User talk:DVdm/Archive 2018

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

Sorry

Hi DVdm, Apologies for the dreaded notification - Unfortunately socks have been adding the content to various articles for years so at this point they're mostly reverted without edit summaries however as I reverted to a revision I should've provided some sort of reason so I wanted to apologise for not doing so, Thanks for your tidying up and contributions on the project :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Aw, Davey2010, no apologies needed there. Your edit summary was sufficient . Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandallising the Vandallizm Counter(& why reverting it is an error)

Of course, it's wrong to vandallize the vandallism counter(even as a jest, without malice), but consider, that vandallizing the vandallism counter is still technically vandallizm & so still increments the aforemention'd counter. That's part of the joke & why it seems silly to revert incrementing the vandallism counter when the incrementing is not truly a mistake & is technically vandallizm(see the polocy), even done in jest & without any malace. JustinCB (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well... been there, done that . Happy editing. - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

List of educational programming languages page

Your reasoning for removing the Wolfram Programming Lab from the list of programming languages for children is incorrect. The programming lab is actually designed for children and folks with no prior experience. Further, it is a free program to use and is in use within grade-schools across the country. My eight year-old daughter uses it twice per week in her elective science class.

Then, the same goes for the Wolfram Language with regard to use within universities. This language is used in hundreds of university classes throughout the world. Your claim of it being a commercial language is unsubstantiated and false. I realize that you watch several users and pages, but please do not pull down content that is actually valid. Thank you! Badtoothfairy (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — see Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Perhaps. Instead of reverting and explaining here, you had better opened a section on the article talk page and discuss. See wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. He should have seen this coming. - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello DVdm, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't removed

Hi dvdm can you please not removed I add edit Sigmar Gabriel I already did it and then you deleted it would you please not removed I add, thank you AdmiralNelson (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@AdmiralNelson: I think you should go to the Wikipedia of your own language. Not a single edit that you made up to now, was appropriate for the English language Wikipedia. See also user PaleoNeonate's message on your user talk page User talk:AdmiralNelson#English. See the section about Language difficulty in the essay wp:CIR. - DVdm (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not removed United States relation to eroupean union

Hi DVdm can you please stop removed edit, this not English unfortunately, I sorry I edit on Germany by mistake, can you please stop removed edit thank you AdmiralNelson (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please go to a Wikipedia in a language that you master. You can not properly contribute here. - DVdm (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

I have requested that the first citation for "scientific consensus" be reviewed to see if it meets the guidelines. 24.166.216.40 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a section title for new sections on talk pages. Thank you.

Up to now, your IP has made only one edit. Where did you leave that request and under which username or IP?

By the way, please note that, if you are user Jamesmsnead (talk · contribs), editing in logged-out mode might be a bad idea—see wp:LOGOUT. If this was an accident, no problem, but try to avoid that in the future. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How use language wiki

Hi dvdm

I wonder how I could go to Wikipedia language can you tell me how? AdmiralNelson (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Main page, bottom, and List of Wikipedias. - DVdm (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Edgar Wilson Award

Or something, whatever it's called - you realize the body of the article says, with sources, that that's roughly the monetary amount of the reward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

ESDIP

Hello,

I cannot understand why ESDIP link cannot be included in the digital pathology information. ESDIP is the European SOciety of Digital and Integrative Pathology: https://digitalpathologysociety.org/ Thanks 161.67.25.54 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

See the list at wp:ELNO. If you think it should be added, please ask on the article talk page what the other contributors think. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

10 complement

Reliable source for what? 10 complement? If Wikipedia has a page with that title, that gives all it in details, why would I need to give any other source. The part was just diverting attention to that well-known but not mentioned case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.4.122 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

See wp:CIRCULAR: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly". Cheers. DVdm (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Armento page

In my Mr. Armento page you quite rudely deleted, I actually ddid list why he was notable, I said he was the best math teacher in the world, which is quite notable Sand undertale (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) sand undertale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sand undertale (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

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

See wp:Notability for Wikipedia's take on notability. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Pair Production diagram

I have changed the Pair Production diagram because the old one is wrong. It might look better but it gives the wrong impression. Electron positron pair production does not occur when a photon hits a nucleus but in the electric field around a nucleus (or an atomic electron). Also the production opening angle is approximately zero not as shown in the old figure. I wrote all this in the Talk page of the Electron article. So I am reverting to the new figure. Chriskb19 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chriskb19: I find the the formula $\theta \approx 0^{o}$ a bit problematic. What does "approximately zero" mean exactly? Furthermore, I wouldn't call the angle in http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/162/images/electron-positron-production-by-photon.html a small angle. When looking for images of e-p production, I can't find any with approx zero angles. I will leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, referring to your edits and to this here. You can respond there.

Also please note that when a Bold edit is Reverted, you are supposed to Discuss, not Revert-And-Discuss, as you did here - see wp:BRD. DVdm (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As a reasonably new user, I didn't know that. Sorry. In my defence, I did explain my intention last December and your explanation for reverting was rather weak ("original was better"). I have added a full explanation and answers to your concerns on the WikiProject Physics page. That picture from phy.duke.edu does show a very small opening angle, in fact. This is a case of a photon converting after hitting an electron rather than a nucleus so the electron comes flying off but the nucleus (proton) hardly moves.

I have also looked at your Google picture search and this just shows that a non-expert can be easily confused by taking things out of context.

For example, top line from left to right: the first diagram is a Feynman diagram which does not show anything about angles; the next diagram is simply wrong; the third is a different process (photon-photon collision); the fourth is a pair of partial Feynman diagrams i.e. not complete Feynman diagrams. Second row: first diagram is another partial Feynman diagram; the second diagram is imprecise; the third is a bubble chamber photo and nicely shows the zero opening angle. Because a magnetic field acts on the produced electron and positron, they separate as they travel. If you track back to the production point, the two tangents to the arcs become one; etc, etc.

