User talk:DVdm/Archive 2012

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

Talkback

Hello, DVdm. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your revisions on Wikipedia:Formal organization

DVdm: I appreciate your interest in this article. The documentation on WP of how it works is scattered and sometimes is ambiguous or hard to interpret, so the more help provided, the better this article will become. Brews ohare (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DVdm: I have rearranged and partially rewritten the section Wikipedia:Formal organization#Administrators. You may wish to take a look at it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks good - still, from a distance of course ;-) - Cheers and happy New Twelve. - DVdm (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for dealing with this vandal. I find it disturbing that he dare have the cheek to say what he did to me considering the extensive work I've done on articles relating to his football club. Not least to mention that his edits are plain wrong, as per this. I think he's the one who needs to "read the news" more closely. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only the news, but also the messages on their user talk page. And if people would only go to the article talk page before going into attack/berserk mode. Sigh. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me

OK, this[1] flabbergasts me. Perhaps my wording was in error; but they do always refer to these as "M Class" on the shows and in the films. Suggestion... instead of reverting me and rather testily accusing me of error? I do not want to be out of line, but I'm getting awfully tired, not of you watching over my edits so much as the snitty comments and reversions. Help in some way, don't just crow at me and revert! Is that clear?Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit added unsourced and false information, as you can see with the Google search I gave in my edit summary. Had you given an edit summary explaining what you explained just now, then perhaps I would have made a little change in stead of an undo. Suggestion: do not expect others to smell what you have in mind, but express it in your edit summaries. It's slightly better now, and perhaps factually correct, but the reason given in your edit summary is 100% orthogonal to wp:Verifiability, and the addition is still unsourced, so I have added a {{cn}}-tag. Does this help? - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, regarding this[2], how many episodes of which series would you like me to quote as sources? As to being helpful, if you stopped approaching things like a computer and more like a person, you'd see I am correct. So, which refs do you wish? Spanning how far back in time? My brothers and I made jokes about "M-class planets" very likely before you were born. I only want time to call up the episodes.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 14:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are becoming tiresome. If you do not cease your pursuit of my edits only to revert them, I will carry this to the next level and report you for stalking. Enough is enough, and I am not amused by your little games.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re your first reply: Alas, you and your brother are not considered to be wp:reliable sources for Wikipedia either. Anyway, your point seems to be moot now.

Re your second repply: I am not playing games. Just watching over some articles. That last edit was a classic case of wp:OR, so I undid it - twice now. Please wp:AGF and don't take it personal. - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note. I have removed this and this as personal attacks. Please stop assuming bad faith. - DVdm (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note. You bring in EEMIV to help you with this very sad little game, which you seem to think is excellent vigilance over articles. You're damned right I'll "take it personal" when you are stalking my edits, then preaching AGF. Do you think I have forgot about EEMIV? I have nothing now except you laughing at me. Keep this up and it will come before ANI. You think I cannot sense a setup?Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 14:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "You bring in EEMIV to help you with this very sad little game": I did not bring anyone in. I have never even heard of EEMVI. This is yet another blatant assumption of bad faith. You really need to stop this. Your next (similar) edits to my talk page will be reverted without any further comment. - DVdm (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I now see that I have inadvertently stepped into an ongoing editor relationship issue, but see my remark at User talk:Djathinkimacowboy section Use of the word "ironically" in Hercule Poirot‎‎ --hulmem (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit is indeed a good example of editorialising, but i.m.o. it is also original research, as the source in no way supports the usage of the word. It is merely DJ's opinion and interpretation. Cheers and thanks for passing by. - DVdm (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All right, invited or not, I will withdraw my unworthy remarks DVdm. But this is not about that one word (which I did not originally place in there by the way). This is about you chasing me all over Wikipedia and making me feel upset. Sorry to be frank, but I thought I could count on you. You're making me feel otherwise, so all I wanted to know was why you were doing it. I could appreciate the assistance, if given properly. As I said, you chose instead to follow me about and revert my edits at a furious rate. I don't appreciate it. Find something else to do besides chasing and stalking my edits.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 04:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You should not have come here to discuss an edit at Class M planet. We have article talk pages to discuss article edits. Please stop using user talk pages for that — in other words, don't take it personally, because it isn't.

