As a scientific institution, this is a serious issue for us. 190.141.80.155 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The citations in the articles for Isla Tres Perros also seem to be general ones that don't back up the specific information in the article. It misspells the name of the town Arenosa as well. It's odd that it doesn't mention the adjacent Isla Falta Calzado, given its alleged significance.190.141.80.155 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This might also benefit from a short statement at Talk:Isla Tres Perros. In a few days, new entries at wp:AFD will likely result in article deletion. - DVdm (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@GeorgeAngehr: article Isla Falta Calzado was deleted as a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Falta Calzado. Good job! - DVdm (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

about Alternatives to general relativity

Hi, sorry for sourcing, but you are more speed than i. I prepare the text on Word, but past/copy is long to do ( formula too ), so i'll do it as quick i can. A solution for me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuturdu13 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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

@Tuturdu13: I suggest that you first put a little section on the article talk page pointing to this edit, proposing what you have in mind. Might save some time. Don't forget to sign the talk page message with the four tildes. - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Reality, Society and Geographical/Environmental Organization: Searching for an Integrated Order

This book about geographical philosophy is a serious scientific literature. Give it back:

• Hampl, Martin (2000) Reality, Society and Geographical/Environmental Organization: Searching for an Integrated Order, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Science. ISBN 80-902686-2-5 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Perhaps, but given your location (gw.vurv.cz, Crop Research Institute, Prague) you seem to have a conflict of interest promoting it all over the place. See wp:SPA and wp:FURTHER, which also points to wp:ELNO. As I understand it, you are spamming. If you think that this book should be mentioned in, for instance, article Cosmology (as you suggested with this edit), then by all means open a section at Talk:Cosmology and propose to add it. - DVdm (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Response To Division By Zero Alteration

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to consider my edit and additional material for the wikipedia article Division By Zero. Also thank you for your time and consideration for the article Santangelo Fields (S-Fields) mathematics. I respect your decision with regards to these matters.

As the material is very new I understand creating new articles is a hasty move and not appropriate at this time. However with regards to editing the article Division By Zero, is there any way that you would consider the following:

Inserting in an appropriate place in the article Division By Zero (as determined by you) a passage stating that this work is extremely new and the source was just recently made available to the public and verification is in process but if true then there would exist a new algebraic structure called an S-Field in which a/0 can be defined for all non-zero elements which belong to a Field such that for distinct, non-zero Field elements a and b, we have that a/0 and b/0 are also distinct? We then cite the arxiv website so readers can then access the paper themselves if they wish to confirm or prove false?

or something to that regard?

Again, thank you for your time and consideration regarding this manner, B. Santangelo (SSJSurfndude4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssjsurfndude4 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

@Ssjsurfndude4: please note that Wikipedia is not a publishing service for our own work and original research—see WP:NOTFORUM. Also, your comments should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santangelo Field (S-Field) mathematics, where other contributors can comment. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally "original research" should not be included in Wikipedia articles, and that essentially means that things can be included after there are refereed secondary sources about them, but not before. See WP:OR. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello DVdm,

I added the section and I am planning on editing it. Thank you for your feedback. Next time I remove any content I will explain why. Oliverk25 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. Using edit summaries, please explain every edit you make. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Hi

I am here because I was looking at the history on the Coatlicue page and I saw you then I went to your profile I like Frank Zappa Joe's Garage album

Can you recommend anything similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggsInMyPockets (talk • contribs) 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@EggsInMyPockets: yes, from the same period, try Sheik Yerbouti, Tinseltown Rebellion, and, for an album with spectacular vocals, You Are What You Is. There's more, but start here . - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: sheik yerbouti is great, wow. i was actually thinking in the middle of it that i was going to close it but i stuck with it and sides 3 & 4 just blew me away. i will tell you what i think of the other two when i get around to hearing them. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Many well-dressed people... in several locations....are kissing quite a bit..." - DVdm (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Koide edit

I had or have no intention of mischief of vandalism

It seem impossible for you to have taken the necessary time to evaluate my content addition for merit or accuracy. I truly ask you to go back over my attempted edit as the "auto edit bot" unduly labeled me a vandal.