The reason I produced the new diagram is that I was irritated when my own physics department was using the wrong diagram in Wikipedia in an exercise to create a LaTeX document about Feynman and anti-matter. Chriskb19 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. However user MaoGo believes there is still a dispute here and has reverted my change. Can you tell him you are satisfied that the new figure is uncontroversial and illustrates the maths in the Pair Production page and what is seen in experiments where gamma rays convert in 'thin' materials? Chriskb19 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MaoGo that there is still a dispute. Please confine the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Cheers and happy source hunting! - DVdm (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting sources because of the language

Hi! I can see you deleted a bibliography I have added in an article on Matter. It seems you don't like it because it is in French. And you give me a link in Wikipedia (Further reading) to learn. I am new in Wikipedia as contributor. After many years of being a passive reader, I decided that is time to help other readers. I have a PhD in Physics, and Professor at the University. I have written many journal articles and chapter books, so I know how important is to have good sources. At the same time, nowadays, you have to get information from other languages if you want to learn. Myself I can read/write/understand English, French, and Spanish. I use in my articles and books always references in many languages. So, I don't understand your criticism. At the same time, I went to the link you indicated me (and other sub-links there), and nothing says about sources in different languages. As I said, I am new in Wikipedia, and I need to learn how to improve Wikipedia. I will invest my time in learning, and in improving the wonderful idea of Wikipedia. I will appreciate your advise in this matter. But, also, I will appreciate in this punctual case that you can justify that the reference I have included is not useful. I read it, and it is perfect for general reference. I might try in the future to improve also the article on Matter. In the meantime, I am trying to make small and easy contributions, and references (I believe) are the easiest ones to make. Specially in those articles where the references are scarce. Please, revert the changes and include again the reference. Thank you. Triboscience (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages. See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Triboscience: I think the entry that you added ([1]) is not useful, so I removed it. Also, note that adding the same reference (or similar ones, or titles by the same author) to different articles, is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia, and sometimes gets interpreted as wp:PROMO or even wp:SPAM. In this case, you just added a book title to the Futher reading list, not as a reference to article content. In this respect, note that per wp:FURTHER: "Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links", and in that respect, please see wp:ELNO.

The place to discuss whether that particular entry would be appropriate in article Matter, is the article talk page (Talk:Matter). You can open an entry there (at the bottom) so other contributors to the article can join the discussion. Ultimately in Wikipedia everything is decided by wp:CONSENSUS and the best place to establish that, is on the article talk pages. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing of History of Cartamundi

Hi,

I saw you removed my history of Cartamundi. I work there and got all the information from them. I didn't use an external source that I can add to the article. Can I post without a source?

Thanks! Lotvanzwol (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lotvanzwol: no, certainly not. No content without proper, reliable sources, preferably wp:secondary sources—see our policy wp:VERIFIABILITY. Also, as you work there, please see wp:Conflict of interest. - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard Feynman scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Richard Feynman has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 11, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious

"Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia."

Thank you for contributions to quality articles related to physics and its people, such as Richard Feynman, restoring the quality of one of Wikpedias oldest articles in collaboration, for welcoming and warning countless new users, for formatting with constructive edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Final thoughts on Twin Paradox

I am constructing an example where, by definition, the spaceships have the same maximum cruising a velocity and the same rate of acceleration, the only difference is the amount of time spent at that velocity. But I agree it is 100% beside the point. Initially I said:

'The risk is that the reader goes "oh, acceleration" and continues to not have even a basic grasp of length contraction'. To which you replied:

'So I think the article is fairly complete and balanced, and that balance is well reflected in the lead, and i.m.o. we don't need to worry about readers going "oh, acceleration"'

Then along comes a user who states: 'However, in the space twin's perspective, the acceleration phase explains everything (see Relativity of simultaneity), even if you imagine infinite acceleration. '

Which is pretty much "oh, acceleration". I don't know what to tell you, the article is continuing to perpetuate confused thinking.

Again, here is my proposed restructuring of the resolution section. First have a section on length contraction, as described by Wheeler and Taylor. Then, a section of planes of simultaneity to talk about it from a clock perspective. Then, a section on "acceleration" that can link the sources that use it in the resolution, but note that it isn't crucial to understanding the Twin Paradox at all. Bkennedy99 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

The literature strongly disagrees with you. - DVdm (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the guy that assumes "Oh acceleration" was the guy who started editing the article to talk about its "crucial role" outside of the "role of acceleration" section. Maybe you should take a look at that. And the literature fully supports my position, again see Taylor and Wheeler - or Roger Penrose, who makes it perfectly clear that acceleration can be accounted for by smoothing the spacetime diagrams, and is not central to the clock paradox. Here's a paper from the Australian Journal of Physics from 1957:

End of abstract: "The principle of equivalence is completely irrelevant to the analysis and discussion of the relative retardation of clocks unless there is a real gravitational field to be taken into account and, except in such a case, the general theory of relativity can add nothing of physical significance to an analysis correctly made using the restricted theory"

Then later on page 261 it concludes: "It must not be overlooked that the principle of equivalence was utilized (Tolman 1934) to resolve, by means of the general theory, the so-called paradox of the restricted theory. In effect, the "paradox" was resolved by denying the applicability of the restricted theory to the problem and then using instead conclusions that had been derived from the restricted theory by means of the principle of equivalence. This torturous procedure succeeded in hiding the paradox rather than in resolving it ; for it scarcely need be pointed out that the procedure would be quite invalid if the restricted theory were indeed not properly applicable to the problem considered. However, the resolution of the "paradox" in Section IV above and the subsequent discussion show that the general theory can contribute nothing of physical significance to an analysis properly carried out by means of the restricted theory except when there are permanent gravitational fields to be taken into account, as in the case analysed by Mikhail (1952)"

Again, you simply do not need acceleration / gravitational time dilation and general relativity. The literature supports this position quite clearly, and the journal article is correct in pointing out that talking about acceleration hides the solution rather than solves it. Bkennedy99 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it strongly agrees with me. But ignore it for a sec. What do you, someone familiar with the Twin Paradox, think? Does acceleration play a role in explaining the paradox? A crucial role? Or no role? Because if you say "crucial role", then this is all pretty pointless. Bkennedy99 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You still seem to think that invoking acceleration is equivalent to invoking general relativity. - DVdm (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Solutions that attribute a crucial role to acceleration sometimes are using the (The Equivalence Principle), and therefore attributing the difference in clock time to gravitational time dilation. This stands opposed to using only relative velocity time dilation to account for the clock differences. An example of the former treatment is in the Ohanian textbook cited at the top of the article that flat-out says it's gravitational time dilation. Even in the main article, there is a big section on accelerated frames of reference and gravitational time dilation.