On a personal note, since we're here now: I am not "chasing you around" to "revert your edits at a furious rate". I am here to improve Wikpedia. This is the 4th time I ask in 24 hours: please stop assuming bad faith. An anonymous newbie would probably have been blocked by now. If the way it goes here really makes you feel upset, if you are "starting to feel this is a waste instead of the nice hobby it once was", or if you think that this is some kind of war with winners and losers, then surely Wikipedia cannot be a healthy place for you.

Bottom line: don't take article edits personally. - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"This is the 4th time I ask in 24 hours: please stop assuming bad faith." Please do not patronise me in that way, or in any of your other favourite ways. You preach AGF to use it as a smokescreen, nothing more. You did not assume good faith on my part when reverting edits. Your stealing words from my posts to other editors and trying to throw them back in my teeth is no fine demonstration of it either. Fine actions for an editor who preaches AGF. Don't threaten me anymore, it is wearying and it is nonsense. Self-righteousness is no better than incivility: it is the worst manifestation of it. Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 10:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the 5th time I ask in 25 hours: please stop assuming bad faith. - DVdm (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll find I have stopped. Have you? Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 11:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that I will not have to ask a 6th time. Stopping doing something starts now and takes forever. I haven't smoked since 2001, but I will only really have stopped smoking when I'm no longer among the living. The keyword is perseverance. - DVdm (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you quit in 2001 I'd have to say you're positively afire right now. ;) Djathinkimacowboy^(yell)

This is the 6th time I ask: please stop assuming bad faith as you did here: "I'd like to add something about DVdm which you clearly refuse to acknowledge. You actually said it: DVdm "appears to be"... and that's the skill I've noted here. Everything such people do appears to be something. It appears to be something other than what it truly is." (emphasis added to bad faith assumptions). - DVdm (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, complete with bold font. Tell you what: stop lecturing others until you've learned the real meaning of AGF. So now I am asking you for... what, the nth time? Do you think my complaining of your actions is in bad faith? Think about your position and your answer. It makes no matter to me now. You have only to answer to yourself. Knock yourself out with your reply... I'm wasting no further time or keyboard strokes on you.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{vandals' playground} 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Moirai

Sorry about that ... the page move is necessary and will hoepfully be done soon. I've taken down the maintenance deletion tag so that the redirect still works in the meantime. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem with me. Good job. - DVdm (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My gratitude

My sincerest thanks for this[3]. It is no surprise there are hateful, angry people like that... and always a happy surpise when actions like yours occur in the face of it all.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{chase me thru the cemetery} 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Don't take it personal. - DVdm (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fedora needs help... Hermain Cain tipped my scales

Would you be willing to come take a look at this[4] and comment? I'll respect you commenting again on the subject, even if we disagree. Please reply my talk page or leave a Whisperback or Talkback template.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 12:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I don't do Whisperbacks or Talkbacks. I commented here and here on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So glad to find someone else who thinks whispering and talkbacks are tiresome.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 13:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fedora refpunc

I appreciate your vigilance, though perhaps not as vigilant as I'd hoped. I want you to know that I did not do this[5], at least not that I am aware of having done. I would never do a thing like that, so I did not undo any proper wp:REFPUNC edits. And what is this[6]? I see no changes nor do I see that you reverted anything here. Please reply my talk page if you wish.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 13:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You made this edit, undoing a unit and refpunc edit by Favovian. So I corrected the refpunc part.

