User talk:DVdm/Archive 2022

Archive 2015

←

Archive 2020

Archive 2021

Archive 2022

Archive 2023

Archive 2024

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

Mistake.

Whoops! 50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction to gravitational lensing

The removal of that sentence was explained in the description of the edition. It is plainly wrong and I have a brief explanation of the origin of the confusion. Please do not undo it. Best wishes , Paco Pacomc999 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pacomc99: Not enough. Go to the talk page and explain what you have in mind and why. Wikipedia is about wp:CONSENSUS. Repeatedly removing properly sourced content without consensus with get you blocked. - DVdm (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The claim is not properly sourced, only the first one is a GR technical book. Also, if you go to the source the word classical is used to distinguish it from quantum gravity, which is quite reasonable in that context. I did not start a discussion about it because it is obvious to anyone trained in GR that this is a mistake. In any case, I appreciate your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacomc999 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pacomc99: As I said, take it to the article talk page. If you don't agree with a source, then start a discussion. See wp:CONSENSUS. - DVdm (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Gravitational lens#Half the value given by general relativity. - DVdm (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(missing header)

15-Jan 2022, Lem -- Feel free to delete this after reading. You made some comment about parsing my edit of my Talk page. It is good enough for me. I don't see why the old version is still being referenced. Don't my edits count? I simply deleted a lot of pointless talk. If you prefer, i can delete the rest of the page. Lemchastain (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

About continuity

Continuity is a property of a function, hence if a point is a singularity, i.e. it is not a point of the domain, it makes no sense at all to talk about continuity in that point. So f(x)=1/x is continuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.46.22 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

As I said in the edit summary of my revert, the article contradicts you. The number 0 belongs to the topological closure of its domain, so the function f(x)=1/x is indeed discontinuous at x=0.

If there's something you think is wrong, the best place to go, is the article talk page. Make sure you have a source to support your idea, and don't forget to sign your messages. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Thank you so much for your consultation! Apparently, different national schools have different traditions. In particular, I still do not understand why the trace of the comparison system should not be written with a curly brace (see my page discussions, 2018). Magidin suggested that I take it on faith.

With best wishes, Alpha-Gamma (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alpha-Gamma: my pleasure! - DVdm (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Rollback on List of Trigonometric Identities

I just wanted to clarify to you that the paper that I linked was unpublished. I might have been a bit too preemptive on adding it, oops! Anyways I will probably add it back once it is published.

So sorry about that.

Asra31 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asra31: You better don't add it back. The formula that you added with this edit is correct, but utterly trivial, 100% useless, and frankly, a bit ridiculous:

$\cos ^{2}(\alpha )\cos ^{2}(\beta )+\sin ^{2}(\alpha )+\sin ^{2}(\beta )\cos ^{2}(\alpha )=1$

You will only get it published by a company engaged in the self-publishing business. See Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business. Wikipedia does not accept those, so trying to do that would be a waste of your (and our) time . - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@DVdm: Ok, sorry about that, I will not. Asra31 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal?

Haven't I explained about my edits? I meant that E_p is the correct symbol for Potential Energy because U and V already mean Initial and Final Velocity respectively. Nishānt Omm (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nishānt Omm: regarding your edit: there is no such thing as "the correct symbol" for anything. Different textbooks use different symbols. You removed commonly used symbols U and V. In fact, the symbol U is used on the very next line in the infobox. If you are not familiar with the commonly used scientific notation, perhaps it's better to stay away from scientific articles. - DVdm (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You could correct the other symbols also Nishānt Omm (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Nishānt Omm: No, I could definitely not do that. The symbols U and V are used all over the place in the literature. If you are not aware of that, please do stay away from scientific articles, because you will be damaging the encyclopedia and end up blocked. - DVdm (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

An apology and explanation with regard to my edit in the article 0.999...

I appreciate the comment, and I am responding as an apology, as I meant no offense, especially if you were the original author of the article. If I had known that my edit would elicit controversy I would have left more of an explanation and also not labelled it a "minor edit"!