Yes, you can mention acceleration without invoking GR in order to make it clear that acceleration doesn't "break" SR, and that you can happily have one curvy world line instead of two angular ones. In these approaches, acceleration is not "crucial" in the sense that it explains the time gap, it just means it is being accounted for. Bkennedy99 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, solutions that attribute a crucial role to acceleration sometimes are using the EP. Sometimes. The old-fashioned ones. Let them. - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, let them - but not in the section called "Resolution of the paradox in special relativity". Solutions that talk about "acceleration" and "non-inertial frames" are wading into this territory. How about adding a section called "Resolution of the paradox in general relativity" in which the time dilation is conceptually caused by gravitational time dilation (via acceleration and the equivalence principle). Then the "Resolution of the paradox in special relativity" section would note that acceleration isn't crucial to that version of the solution, and in fact can be discarded as irrelevant (link to the the journal article I quoted above). Also, the next section called "A non space-time approach" talks about clock transfers from outbound to inbound travelers. This is a spacetime approach and should be under the "Resolution of the paradox in special relativity" section. Bkennedy99 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes,solutions that talk about "acceleration" and "non-inertial frames" are wading into this territory. Indeed, special relativity has no problem with acceleration or with non-inertial frames. Let them wade, as they belong there. You still seem to think that non-inertial frames belong in general relativity. - DVdm (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(restarting indents) Right - but there is a *huge* difference between "special relativity has no problem with acceleration or with non-inertial frames" and "acceleration and non-inertial frames are crucial to explaining the paradox in special relativity". Do you see the distinction around this word "crucial"?

The reason why I am hammering on this is because the "paradox" to someone with a casual understanding of physics is something like "all motion is relative, so all effects should be symmetrical". Noting this, someone edited the article to then say "This acceleration, measurable with an accelerometer, makes his rest frame temporarily non-inertial. This reveals a crucial asymmetry between the twins's perspectives". No no no, this is completely misleading, and someone reading this will not understand how special relativity works. The asymmetry is actually that one twin is moving with respect to the start and destination, while the other twin is at rest with respect to the start and destination. Thus, each twin has a different observed distance of the journey. That's it! The "imagine a giant ruler" thought device makes this crystal clear. Once the reader has this basic picture, the rest is plain old special relativity. All the acceleration talk obscures this, and we know this because it's really easy to construct acceleration-free modifications that reveal that acceleration and non-inertial frames are not in fact crucial. This is the actual explanation that should be used in the "special relativity" section, and it will help readers get their heads around the paradox far more effectively than what is there now. Just making the first paragraph under "Resolution of the paradox in special relativity" an explanation along these lines would go a long way. How about I take a shot at rewording it? Bkennedy99 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

But the article does not say that "acceleration and non-inertial frames are crucial to explaining the paradox in special relativity". I don't see any reason to make a change. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph directly under "Resolution of the paradox in special relativity" says "Although both twins can legitimately claim that they are at rest in their own frame, only the traveling twin experiences acceleration when the spaceship engines are turned on. This acceleration, measurable with an accelerometer, makes his rest frame temporarily non-inertial. This reveals a crucial asymmetry between the twins's perspectives". And as I and various other sources have pointed out, this "crucial asymmetry" is not crucial at all with respect to SR. Specifically, this edit is the problem. I'm confused how you can not characterize this paragraph, which explicitly talks about the "crucial asymmetry" of acceleration, as anything but "acceleration and non-inertial frames are crucial to explaining the paradox in special relativity" given that it is in the lead paragraph of "Resolution of the paradox in special relativity" Bkennedy99 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I wouldn't mind undoing that edit by user Paolo.dL (hereby pinged). After all, it is not sourced. - DVdm (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Do I need a source to say that the crucial difference between the two twins is that one of them stays an inertial observer throughout the experiment and the other does not? In other words, one twin "switches frames" and the other does not. If both twins were space twins, traveling at the same speed in opposite directions and coming back to Earth, both would need to "switch frames" and they would have the same age at the end of the trip.

Also, do I need a source to say that (in short) "inertial" means "not accelerating"? I am just using the definition of the term "inertial". In other words, you need acceleration (non-null net force) to switch frames. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Paolo, as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to undo the edit. It is user Bkennedy99 who objected to it, not me. But the more sources we have, the better. - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Imagine a giant ruler" is a useful idea. I guess that the thought experiment would work even if Earth was accelerating together with the destination, i.e. even if the Earth twin was not an inertial observer. That's a generalized version of the thought experiment. The simplest version, in which Earth is not accelerating, is equally "paradoxical", but I am glad we have an elegant solution for the generalized version as well.

Then again, whatever version you study, when you describe everything from the space twin's perspective, you are forced to conclude that the phase in which the space twin accelerates to "switch frames" is the only part of the trip in which the Earth twin ages more quickly than the space twin (due to a change in simultaneous hyperplane orientation). During the constant speed phases, the Earth twin ages more slowly! In this perspective, it is misleading to say that acceleration plays no role. And this perspective is perfectly legitimate, by the principle of relativity.

Moreover, the paradox is not fully solved unless you explore both perspectives. The appearently paradoxical idea is that time dilation works both ways...

Paolo.dL (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For beta testing these changes to the English Wikipedia's Huggle configuration. This would not have been possible without your help, and you have earned a permanent mention in the version history of this central configuration file. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be able to assist! Yum!

Edited the page Yashika Aannand

I corrected a lot of mistakes and wrong information on that page it was all restored why ? I can provide with links for all the corrections made .mostly YouTube . Can you please revert back my changes . Was editing painstakingly for a long while only to see everything back to all the wrong information . Even her name is spelled wrong . Promanager101 (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All I did was this: [2]. - DVdm (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Length contraction

Dear DVdm

Thanks for your message. I uploaded the article in researchgate for more than 8 months. So far no one has refuted the outcome of the article, thus I thought it is acceptable to include it in Wikipedia. If you think my result is not correct then I am more than happy to accept its removal. But if it is right there is no justification for deleting it. Ziaedin shafiei (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ziaedin shafiei: your work will not be acceptable in Wikipedia before it is cited in the established literature. See wp:Primary sources, wp:Secondary sources, wp:UNDUE and wp:FRINGE. Give it a decade or so. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

207.166.224.2

207.166.224.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just came off of a six month block, went right back to vandalizing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: could be another person with the same IP. Will report at wp:AIV if they continue. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Apologies for the unsourced edit. Revised and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.229 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the sourced redo. - DVdm (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jefimenko edits

Hey, sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place, it's been a while since i've been on wikipedia and I've forgotten most things :) Had a question re:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oleg_D._Jefimenko&oldid=prev&diff=842342751 - I'm not sure I understand why this needs a "solid second source" - this page is about Jefimenko and this is straight out of his book, why is a second source necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

@Marquinho: yes, that edit was mistaken, as I had explained in the edit summary of the revert of my undo, for the reason that in an article about the author, a factual statement with a wp:primary source is OK. However, in the artcle Alternatives to general relativity such a source is not sufficient ([3]). There we need wp:secondary sources. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The right of the Majority and the term KUKI

Hi,
  I appreciate your contribution but I would like to point out to you that you post incorrect information about the Kuki people. 