This edit removed an extra space. See User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff, an option you can enable on your "My preferences, Gadgets, Editing, wikEdDiff". When you enable it, you get a Delta-button that will make the edit visible. DVdm (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Alert

You may wish to read[7].--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 14:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop putting such messages on my talk page. I have a watchlist. - DVdm (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, duly noted. I didn't know trying to be helpful was considered such a nuisance these days.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 16:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice, required

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Fedora". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djathinkimacowboy (talk • contribs)

I don't see why there should be a DRN entry. We have article talk pages for this. - DVdm (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't? Sorry to hear that. Let's see where it goes. I think I am correct in this. However, I'll be willing to bet that some gasbag comes along and says since it's an orphan article and it's just me and you, forget it. They do that all the time. So what is your big worry?--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 16:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that talking about Wikipedia contributors in terms of "gasbags" is a good idea. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't like to address what is important, just the nitpicking games. Well, I don't think ignoring your side of the input at the DRN board is good, either.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you create a account

I need help --94.197.145.225 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be a link Log in/Create an account in the right top corner of the window. If there isn't, try to click the bold blue link here in the previous sentence. Good luck and let me know how it went! - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Isola del Giglio

I saw that your revert has been reverted again. I've requested page protection, because I think there is some sockpuppetry involved in the disruptive editing of new users. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure there's something fishy going on there. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, someone keeps reverting my rvvs, to put in the incorrect "White Christmas", instead of "Goat", and I've already reverted the article twice today, so I don't want to get blocked either for 3RR. I've also reported one of the usernames, because it has "Bot" in the title, and I'm sure it's not a bot. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The "bot" was just another instance of WideOpenInternet. No reason to be afraid of 3RR when reverting obvious vandalism. Cheers and keep up the good work. - DVdm (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Userpage Shield
		In recognition of reverts to Vandalism on my user page, it's my privilege to award this to you. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Busy night/afternoon/morning, depending on where you live :-) - Cheers, and night -- here, that is. - DVdm (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fedora changes

"Talk page impasse is not consensus"--I have reverted your unilateral deletion of content. Talk page impasse is not the same as wp:consensus -DVdm (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment you left on my talk is best addressed at the article's talk page. Besides, you know as well as I that it gives a better look to the article. Participate appropriately if you want your view to be heard. This behaviour from you is exactly why there was a Dispute Res which is being ignored. Don't lecture me about leaving you messages then drop by my talk page with this type of thing whenever you want.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Also: I object to your accusation of a unilateral deletion of content. I deleted some redundant content and moved the FULL CONTENT into an inline description per the original talk page agreement on how to handle this list.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was too quick. See my strike - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Formal organization

Hi DVdm:

Of course, you are right that this info would get more attention if it were part of the article Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia gets about 40k hits a month while Wikipedia:Formal organization gets about 110 hits a month, and most of those are probably a flash in the pan by those curious about a new article.

I began by trying to put this article as a subsection of Wikipedia but immediately became involved in the primary source argument. Despite some support that this argument was fallacious, and despite some changes in wording, supporters of this argument could not listen.

So I took this approach of making it a project page. All was fine until today.

Frankly, if WP has a climate where some simple cut-and-dried description of its bo-o-o-ring organization is subject to such flak, well it's just too bad for WP. It's sick when people shoot down an article like this, not because it is mistaken, or unnecessary, but because they like shooting things. It's just pushing vague generalities and flag waving, and it is just too much trouble to ask whether there is really something that should be fixed, or whether more harm is done than good. Target practice is fun! Brews ohare (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I made another little comment, but I'm afraid it will not carry far, so to speak. Alas. - DVdm (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Just because one editor disagrees with you and accuses you of misconduct doesn't mean you weren't attempting, peacefully, to resolve the dispute. Achowat (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see higher up, I had quite some practice lately reacting peacefully to such accusations. Interesting experience. Cheers and thanks again. - DVdm (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Community service despamming

Could you check if [8] is really what you meant to do? It doesn't match the edit-summary--I agree with your intent but had already done it; you actually undid what I marked as more-despamming by someone else (User:Leavelle I think). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange. Must have been a Huggle software (or DVdm brainware) quirk. I have undone it. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries! Happy editing^Wimpending 24 hours non-editing. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I cannot leave you out of what happened. My sincere apologies for being nasty to you so many times. Especially concerning Fedora. Now as Achowat says, since the blackout cleared our minds, let's get away from the personal and go back to our usual arguing.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, let's forget all about it. Note however that I had just (partly) undone two of your recent edits. I left a little comment on your talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good. Forgotten. Cheers for that. I forgot how you don't do answer-backs at all. So I'll ask here: in what way is the external link objectionable? Your citation of the rules showed me no problem with it. What specifically is the rule that puts you in the right?