To clarify my thought process, my intention was to reduce ambiguity, as to my knowledge 'naïve mathematics' is the preferred spelling-style of the name of the field in the academic context akin to that of other "naïve" fields of study. In any case, I agree with the decision that the subsequent user made to change the link to 'informal mathematics', as that is the title of the linked page and so reduces potential for confusion even more. I hope you are having a good day! :) Thank you for all your hard work in maintaining articles. - Webspidrman (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Webspidrman: no worries! But note that I'm not the original author of the article. The article is created and maintained by lots and lots of people. Articles have no owners. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@DVdm Yes, I did not mean to imply that you "own the page", only that I had not intended offense in light of your own possible contributions to the page's creation, writing, and/or links, very much not in exclusion of the many, many people who have contributed to the page. Cheers to you, too! :) --Webspidrman (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

More cite spam

I searched "riggs, p.j." and found earlier cite spam by 118.208.187.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Need a patch to ClueBot that monitors citations to papers and/or authors. See if I remember to repeat that search later. I see you've been following this too. Thank you! Adakiko (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: yes, from same location. To be kept an eye on. - DVdm (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my editing in limit of a function

Hello, first of all, it's neither unsourced nor poorly sourced content, the example that I wrote in "Limit of a function" was taken from the article that I exhaustively wrote "Epsilon-Delta definition of limit" on the blog section of my website https://mymathsclub.com/ and indeed it was a very effective to help readers understand the concept behind the said-topic. I am teaching Mathematics for the last 13 years and hold firm grip on Calculus, so kindly don't declare my content poorly sourced on unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahail (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Mahail: Alas, the source https://mymathsclub.com that your are spamming with all your edits does not even remotely qualify as a wp:reliable source. Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia policies. - DVdm (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Kirchhoff's Current Law

The central issue is how can Wikipedia present an article on Kirchhoff's current law without a derivation of the law? Beisenbe (talk 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Beisenbe: The best (and probably only) place to bring this up, is the article talk page, where you can discuss and achieve wp:consensus with other article contributors. - DVdm (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Riggs, P.J.

FYI: "refrerence"? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed now . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Now has an account? Added to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_19#Spamrefs of Riggs, P.J.
  • CircuitOne (talk · contribs) Edit to Causal loop Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Gravitational constant

It is very important thing so I think i should add it in Issac newton. Intelligent boy 13 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. If you feel strong about it, the article talk page is the place to discuss — see wp:BRD. And the name is Isaac Newton, not "Issac Newton" or "Issac newton" - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have mail

Mail has been sent. Adakiko (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

PJ Riggs again

On Causal loop - I removed quietly. Should anything be done? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: best to add to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_19#Spamrefs of Riggs, P.J., if only for possible future reference. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor is already listed with one diff. Shall I add diffs for the two recent additions? Toodeloo Adakiko (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Won't do any harm . - DVdm (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done! ...for now. Adakiko (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

Featured article review speed of light

I have nominated Speed of light for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Speed of light

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Speed of light/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Supported!: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition of a force

HI You reverted twice my addition to the definition of a force. I do not understand : the fact that a force is an action that deforms an objet is not only a property of a force. It is also a way to define a force. As a consequence there are two ways to define a force, either by its effect on motion or by its effect on matter. How would you suggest to take that into account ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcourty (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jmcourty: what you tried to add, appears in the body of the article in a rather non-prominent way in one of the subsections of the section Force#Non-fundamental forces. So putting it in the lead makes it appear way too important for what it is. If every non-fundamental type of force would be added in the lead, it would turn out too elaborate. See wp:LEAD and, albeit in a broader context, wp:UNDUE. If you really think it should be in the lead, perhaps you can open a little topic on the article talk page and see what other article contributors think. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thx. That is what I just did. I would appreciate to find your opinion on this question. This point is not about a "non-fondamental type of force" it is about the general effect of a force : forces not only change the motion of an object, forces also deform objet. Force can also be defined and studied in statics and not only in dynamics. And by the way this is how force are measured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcourty (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please indent talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT and sign all your messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

I replied on the article talk page: [2]. - DVdm (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

On my edit on the page about number e

I didn't add any reference since I don't know of any. That's why I included the simple explanation. I really think it is a much easier example of random variable with expected value e than the most famous one.