  Firstly , you are confuse about the term Kuki. You should know that Kuki and Chin are two different term and two different people though they are related by blood. You are also confuse about 'Mizos' and 'Zomis". These two terms were never use by any tribe in our history. These are new invented terms and have no connection with the Kuki Tribe(but with clans). 
  Secondly, when it comes to religion, Christianity is followed by 99% of the Kuki Tribes. Out of the remaining 1% half of them are Pagans- followers of their forefathers religion, Atheist , Agnostic and Judaism. Less than or about 0.5% of them believe that they are one of the lost tribe of Israel even though there is no proof. The fact that they claim to be the lost tribe of Israel defies logic and common sense. You are deliberately promoting this falsehood about 0.5% of the people and not the side of 99.5 %. Why promote internal division among us?
  I can only conclude that you are not a Kuki and clearly you have no idea of what you are posting here about my people-the Kuki People.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amulmilk (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC) 

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

@Amulmilk: you need to go to the article talk page Talk:Kuki people and propose your edit to the other article contributors. If nobody replies within, let's say, 3 days or so, then by all means go ahead and make your edit to the article, referring to the article talk page in your edit summary. Good luck.

Also note that all your edits need wp:reliable sources. Saying that you belong to some people is not sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hi. Regarding the message you left on my talk page — that's okay :) JackintheBox (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: something seems to be wrong with the most recent versions of Huggle. There was a major update a few days ago. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Riffian people

Hello DVdm, you made a mistake on the "Riffian people" page, I did provide a source Tribes of the Rif Coon, Carleton S. (Carleton Stevens), 1904-1981, so please would you mind stopping editing the page? Thank you.Ronaldoremi1 (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Ronaldoremi1.

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — see Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Ronaldoremi1: please provide the publisher, the date of publishing, the exact page number and the ISBN. See wp:citing sources. If you have the information but don't know how to format it, let me know, and I'll help... - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up: see this. - DVdm (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance

Okay, so what do you suggest then?Wizymon (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wizymon: I suggest that you look at the edit summaries of the editors who undid your edit, and that you follow the link to wp:BRD that user Just plain Bill provided in his second revert. - DVdm (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Million Dollar Extreme

Hey you undid my edit because it was "unconstructive". That's fucking dumb. That's what the source says, it should stay in. I wasn't vandalizing anything, I was editing the article to be more accurate. 73.225.69.24 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@73.225.69.24: yes, my mistake. I should have checked the source. I don't know about the fucking dumbness, but I admit it was wrong. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Time dilation

Now blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0::/64 for another month. Sigh. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @EdJohnston:, thanks. - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Grow up

This was an utterly stupid edit. Apparently you've developed some kind of grudge against me, based on my improvements to an article which you decided for no apparent reason that you objected to. Get over it. Reedsrecap (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reedsrecap: yes, I had missed the colon, without which it would have been a school book example of wp:NOTSEEALSO. With it, it probably can pass, which is why I immediately undid my revert. Keep up the good work, and let famous remarks remain famous. Getting over it, DVdm (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Duh, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, I knew it :-| - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Square root

I didn't write in the article that square roots are not unary operations. Check out Category:Square roots and the categories it is in. See: WP:Category structure. Hyacinth (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, categories - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: ah, it's gone. Perfect! - DVdm (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Coriolis Force "Intuitive explanation"

Hi,

I updated the "Intuitive explanation" section of the Coriolis Force page. The prior version provided a very opaque description that lacked much useful information and is not algined with the deeper physics/equations provided in the rest of the page.

My new version seeks to provide a clear text explanation of these underlying physics in as simple of terms as possible. You noted that I did not provide sources for this information. Here is a viable reference: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/faculty/Cook/Coriolis_force.doc . Does this work?

Thanks, Dan Drchavas (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Drchavas, i.m.o. your new version is much less of a really intuitive explanation than the original one, and, more importantly, it is wp:unsourced. You might bring this to the article talk page, but please do bring a reliable source. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. The bigger issue is that the current intuitive version is also fundamentally wrong: bending in the opposite direction to our actual motion opposite implies motion is reversed, which is incorrect. The remaining sentences are not comprehensible to me, and I am a professor of atmospheric physics. I believe a description that uses basic physical concepts and explains the effect in the context of motion on the Earth (i.e. North/South/East/West) would be much more useful. To me the term intuitive would answer the layperson's question why is an object turned when moving in the atmosphere?" The current text does not achieve this.

The reference I provided above is a derivation of what is described in this text and is taken from a Cornell University course. I use it in my introductory atmospheric science course at Purdue University. If a proper published reference is more desirable, it is also discussed in this book, which is standard in atmospheric science: Holton, J.R. and Hakim, G.J., 2012. An introduction to dynamic meteorology (Vol. 88). Academic press.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Dan

Drchavas (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the real place to bring this up, is the article talk page Talk:Coriolis force where other contributors can have their say and share their thouights. The source that you mentioned above does not qualify as a reliable source. We really need something that satifies Wikipedia's standard, as in wp:RS. Regarding your claim of expertise, please see point 6 of the essay Wikipedia:Expert editors#Advice for expert editors. Point 7 is worth reading as well. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'll take a look, thanks. Dan Drchavas (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Bell's spaceship paradox:

I'm sorry, I was going to make a replacement. An article by Harry Lass has been discovered which essentially changes the idea of the paradox.I tried to outline the solution of the problem, following this article.

HarryZakharov I do not mind if someone is more experienced and knows English. I'm not young and it's hard for me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryZakharov (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your request

Hello DVdm,

Your request regarding Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein, in my talk page, seems as a dictatorship-style of mouth shutting.

I am very amazed by the fact that some Wikipedia editors look for excuses how to avoid writing some simple basic well-known historic facts.

If this won't be corrected, I am planning to initiate a wide protest of removing the prefixes "Christian", "American", "British" from every wbepage in the internet - as many as possible.

