User talk:DVdm

— Welcome to my talk page —

Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I will respond on this page.
If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it.
If you think I forgot to check don't hesitate to remind me here.

"Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow."
"Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
"Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny."
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself."

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 7 months and 9 days.

— Canard du jour —

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

Jack Handy

vn-198

This user talk page has been vandalized 198 times.

Archives downhere

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 16 sections are present.

I am leaving a remark at your talk page

I am leaving a remark at your talk page regarding the counter you have installed, "This user page has been vandalized 83 times." Speling12345 (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King vs Magnate

Hi I would like to ask why you would refer to James Drummond Dole as a "pineapple magnate"? I wonder because the Wikipedia article refers to says "Also known as the Pineapple King" Master Troll Rocks (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Master_Troll_Rocks Ps Merry Christmas![reply]

See this edit summary. Such a list page is not meant to provide that kind of content. It's a subtle thing, and certainly not worth edit warring over. - DVdm (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - See also this edit summary. Meanwhile it looks like you were blocked for this. When your block expires, feel free to go to the article talk to try to establish a wp:consensus for your point of view. Keep cool. - DVdm (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tesla DAB

I was actually editing to match his primary notability, re:electrical engineer and inventor, not all his sub-monikers. I actually see no problem with nationality, its settled at the main article and any sniping around DAB pages and the like can be referred to the main article. He has a referenced national description so no need to dumb it down on Wikipedia. But left it for now ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me there's no problem with nationality either, but there has been some trouble in the past with other contributors.

Ok, good idea this. I suggest you make a similar tweak at 1943‎. Cheers and thanks. - DVdm (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um almost good, that is. You forgot the physicist. Hadn't noticed that :-) - DVdm (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olinto De Pretto

Hello! why did you delete my changes? Maybe I put the sources in a wrong way, but I guess you are better than me and you can write again my lines. Here the sources. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Albert-Einstein-Olinto-De-Pretto-1967039.S.223356547 http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/fis/depret-bombay.htm Thanks for your help and happy new year!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.209.77 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the reason in my edit summary ([1]). Neither source qualifies as a reliable source — see our policy wp:Reliable sources. Further discussion should go to the article talk page Talk:Olinto De Pretto. Cheers and happy 2014! - DVdm (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "http://www.cartesio-episteme.net is not a reliable source". Just for curiosity, where did you read that the link is not a reliable source? Professor Umberto Bartocci is a serious scholar, the same about (deceased) professor Omero Speri and dr Piero Zorzi. Dr Dhananjay Khadilkar is a science correspondent for DNA, Daily News and Analysis; columnist associated with The Indian Express; writer for Scientific American and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.23.165 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is someone's personal webpage. Anyone can create a webpage and write anything on it. Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

How was yours? Your CHRISTMAS. No bad feelings about before. Edit wars happen, to people like you and me. As for me, even I had a splendid Christmas with the people in my family. Where do you live? Christmas has already happened hasn't it? Speling12345 (talk) 6:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"...and the judgment of others." - Take care. - DVdm (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Im sorry about the errors on the pages, im not real proficient at computers yet, I have tried to get accurate numbers for the albums on here, but since there is no real way of getting them have to go by what numbers have been given on certain websites. These albums haven't been recertified for a long time and trying to give them accurate numbers has been a nightmare, thanks for fixing things I will get better at this the more im on here, happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardrock 4171 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing and ditto 2014! - DVdm (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You left a very blunt message on my talk page then deleted it?? What's the story please?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mistake on my part. Sorry. Happy 2014! - DVdm (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder Paradox

Hi. I received a message from you that my edits to the Ladder Paradox had failed to conform to the Wikipedia verifiability policy. I don't understand how this can be: my edits were purely and simply a mathematical derivation, based on the Lorentz Transformation. If the math is wrong, so be it, and call me out for that. But Lorentz is well-known and accepted.

My revisions were reverted by the original author of the page, who claimed that I had not resolved the paradox, since I had supposedly just assumed length contraction. He clearly failed to understand my resolution, which was based on transforming to the ladder rest frame.

Prior to posting, I ran my calculations by a friend who is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Washington, one of the top Physics departments in the USA. I hold a BA and MS in Physics myself.

The experience of editing this page has actually shaken my faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia. The existing page on the Ladder Paradox is not only confusing, but incorporates some discussion (e.g. about rigid bodies in SR) which is irrelevant to the resolution of the paradox. This discussion will mislead students who come to this page, and who may infer that acceleration of the ladder is necessary to resolve the paradox, when in fact it is not.