José Luis Arregui (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@José Luis Arregui: Please be aware of Wikipedia's primary policies regarding wp:verifiability and wp:original research. Without a proper source to establish verification and —perhaps even more importantly — notability, we really cannot include this. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's ok for me, Wikipedia's policy about valid references is totally understandable in an encyclopedia. Keep the good work! José Luis Arregui (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello DVdm,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 811 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 846 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit of Comparison between Economic Order Quantity and Escape Velocity Formulas

These two formulas both have the number 2 being multiplied by two different constants and divided by another, and both are completely encased in square roots. That's pretty similar as far as formulas go. I can probably find the formula referenced in my management science book, but I figured Investopedia was just as good of a reference.

Now is this fact IMPORTANT enough to belong in a Wikipedia article? Maybe, maybe not. Is "remarkably similar" too strong of a phrase to compare the formulas? Maybe. But they both definitely are of the form of squareroot (2AB/C) where A,B, and C are all constants. That is true in every sense of the word. They wouldn't both give out constants as answers if A, B, and C weren't constants.

Was my entry removed more because its authenticity is doubted, or because the entry is not considered important enough to be mentioned in the article? If the authenticity is doubted, I'm sure I can continue finding references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboombody (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

I removed it for lack of proper sourcing. You really need to go to the article talk page for this, so the other article contributors can weigh in. Good luck there. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello DVdm,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14475 articles, as of 10:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't revoke an edit without checking

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but you revoked my edit a year ago on the phrase "f-dash" for the derivative.

This phrase is used in UK, Australia, and even Japan. That's 100's of millions of people. (But I admit not 100's of millions of people who understand what a derivative is!)

I obtained a degree in mathematics in Australia and never once heard the phrase "f-prime" - I'm assuming it's an American phrase.

FYI, I agree with your comment that it makes no sense to call ' a "dash". But apparently it's a thing from music notation.

Anyway, I have re-installed "f-dash" as an alternative pronunciation. Please do not revoke if you disagree. Start something in the Talk instead. Jim77742 (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A different user asks: Please don't revoke an edit without checking - Frank Zappa Edition

You revoked an edit that basically corrected an arithmetic error stating that 62 + 57 = 122. That is obviously incorrect and I corrected it to 119. Additionally, the correct number was already on the Frank Zappa Discography page. This issue was already corrected on the page by another user, but 5 seconds of your time and some basic addition could have prevented all of this.

Please slow down and make sure your contributions or revocations are truly warranted. 107.0.197.47 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@107.0.197.47: Do note that the (currently) last album of the offcial discography https://www.zappa.com/music/official says "Official Release #121"—see [3]. So both 122 and 119 are likely wrong. But who cares anyway: One of these days Joe T. will pull the next release from the vault. It's pretty infinite. Don't forget to check on a daily basis so you can keep the bad number up-to-date . (Also pinging Carlstak) - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Planck units

I noticed you removed a comment from Talk:Variable speed of light per the regular guidelines. A substantially identical comment was left at Talk:Planck units; I replied to that one, taking the opportunity to be a little silly, but I wouldn't object to hatting the whole section for being off-topic. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, yep, I had seen it, but as you already had replied, I decided not to remove the entry. Meanwhile someone else did that, and the user was blocked for using multiple accounts and trolling. - DVdm (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was me (I got logged-out mid-edit). XOR'easter, I hope you forgive removing your comment as well (and of course I could restore that part if anyone cared). JBL (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, that removal is fine with me. I wonder if someone should write up a long-term abuse report for QG, since their history of trolling and generally disruptive behavior goes back at least to 2018. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a reasonable idea, although I'm also not sure how useful LTA reports are in general. Unfortunately now the video is attracting assorted non-sock cranks, rather than just one sockpuppeting loon. -- JBL (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Pretty toxic atmosphere over there... - DVdm (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Variable speed of light is now semi-protected for a week, so maybe they'll lose interest. XOR'easter (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