טחינה (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Coriolis

Dear DVdm

It is obvious to anyone with a physics background that the "intuitive text" paragraph that I removed is incorrect. You cannot use angular momentum conservation to provide an "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis since angular momentum is not conserved in a non-inertial referecne frame. See the mathematical details that are presented in the later part of the Wikipage. That mathematical derivation contraditcs the intuitive explanation you keep trying to re-instate and that I keep trying to correct.

The number one viewed video on the internet explaining Coriolis is by PBS NOVA. That video has the same intuitive explanation that has been used in the past on the Wikipage for Coriolis. If you now goto to the NOVA web apge you will see they have remioved the video because I have pointed out that it is wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/coriolis-effect.html

So, how do you want to proceed here with Wikipedica coriolis? The old "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis on Wikipage is dead wrong. It seems you do personally not understand the physics here and are serving as a block to having this corrected. The NOVA explanation will be corrected going forward and a new video produced, and I will see that likewise the Wikipedia page is corrected. Blatant false scientific information being on Wikipedia out of pure ingonrance by an editor is not an acceptable way forward for me. This page will be conrrected.

Davidmholland (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)davidmholland

The article talk page is where this should be discussed. If you continue reverting to your version in the article itself, you will be blocked for edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Responded to your comment on my page.

I look forward to hearing from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofdominion (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad edits

Hi there. After creating an account here, the Wikipedia asked me to edit a random article and I edit just what I noticed. The similar edits were on the next article. Sorry, if it was some kind of rules violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard Willkins (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you please answer on your own talk page? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Misplacing my introduction

Thank you DVdm for your informing me of my error in misplacing my introduction on User:Michael Z Freeman page rather than on on his Talk page. Sincerely Miistermagico (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Mental block towards east

Hello DVdm

it appears you have a mental block in accepting any discovery / invention that was made in the east before the Europeans. Perhaps a racial prejudice ? Have an open mind mate. Don't forget that when Europeans were living in caves, the Asians were living in well architected buildings with underground drainage system. It is the fact that Indians had documented how to predict eclipses 1000 yrs ago and how that is possible without knowing about gravity ? Have some common sense before you reject my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunayanaa (talk • contribs) 09:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

I carefully explained the problems of your edit on your talk page. And see wp:AGF and wp:NPA. - DVdm (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Sunayanaa, they can have predicted eclipses by keeping note of the number of years and days between them. Any child can do that without knowing about gravity. - DVdm (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Parody religion and Pastafarianism

Dear DVdm, I believe you have made a mistake in reverting my edit in Parody Religion. I'll post a message explaining my arguments in Parody Religion's talk page, and you can explain to me why you do not share this view. An agreement can almost certainly be reached. Thanks a lot, RomBRNS - — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomBRNS (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

@RomBRNS: yes, Talk:Parody religion is definitely the place to talk about this. Other contributors to the article can then contribute. Don't forget to sign your messages. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Talking

I'll Stop talking45.49.226.155 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As long as, on article talk pages, you talk about improving the articles, there is nothing wrong with talking on Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For this, you have a final warning on your user talk page now. - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

stopped talking but could not delete my last entry at Present, it is gone now thanks45.49.226.155 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Cross reference to another wiki page

You have reverted my changes to Newton's law of universal gravitation where I cross referenced to another wiki page . You have said that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"

If one wiki page can not refer to another wiki page, then most of wiki pages have to be deleted.'

If the content of the wiki page that I referred to is un reliable, how that page exists ?

It appears you have decided that I should not make any changes and you want to stick to it with lame excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunayanaa (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages.

@Sunayanaa: I have not reverted your changes. Someone else did. I just explained on your talk page why they did that. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

moc^2

Hi!

I just wonder why my edit was reverted, my school litterature and even Wikipedia itself clearly states that the rest mass is the correct answer. I would however appreciate if you could tell me how that equation is derived because I have searched Wikipedia for a answer but never found one so to make it clear, I do not understand these things but just wanted it to be correct with both what my school litterature says and actually, what wikipedia itself says:

Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

Best regards, Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoppson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

@Knoppson: Hi Roger, when you read the article Mass in special relativity, you will notice that througout the rest mass is called $m$, except where the "older" symbol $m_{0}$ is discussed in its historical context. It is also explained why $m$ is preferred. On the other hand, in the article Energy–momentum relation, indeed the rest mass is called $m_{0}$. We can't just make a change like you did here, without changing the entire article. Of course we can't do that in Mass in special relativity without severely damaging that historical section. So articles tend to use one or the other, and stay that way. Making a full change would probably require a proposal on the article talk page, to be discussed with the other contributors.

The derivation of the equation can be found in the cited sources in both articles. I'd recommend Taylor and Wheeler. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)]

Firstly please forgive me for not remembering to use tildes, it has been a long time since I've been here.

Secondly thank you for answering my question, now I understand better why things are as they are with regard to moc^2. I do however think that your reasoning is wrong because you really can't have one way of denoting rest mass in one article and another way of denoting rest mass in another, that is just confusing. Now, I know so very little about these complex things but if it wasn't for the fact that I know so little I would happilly contribute to a more consensus Wikipedia when it comes to relativistic energy. However, I am so unsure about these things that I really can't contribute, I did however think I made a contribution with my change. Best regards, Roger Knoppson (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. Hoping you don't mind, I have slightly reformatted your reply along these guidelines.

No problem. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Super

Why did you undo my edit on Dragon Ball Super?

Wizymon (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wizymon: It was a mistake. I had two edits open at the same time. I misattributed yours and then cancelled the other. My mistake. - DVdm (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Tilicho Lake

You have asked for source to correct spelling mistakes. This is bizzare. I can understand asking for sources for factual/ material changes, but for spelling correction ? Threatening about blocking my account is high handed. Authority comes with lot of responsibility.

BTW, if you want proof whether kaka is indeed the correct sanskrit word for crow, visit https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kaka or http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=crow,&direct=es&script=&link=yes&mode=3

But expecting me to insert a ref link even for such a trivial spell correction is taking it too far and will clutter the page.

Hope this explains. I look forward to re-instating my changes

Sunayanaa (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sunayanaa: I did not ask for a source to correct spelling mistakes. The explicitly cited source in the text uses a specific spelling. When we make a change (such as this) to something that is properly sourced, then we are supposed to (1) at least have a look at the cited source, and (2) if/when we decide to make a change that deviates from the source, we (3) leave an edit summary explaining what we are doing and why, and finally (4) we should find another source. You have been around on Wikipedia since 2007, so I think you should know these things by now.