Please tell me Wikipedia has some way to resolve issues like this. Lexchis (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lexchis, it's pretty simple. Have a very careful read of wp:reliable sources and wp:no original research. The way to resolve this, is to find a published reliable source (Wikipedia meaning), and propose your addition on the talk page of the article (not on a talk page of a user), to reach some kind of consensus (see wp:consensus) with whomever wishes to respond there. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DVdm. By the standards you are pointing me to, it seems the current posted article is original research, at least in its Resolution section. It cites an article by Rindler which is actually about the "man falling in the grate" paradox, not about the Ladder Paradox per se. Also, as I read them, the "original research" guidelines exempt straightforward calculations based on a well-known formula, which certainly describes the Lorentz Transformation. That would seem to make my contribution non-original, and, in the absence of a math error, acceptable. Lexchis (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making just a calculation. You use physical quantities, so you are doing physics, and your contribution would still be original research.

On the other hand, if you think there is some original research in that article, then by all means bring it up on the talk page. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, I still must respectfully assert that if the current posted article is ok, then my revision is ok. There are math calculations involving physical quantities in both. Suppose I were writing an article on Newtonian gravity, and calculated how far a dropped ball would descend in 2 seconds. That would appear to fit your criterion; would it then constitute original research? Lexchis (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a schoolbook example of original research, trust me. If indeed "there are math calculations involving physical quantities in both", then—as I said before—bring it up on the article talk page, not here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason why the policy about verifiability was put in place, is to avoid endless pointless—and useless—discussions like you seem to be having at User talk:DonQuixote#Ladder Paradox. - DVdm (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creative commons license

It may possibly be of interest to note that if content is licensed under a creative commons license requiring attribution, then copying it without attribution is a copyright infringement. However, the relevant content would have been deleted for other reasons even if there had been no copyright problem. JamesBWatson (talk)

Thanks, that's how I had understood and interpreted the policy at WP:C and elsewhere from the terse warnings on User talk:OnlyWikki. Not a simple matter, this :-| - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Criticisms of the theory of relativity". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So fast

Re:

"You fight vandalism so incredibly fast that you sometimes forget to look at the surrounding Booga Booga ;-) - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)"

Heh. Well, Huggle is quick. I noticed the "mistake" from the diff right after my action. I was about to mend it, when the editing conflict warning let me know that you beat me to it. :-) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I de-booga-booga pretty fast too :-) Cheers, and keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About parallel Lines in a Non-Euclidean Space

Hi.. Thanks for caring.

I had added two lines about the property of "parallelism" in a curved surface (space). Those are removed and I was asked to get the source of them.

" We’ve known for a hundred years, since Albert Einstein, that space itself is fundamentally curved. We wrote a bit about this here. Lines and circles in real space simply do not do behave the way Euclid imagined, and so thinking in a non-Euclidean manner is fundamental to understanding the Universe. " --from http://www.qedcat.com/archive/97.html

On basis of many such reads, I added, "if a space is 180° twisted, any pair of parallel straight lines will intersect each other." I hope, Math Students will be able to understand this simple relativity.

Placed a copy of this in the Talk of that page. Thanks.. --Aaniya B (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you went to the article talk page, but see what happened. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mathematical fallacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congruence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

solved — See [2]. - DVdm (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to other editors

Many of us are fighting the same battles, some with slower connection speeds than others. Please bear in mind that we cannot all solve all problems instantly and, having a little patience with other editors working on the same issues might be more productive. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already replied at your place. - DVdm (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User NK

Hi, DVdm. I noticed you reverted the vandalism to my talk page. Thank you. However, after you reverted the vandalism you then added the following: {{db-g10}} to my talk page to have my talk page speedy deleted. Since my talk page never has anything on it, why do you want to delete it? I am truly confused.--NK (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It could have been deleted or made empty again. I see that someone already took care of replacing the template with the original content now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--NK (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR IP

Hi, the user you recently spoke to about WP:ENGVAR, 58.8.103.154 (talk · contribs), is a new IP for the same editor at 203.163.103.7 (talk · contribs). He is currently involved in a content dispute with yet another IP, 67.139.40.166 (talk · contribs), on the article Haniwa. They are accusing each other of vandalism and sock puppetry. I would appreciate an extra pair of eyes to track these editors and make sure they do not get into more trouble. Both are prone to belligerency and edit warring. Just a friendly warning. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page is now protected by user Ged UK. I have added two sources for the clay thing. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for that

Yeah, thanks for that, I thought I was on the www.mywot.com/ Wiki page, just went in to cut the text so I could paste it onto the right page but you'd removed it. Any chance you still have a copy so I can put it in the right place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.82.62 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are referring to this edit, you can copy (some of) it right there, but if you want to accomplish anything with it, I suggest you severely tone it down, propose it on the article talk page, and stick to cold neutral facts, preferably pointing to some wp:reliable sources. Otherwise the message will be removed or, at best, ignored. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cold neutral fact. I have the email trail from the company themselves to prove it. What proof would you prefer I add to their page? 80.195.82.62 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]