... or maybe not? XOR'easter (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I just happened to come across this conversation in my Watchlist. On the talk page of VSL the same editor whose comment was removed added a new section [4] with the same rant. They are engaging in wikilawyering, and are threatening to put editors on report. This is of course laughable (I'm chucking right now). In any case, I just wanted to let you know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: I decided to remove the rant [5]. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Threatening to put editors on report seems to be something of a theme. "Deleting of critics of how this page is edited will be documented"! XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I see they've now been blocked for 1 week. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Yes, I filed a 3RR report for which they received a (helpful) block. [6]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. I see by the link you provided you have already seen this. Sorry, I didn't notice your link before I posted, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Remember Riggs, P.J.?

I removed seven as cite spam. Mostly different IPs. Created an article list on User:Adakiko/Cite spam. I should periodically search for "Riggs, P.J." and other variations. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: Thanks. Yes, I remember User talk:DVdm/Archive_2022#More cite spam. Are they back at it? As I said, to be kept an eye on. - DVdm (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, adding it to one article every few weeks. Two in June, three in July, and two in August. I reverted them. Asked CircuitOne (talk · contribs) to take it to talk:causal loop. See what happens. I was watching causal loop and found the rest by searching "Riggs, P.J." ;o). Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Notice Board Requested

This simply serves to notify you that your user name was included in a request for dispute resolution regarding the speed of light article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMmpds (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My comment, item closed. - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Before I gave that warning, I had carefully reviewed all the editor's other edits, some dating back to 2020. Apart from bad grammar, most edits seem to add something to try to emphasise the role of other contributors beside Einstein to the subject of relativity. So I sensed biased editing and decided to undo the edit. Warning mode was triggered when my suspicion was confirmed by the edit summary of their revert: "In wikipedia documents about theory of relativity, "Einstein published in blabla" is stated although this fact is already famous enough and well stated in history. So, there is no problem state it here. I guess that some people reluctant to mention other scholar's achievements and want to make Einestein a super hero." Perhaps I should have added something about biased editing as well. - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

But you get that this isn't better, right? most edits seem to add something to try to emphasise the role of other contributors beside Einstein to the subject of relativity isn't a particularly problematic editing pattern; the fact is Einstein is a little over-hyped in popular media about physics. They aren't under any editing restrictions, and in this particle case there were adding material that absolutely belonged in the lead to an article that was missing its lead (Einstein should be mentioned in the lead, too). Can you reply on the article talk page so we can move this along?

Yes, I gave them some non-template coaching about musing about other editors' motivations. VQuakr (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Mass-energy equivalence

Hi DVdm. You are one of the principal contributors to our article Mass-energy equivalence so it would be great if you could take a look at this edit.

And if you could find time to contribute your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Inconsistencies related to mechanical energy it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 12:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dolphin: I never really contributed much to that article, that is, apart from regularly doing quick anti-vandalism/spam/badgrammar/origresearch on it. I don't really have the time to look into this now. The topîc on the physics project will surely help sorting it out . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Vaeiable Speed Of Light Disagreement well documented

Thank you for comments about my additions to the page Variable Speed if light.

I did in fact reference passages in six books that are well known and written by famous people. All of my additions except one support the view of Einstein, Born, and Tolman, referred to in other parts of the page. The disagreement of Peter Bergmann is well documented in his book The riddle of Gravitation, in which he argued for several pages against the Einstein view.

The disagreement is important because the Bergmann view is taught in college and the Einstein view is seldom mention, although it is well documented in the six books I referenced.

Thanks again for your reply. As always you are welcome to change my addition to the page Variable speed of light. Astrojed (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this. Anyway, I have undone ([7]) your edit about setting ds to zero again. Not in the sources. Please stop adding wp:original research to articles. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)