And, by the way, see also Google Scholar and Books: that does not look like a spelling mistake, but like an alternative spelling. DVdm (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@DVdm: Accepting that to be an alternate spelling, why not provide both the spellings - alternate spelling in bracket ? There are enough examples with Kaka Bhusundi as the spelling, such as this Sunayanaa (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, why not indeed. So go ahead and wp:FIXIT. Don't forget to provide both sources. - DVdm (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Technology/Featured biography

Sorry for undo. I wanted to revert IP's edit. --Binod (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to put a Huh? on your talk page. And then a Huh? Ah! No problem. - DVdm (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Planets

Hi DVdm, I work for the publishing company that previously controlled the rights to this song. It is no longer copyright controlled in the U.S but may still be controlled in other countries with different copyright laws. Please reinstate my edit. 12.68.233.254 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the edit can be reinstated with a wp:reliable source. If you can provide such a source, I will reinstate it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LQ

I was surprised to see this, but even more surprised to see the rationale you quoted: "If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside..." The sentence fragment "never used LSD, never used cocaine, never used heroin or any of that other stuff" is not a "full sentence"—it couldn't stand alone—so the period cannot punctuate it. The period logically punctuates the enclosing sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey:, I agree that it is not a full sentence. It is of course the end of a full sentence, so I dragged it into the other part of the grey zone . Thanks for your message here—I was about to write this on your talk page. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

About my writing of the Ignorre prize

Hello DVdm, Thank you very much for writing the talk to me I’m writing this talk because I’d like you to understand what I want to do. I wanted to be able to go to items quickly without pushing each content. On the Wikipedia Ignor Prize page in Japanese there is the same thing as I did. I thought that this sentence can be used more conveniently by users. Since it may not be transmitted unless it is in Japanese, I write it in Japanese below I am sorry for my selfish writing.

(Japanese) 初めてお目にかかりますDVmd様。私は『舌先現象になります』と申します。お忙しいなか私にtalkをお書きになさり誠に有難うございます。私がDVmd様にtalkを致す理由は自分の考えを御理解していただきたかった次第であります。私が執筆はコンテンツを毎度押さなくとも直ちにその年の項目にいくことが出来るようにしたかったのです。日本語版ウイキペディアでは私が英語版でした執筆行為と類似しております。私はこの方が利用者にとってより良く利用できると思っておりました。 不甲斐ない英語で申し訳ありません

Regards, 舌先現象になります 舌先現象になります (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@舌先現象になります: hi, just so you know, we do not add such tables of content on the English Wikipedia. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hope

Thank you for your comment, and I hope you will not block me.Aetzbarr (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Aetzbarr: I can only report you at, for instance, wp:AIV. Then an administrator will take care of the blocking. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I am still here !

I feel more and more like an old (82) actor replaying endlessly the same final scene ! But when I detect an scientific anomaly I feel morally obliged to undertake an action.

So I returned to your refutation of Dingle. Dingle’s argument was obviously false. But not for the reason you exhibited ! You committed the same error !

You and Dingle mistook the rate of the clock with the measured time itself. I May 2017 I should have noticed that your false calculation induced you to write:

(3) rate A / rate B = 1/a  ?

(4) rate B / rate A = 1/a  ?

If that were true , that means that the rate of each clock would depend of it’s usage !

In “reductio ad absurdum “ that is an indirect demonstration of :

              rate A = rate B

« Il ne saurait pas en être autrement « 

Don’t mention the rates and your refutation will be valid !

Cordialement Chessfan (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Have another very careful look... until you get it... . Cheers and happy lichessing! - DVdm (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I got it ! Our dialogue would be easier if you added geometric algebra to your mathematical skills. You will find me easily if you look in French internet “algèbre géométrique « ... 🤫 Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessfan (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Subjective editing

Yes, please excuse me for "hot comments". Please note, that I believe, that editor Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) conducts subjective editing, which is not in accordance with WP:NPOW and is not solidly backed by reputable sources. I believe that you are not the supreme power here, so, could you please to let me know, how to bring this issue to the discussion? Can I appeal to a higher authority to resolve the issue? Best personal regards,Albert Gartinger (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Albert Gartinger: you should immediately stop making threats like "That's that. I will turn the whole article into a piece of smelly shit" and "I will ask my secretary to prepare a list of target audience. I will send thousand, or tens of thousands of emails. I have enough time". Next time I will report you at wp:ANI, and you can be 100% sure that you will get blocked. Believe me, you are one inch away from that.

Note that I don't think that you will get your way, as I agree with user Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs) on the dispute. His version is directly backed by a good source. Your version is wp:synthesis of sources, and therefore amounts to wp:original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have a content dispute that is not going to be resolved on the article talk page (or on user talk pages), you can find out what to do by reading the policy article wp:Dispute resolution. You'll see what to do there. Again, I'm pessimistic about your chances of success. - DVdm (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir! Thank you very much for your answer. Please note, that my analysis is solidly and directly backed by the celebrated paper of Albert Einstein "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES", $7, Theory of Doppler's principle and of aberration. Please note that Mr. Einstein gives Doppler shift formula for moving observer. However, the editor Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs) (who confessed himself, that Einstein is the "primary source"), relies on a little-known source. Please note, that my attempts to explain to the editor Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs), that the observer on the diagram must (or at least can) be moving, were met by fierce opposition, that contradicts to the mentioned above paper of A. Einstein, who clearly says, that the observer is moving. This editor Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs) willfully draws only moving sources. Apparently he is an ardent supporter of some physical theory, which assumes that there is only absolute motion of sources, but not observers. Dear Sir! Could you please to note, that such a theory is hardly backed by any reputable sources and sounds very quirky and unusual. I don't believe, that such a worthy and educated person like you, must cover violations of Wikipedia policies. Kind regards, Albert Gartinger (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please also note, that mentioned above Doppler shift formula in the paper of A. Einstein clearly indicates, that since the observer moves, observer's clock dilates (time dilation is assigned to moving observer, so according to Mr. Einstein, source's clock (which is at rest) ticks faster (square root is in denominator). That clearly contradicts to the very quirky claims in the chapter Mutual Time dilation of the article Spacetime. I suppose, that this way the editor Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs) knowingly and willingly wishes to lead readers astray in order to promote his original research, the theory of moving sources! Sincerely yours, Albert Gartinger (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

For now, I am not going into the technicalities on this. I'll take the sideline.