As to the tags, well, you should know as well as I do that the further information you are demanding is not required and usually not necessary. It could be interpreted as niggling when you demand those things.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well, since you have cited that particular broadly worded rule, I concede. But I have to ask, why do we have to draw that line? Meaning, why does the external link have to say "Homburg"? I've never seen a rule quite like that: "External links MUST say the article's title" although as I say, I concede your point. On a lighter note, did you see where niggling links to? A delightful story....--Djathinkimacowboy 17:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(Remote edit conflict — I had tried to write this on you your talk, but your emptied it before I had the chance to save it.)

Ok. About the wp:ELNO: this #13 is a very basic and strong one. Keep it in mind, for safety.

Happy editing - and remember... keep cool, keep distance, and don't take (most) things personal. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I really see the applicability. I saw this and it finally struck me. No. 13: "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." You were quite right about this. Why don't I just listen to you??--Djathinkimacowboy 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because of the somewhat terse nature of my comments. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, 'terse' shouldn't be misinterpreted and I know I do a lot of misinterpreting. But also, if it helps any, I'm a little prickly about editors who do that to me because I've had my share of psychotics here on Wikipedia. People who follow me to the orphan articles and mess with them just because it's me working there. You know?- some editors, usually IPs, just hold crazy grudges. If I may, let me apologise for jumping from your comments' contents and misinterpreting them as "attitude". It is wrong of me.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can only say —again— just don't take anything personal here — unless of course (or merely perhaps?) it is something positive. When a malicious person notices that their actions upset you, you present yourself as a victim, and they will enjoy it even more. As an example: when someone reverts vandalism to your talk page, don't go the vandal's talk page to let them know how you feel. Feel it if you like, but don't tell them. Ignore. For a vandal, nothing is worse than being ignored by their victim, then quietly reverted by someone else, and then perhaps blocked by yet someone else. Today's keyword is distance. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is not objectionable, I'm going to save your statement in my files to look at, when I feel 'feisty'. It is good advice that I never seem to take to heart--Djathinkimacowboy 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an honor for me

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For excellence in general editing, and knowing how to finally get messages through my thick skull. --Djathinkimacowboy 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Keywords are detachment and patience, I guess :-) - Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in this case the keywords are 'persistence' and 'tenacity'.--Djathinkimacowboy 18:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm... that's not really me. - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Formal organization ( revised and updated)

A revised version of WP:Formal organization is proposed for inclusion in the article Wikipedia and a RfC is posted. It is found here. Can you kindly take a look at this request for comment?

Thank you in advance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly against the wind, this has my complete support. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

for your recent edits Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I can use one ;-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fedora sigh

You posted at my talk:

You better stop... reverting at article Fedora. A fedora is not a proper noun, neither is a tribly - look at article Trilby. Only when articles are mentiond by name, we should use caps. Just look at the other articles here. You are wrong. Trust me. And do be careful for wp:3RR. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DV, is this what you mean?:

Proper names of specific places, persons, etc. are capitalized in accordance with standard usage: Winston Churchill, John de Balliol, Wales, Tel Aviv, etc. Most adjectives derived from proper names should be capitalized, e.g. the English people, the London commuter belt, the Kantian imperative, with occasional established exceptions such as teddy bear.