(((3e+8 * ((0.9 / ((0.5^0.5) / (pi / 4)))^2)) / c) / 3) * 2 = 0.666659496558 s / m

(0.9*π/(sqrt(0.5)*4))^2*2/2.99792458 = 0.666659496558

Koide Formula

David.fuller@live.com

http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg

If it could even be added a listed possible Numerology for now , I would be satisfied with that

Currently there is no explanation of the Reason for the Koide Ratio, so the whole page is really Numerology No offense or antagonism meant or implied

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+(0.9*%CF%80%2F(sqrt(0.5)*4))%5E2*2%2F2.99792458

No. I meant exactly what I posted, not by mistake, not experimenting - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:b107:beaa:b551:5289:8096:3c49 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish our numerology exercises. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hans Jonatan

Hi DVdm, thanks for getting in touch. I would like to make changes, correcting errors and adding important material. I am the author of the biography that you kindly mentioned (with a slight error in the subtitle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gislipalssson (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

@Gislipalssson: Ok. But please don't change every occurence of Jonatan to Jonathan in the article. The article is Hans Jonatan, not Hans Jonathan. - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there's lot's to learn. I have to leave this now, but I will be back, adding images and text, if you don't mind. I appreciate your contribution and your help. Gislipalssson (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. Happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Bird

Zack Bird was taken in the Rule 5 draft by the Rangers. I just moved him to their respective minor league page. It just came as section blanking probably cuz I'm a IP. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I overlooked your edit summary. My apologies! - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

HI,you made the mistake,see other language in wiki.

Maradona club stats is wrong.Argentinos juniors 166 apps.totall apps 588.thank you. see this website.Argentinos juniors 1978-79 apps 26 http://www.football-history.net/who-is-who/m/diego-maradona.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maradona fans (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi, Maradona fans, this unexplained removal was rightly reverted by user Prayer for the wild at heart, and this unexplained removal was rightly reverted by me. If you don't use edit summaries, your edits will very likely continue to be mistaken for vandalism, and you could end up blocked. So, in your own interest, please provide an edit summary for all your edits. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding Pictures...

I need help to add a picture on my bio on Wikipedia... Any help? Heru101 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Heru101: you can put a help template message on your user talk page. See {{help}}. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Four-dimensional space

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_dimension&oldid=prev&diff=752858285

Four-dimensional space - is about four spatial dimensions, right?

Spacetime - is about 3 spatial , 1 temporal, right?

let me know if I'm missing something.

skakEL 12:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, yes, you are right. I have undone my revert: [35]. My apologies, and cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bender Edit

Hi. I never made an edit to the Bender page. A work colleague was playing a joke on me and he made the edit. Are you saying he did it from my computer (I.P address)? 207.164.26.34 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, over there at WorldLinx Telecommunications where a lot of users share the same IP to connect to the outside world, if indeed a work colleague (or your wp:LITTLEBROTHER ) did it, then as the message on your talk page says: If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. - DVdm (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Richard Feynman

Would you be interested in co-nominating this article at FAC? Unfortunately, it will be ineligible for TFA, as it was featured on December 2, 2004. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I just had my first look at wp:FAC. As for the modifications since GA (August 2016), I removed a few obvious inappropriate see-also-entries and, yesterday, that one TED-section. I haven't really scrutinized the remainder of the changes, so I'm not sure whether I will be able to properly react to possible reviewer objections. If you don't think that this is a problem, I'd be glad to co-nominate, even if I couldn't find how to technically do that in the documentation. - DVdm (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll handle all the details. The problem is that I am allowed to have only one FAC nomination open at a time, and I have a long queue. However, I am allowed a second nomination if it is a co-nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read about that rule in the FAC. Let me know what I can do to help it get started, because I have no idea . - DVdm (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Already started. This usually takes a long time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, there's no rush. Interesting process, this. Thanks for having involved me. - DVdm (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Scientific method

Hi DVdm. I am writing in response to your revert in Scientific Method. The article clearly states about Feynmann:

He takes the Baconian approach to be an example of where philosophers have sought a methodological description of science and failed. But he says this failure equally applies to deductive models utilizing Popper’s ‘principle of falsification’. From all this Feynman says: “And so what science is, is not what the philosophers have said it is, and certainly not what the teacher editions [science textbooks] say it is.”

I find your edit summary inadequate. It's not about philosophy of science in its entirety but about scientific method. Are you sure you are correct? --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it's not about philosophy of science in its entirety—sorry for that edit summary. But I checked the cited source, and it does not say that Feynman has "argued that there is no scientific method", as you claim with your edit. Further discussion belongs of course on the article talk page Talk:Scientific method, but I wouldn't count on making that edit with that source. - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I accept that the source could be better. That's the only correct argument I see and sufficient since you protest. Asterixf2 (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bzuk: from the wet West, happy holies to you! - DVdm (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, I'm KoshVorlon. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
I just reverted your shortcut. Since PBUH isn't allowed to be used in articles after showing the name of the prophet , it stands to reason that a shortcut, rather a second shortcut set up as PBUH would seem to be against the spirit of that rule. Yes, it's not in an article, but, if Christians were adding (PBTG ( Praise be to God) after the name of Jesus ) and that was dis-allowed in articles, if someone attempted to add that same acronym to a guideline about Christian articles, I'd remove it as well, as it would look like gaming the system. I'm not saying you are, but realize that it could look that way. This wasn't personal.KoshVorlon 16:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Ah, I hadn't noticed that it was second. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)