In addition to the policies to which I pointed in my previous message, do note that "primary sources" have a special meaning in Wikipedia. This was explained by PCH in this message. To save time, perhaps he should have pointed you to the relevant policy article. You find it here: wp:Primary sources. It is a section in the policy article wp:No original research to which I pointed above. Please read carefully, for if/when you go for extended dispute resolution, you will need to understand what is said there. - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to involve some more Wikipedia editors to this discussion, because now there are only two participants I - and Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk), each of us has his own reliable sources and interpretations of these sources. Is it allowed to post on other Wikipedia editor's talk pages invitation to participate in the discussion? Is other editor's talk page is a place to discuss the matter without formal rules, that apply to article's talk page? Thank you very much for your kind advice Albert Gartinger (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

See wp:Dispute resolution and wp:Dispute_resolution_requests. Your best best probably is one of the wp:Dispute_resolution_requests/Noticeboards, or wp:Requests_for_comment. - DVdm (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear DVdm (talk), I think that would be a bit premature rashly start initiating disputes, we are still in talks with Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk on his talk page. We have enough time. However, I have noted, that there are WikiProjects groups. Do you think it is appropriate to seek some advice there (which group? WikiProject Physics in regard of this diagram, particularly drawing moving observer in case a. I would like to clarify the situation whether it is convinient to draw moving observers on diagram. Thank you very much for your kind support and understanding Albert Gartinger (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics is the place to go. Open a little section and ask for advice and input about what's going at Talk:Spacetime. That should have the same effect as a formal WP:RFC. - DVdm (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Boldface in Lead

Please refer to WP:BOLDAVOID before reverting my edits. It states two things of note to us: the lead sentence shouldn’t be made unnatural by the bold and links shouldn’t be put in bold. IWI (chat) 10:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: please have a look at wp:Edit warring and wp:BRD. You made some bold edits ^{(pun intended)} and I reverted them. Now you should discuss, and then perhaps we could undo the reverts. Don't just undo and then try to discuss.

There are perhaps thousands of list articles that open with "The following is a list of ...." Are you going to subject them all to your treatment? - DVdm (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The main issue was links in boldface, which is never allowed. IWI (chat) 12:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the BRD is optional; when there is a guideline blatantly backing up my edit, we don’t need to discuss. IWI (chat) 12:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just be careful . - DVdm (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

leonardo lopez lujan

Thank you for your advice about my edit to this page. I have referenced it as you requested and restored my original edit. 205.239.98.30 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok. - DVdm (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

leonardo lopez lujan

Thank you for your advice about my edit to this page. I have referenced it as you requested and restored my original edit. 207.37.196.254 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

And OK too. - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thermal conductivity

Hi, the article on Thermal conductivity says that the phase velocity of longitudinal waves is much greater than for transverse waves, such that their group speed is also larger. I thought that must be a typo, as the phase velocity doesn't determine the group speed in general. Thinking about it, I guess since both dispersions are gapless and heat is carried mostly by long wavelength phonons, this is true, but perhaps still not obvious. Apologies for the stray incorrect "correction" :) 130.183.93.92 (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Moved to bottom per wp:TPG)

That's why Wikipedia demands sources . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Galileo

Hi @DVdm:. The lead sentence of Galileo is currently/recently under discussion on talk:Galileo. Please join in on the discussion. Best, James343e (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, see [4]. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Lorentz Transform

Hi, I recently made an edit to the Lorentz transform page. I'm not sure what you expected me to provide a source for, because my change was pretty much just some algebra to make things clearer. I was going back to change the plus signs back to minus signs when I saw that you reverted the whole thing, because the plus sign is for when you're moving the future world line to the positive direction, which is just a sign convention that is used only in some contexts, and so it wasn't appropriate. The rest is just algebra to make everything clearer, and it's directly related to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector#Pure_boosts_in_an_arbitrary_direction. When you draw a Minkowski diagram, you have an x and a ct axis, and the reason is so that the eigenvectors (which are the light-like vectors) are (1,1) and (1,-1), in other words, the line of light like event separations is at a 45 degree angle. For this reason (and so that the components have the same units), four vectors are typically written as (ct, x, y, z) for position, (E/c, p_x, p_y, p_z) or (E, cp_x, cp_y, cp_z) for four momentum, or A = (phi/c, a_x, a_y, a_z) for the electromagnetic four potential and so on, which are discussed to some extent on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector. A source that supports what I'm saying is: http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/serrede/P436/Lecture_Notes/P436_Lect_16.pdf

I am a physics doctoral student, and so I don't remember all of the places I saw this clearer way to write it, but what I do know is that the first time I learned special relativity, the professor used the notation that is currently on the Lorentz transformation page, and people constantly made mistakes with it or couldn't keep the two straight etc, whereas writing it the way I did makes it very easy to remember, and it matches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector#Pure_boosts_in_an_arbitrary_direction except there sinh and cosh are used, and explaining how to get to that is something I could do. My aim with making this edit was to save many students the trouble that I had and that I have seen many fellow students have, and now that I am TAing, my students are having this same very difficulty. For the nice way, you only need to remember a very simple matrix, ${\begin{pmatrix}ct'\\x'\end{pmatrix}}=\gamma {\begin{pmatrix}1&-\beta \\-\beta &1\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}ct\\x\end{pmatrix}}$

Obviously, most people won't actually know about matrices, so that's why I didn't write it like this, but the point is how simple and symmetric it is. Given this, is my edit not sensible? Mr. HelloBye (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Lecture notes tend to have only a transient duration on the web, so if you intend to use the P436 lecture notes as a source, be sure to use an archived link to the pdf (Internet Archive or Webcite) in addition to the current link. Be sure that you proof your changes in your sandbox before publishing them in main space! A favorite trick of vandals nowadays is to open a user name for vandalism purposes, and to make subtle changes that will not get detected by a bot and may sneak by a human monitor. All of us who regularly patrol for vandalism tend to be very suspicious of sign errors! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr. HelloBye (talk · contribs), I know the form that you proposed, but the current form of the transformation seems more common. If we want Wikipedia to say that another form is the simplest, then we preferably need a relevant, established book source—as opposed to some lecture notes by some lecturer—that indeed says that is the simplest form. Of course, we also should make sure that we have the signs correct. The Wikipedia way is wp:reliable sources and wp:secondary sources. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I will look further for a book with this convention, but I honestly imagined that it is readily apparent/self evident that this way is the simpler way to write it. As for the sandbox, I'm fairly new to editing for wikipedia, so I don't know what that is. Obviously, my intent is to help newbies here. There's enough weird things about special relativity, and writing the equation in a relatively obtuse way only serves to exacerbate this. The reason for the negative sign is that that's when you are changing to the frame that is moving in the positive direction, and as I said, when I realized that was what was indeed originally intended, I went to change the sign back to negative. Can you at least see anything wrong with adding the expression that I propose like "with some algebra, it can be rewritten this way"? I don't need to make the claim that this way is most simple. Really, I just think it would help relativity newbies to see this way of writing it as well. Part of the issue with a book source in this situation is that there are traditions in any subject being taught (this is one of them), and so most authors just follow the group with something like this. I'm sure there's a book somewhere with this way of writing it, but I am not sure how I would find it and for what? With some simple algebra is a perfectly reasonable thing for an author to say, and I was able to find in a couple minutes two examples of wikipedia articles using it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view#Macro_photography and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_number#Other_properties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. HelloBye (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

That "relatively obtuse" way to write the transformation is generally used in the literature, and reflecting what is written in the literature, is what, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is all about: to reflect the established literature—see wp:Five pillars and wp:Neutral point of view. I know that the other form is trivially equivalent, but in this article Lorentz transformation the other form is used (and sourced) throughout, so there is no reason to change that. I don't think there's a problem if we add that other form. I have done so: [5]. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, what you did is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for. Cheerio! Mr. HelloBye (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not happy with Special relativity article

I'm seriously thinking of downgrading Special relativity from B-class to C-class. I just finished giving it a thorough reading, and it strikes me as a junk pile of separate essays with no clear focus and which are not ordered in any rational fashion. A certain amount smells like original research. Not necessarily wrong, but either unsourced or idiosyncratically sourced. (Really now, a reference to the entire book The Road to Reality without a page number just does not qualify as a legitimate source. Likewise, a reference without page numbers to an old Dover reprint with a dated approach to the subject is just a pretend reference.)

Problem is, if I downgrade the article, I'd feel obligated to rewrite the article. Unlike Relativistic Doppler effect, which took only 10 days to get into a basically decent shape (although I keep finding small things that need tweaking), Special relativity would be a several months-long project, and I'm just not up to it.

Thoughts? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire article, so I can't assess its condition. Its one of many articles that I guard against vandalism/mistakes/nonsense, and to which I only made small sourced contributions. Perhaps it's best to clean it from the obvious junk, as opposed to rewriting. The latter might (re-)open a can of worms . - DVdm (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've limited myself so far to rearranging the article to push the unsourced (and requiring junior-senior level math skills) sections to the end, adding transitional phrases, and fixing undecipherable figures. I am now expanding a few sections. I am still unhappy with the article, having discovered that the approach of the earliest authors was to derive everything from the single postulate of universal Lorentz covariance. To me, this means that from a usefulness to primary audience standpoint (which I generally assume to be high school to lower division college students), it will never achieve B-class status. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. To me, it looks fine. - DVdm (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Still smells like a "C" article to me, after three weeks of work. The article doesn't know its focus. The seams are showing between the separate pieces. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps yes. You know that I don't have the time (nor the patience, nor the ambition) to review long articles or overhauls thereof, but I'm sure you'll be able to work it out with Purgy and/or others, and hone it to near perfection. Good luck! DVdm (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding a reference

I used Graham Woan's "The Cambridge Handbook of Physics Formulas" (Cambridge University Press, y2000) for almost all of my data and calculations. John Dewey's "How We Think" is a very old book, though the author was the designer of the Dewey Decimal System used in libraries all over the world. I have several books by Albert Einstein; two are The Principle of Relativity" and "The Meaning of Relativity". Also, Max Planck's "A Survey of Physical theory"is invaluable in understanding light waves.

Other references can be provided if necessary. (I was raised in Richland, near Hanford where material for the atomic bomb was manufactured, have visited Nagasaki, and took a BA in Physics at Reed in Portland.) I hope it is possible to re-establish my talk page. SyntheticET (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SyntheticET: I undid your edit because it was unsourced, and —frankly— it looked like pseudo-scientific nonsense to me—see wp:FRINGE, wp:UNDUE, wp:NOR, and wp:Secondary sources. Even with a source, it probably doesn't stand a chance of surviving here. One sentence in your edit is indeed correct and can be properly sourced: "Planck Time is dependent only on the action quantum, the speed of light, and the universal gravitational constant", but on its own it is not very relevant in this article. Planck time is already sufficiently mentioned (and wp:Wikilinked) in the section Time#Quantized time. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello DVdm,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DVdm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in the Jack Handy quote you have displayed on your header, thought I'd let you know. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed! Thanks . - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

NP. I put that Zappa article up for FA a decade ago (declined at that time) and it's been on my watchlist since then. I saw the change at the article prior to your revert, and I left it. It's a diametric opposite of what was there, but I really can't be persuaded one way or the other whether Zappa's interest was declining or intensifying at the end of his life. I shared the Handey quote in a FB group and it got a lot of laughs. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hamster Sandwich: ha, I see what you mean, and what the anon editor might have meant. I have clarified the wording along the lines of what I think was originally meant: [6]. As this could be open for debate, a citation would be welcome though: [7]. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not do anything Am149072 (talk)

You left a message on my talk page stating that i changed a page on Woolly Mammoth. I have NOT changes it. I believe my account may have been hacked, or logged into by someone else. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am149072 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

@Am149072: time to change your password. This edit was made with your username. If someone else used your username, then you can consider the message being aimed at that person. If changing your password does not help, you can find out what to do at our information page Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. - DVdm (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello DVdm,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

about salah page edit

Hi...I wanted to apologize if any inconvenience was given to you on my part.I guess I didn't gave a detailed explanation of why I edited some parts of salah article which made it looked like I wasn't being constructive.Next time I will be careful to provide detailed explainations with references as well+hyperthreaded links to support.I invite you to read those editions I do next time in detail and ask me questions if you have any confusions.I will be happy to answer.(Davidroth101 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC))

WP:RM/TR: Superseded scientific theories → Superseded theories

Since you contested move, but Superseded scientific theories was originally a redirect, so I just change this redirect to Superseded scientific theory in order to fix double redirect, cheers. Hhkohh (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thx, Hhkohh. - DVdm (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)