Because I have to tell you, though 'Trilby' is normally not capitalised (just like 'fedora' here) and is a type of fedora, it is a proper name for a type of fedora and is capitalised expressly for that purpose in the lead of the article. Where are we now with this? Honestly, I am confused. But I am not confused about this fact. Please do not tell me I had "better" do anything. You know "better" than to be rude simply be cause you think you explained yourself in the past. And I do not appreciate you and Esoglou following me round. I see Esoglou has gotten into trouble with this a lot in the past.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted on your talk page. Please reply there and I will explain some more. - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

D, I see you are looking after the articles, etc. In this case you're wrong. Names of hats are somewhere between proper nouns and adjectives in certain cases; but they are capitalised because they are specifically named hats thus rendering them specific types of nouns. We can open up a thing about this, like was done in the past with the capitalisation of the "pope". I know I am correct no matter how many Google checks are tossed my way. By the way, what has Favonian got to do with this? Was Favonian's post on my talk your idea of a reply?--Djathinkimacowboy 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is on my watch list. Seriously, back away. Your ownership attitude will get you into trouble. Favonian (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As to Fedora and Trilby, I won't edit war over this. It is stupid. I bow to you and your companion Favonian. But you know what? Don't threaten me about wanting to own articles. It is not I who wants to own them. Look in the mirror.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Something else: you two appear together a lot. I smell a sock puppet. Prove me wrong.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I made a note on your talk page. In my talk page header I ask you to reply there, not here. Please respect that. - DVdm (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, for the record, I consider the above sock puppet remark as a personal attack to Favonian and to myself. Please don't do this again. - DVdm (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, my attitude is don't dish it out if you can't take it and then accuse people of battleground behaviour. You know, DVdm, I'm seeing a lot of WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, rotten-attitude language and what looks like a sock puppet relationship with Favonian. I'm getting fed up with this. Warning and discussion is fine. This hassle is below the belt. Now you've dragged in somebody to come and threaten me on your behalf.

Look, we've posted back-and-forth about all this before, and I'm tired of it. You almost seem to be wikihounding and WP:stalking. You are rude and don't usually explain yourself, though I try to just trust what you say. But now, you have totally abused my trust.

Be warned, if you keep accusing me as you have been, or if you and Favonian keep acting like sock puppets, I will open an ANI for the little good it will do. Enough.--Djathinkimacowboy 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is another personal attack and another blatant accusation of bad faith (see above section User talk:DVdm#Excuse me), and you probably don't even realise it. I think you need to take a long leave form Wikipedia. I have said this before: the way Wikpedia works, does not make you happy. Please consider another hobby, for your own sake. - DVdm (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile I notice that you have been put on a somewhat forced leave, so to speak. I hope this will be an occasion for you to think things over. Take care. - DVdm (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Would like you to know

You lowlife hypocrite. I hope you got your jollies finding someone just like you, to block me for a week. You and your little wikipals are nothing more than predatory swine. Also notice you didn't fail to get your final jab in...well, so did I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.152.168 (talk • contribs)

Ah, come on, please. - DVdm (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit of Rochdale Principles

Your edit was mistaken, and so has been reverted. Please could you not do that again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.81.164 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Global Warming Controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My input. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Billions of oops...

Oops, thanks! I obviously have to learn to scroll down when looking at 'edit differences'. Anyway, I'll apologise to this new editor. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of Sagan edit

Hi - I was just wanting to clarify something with the edits I made to Carl Sagan that I think you may have misunderstood. I'm not disputing what was being said there, and from your quotation of the source in the edit history, it looks like we're both trying to achieve the same goal. The way the sentence was worded, it looks like it says that Carl Sagan denied hating the term "atheist". He didn't deny hating the term - he denied being an atheist. The problem (I'm looking at it from a grammatical perspective) is that we've linked two claims to the single verb "denied" when, in fact, only one of the two presented claims is a denial.

I've changed the article again (I didn't revert; I changed it) to say, "Sagan denied that he was an atheist and said ^{(without italics)} that he hated the term." We need a separate verb there, or it will look like Sagan was denying his hatred of the term, which is, of course, not the case. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The intricacies of language :-) I'm OK with this version. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Global Warming Controversy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A genuine honour:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For enduring me with such good grace. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Welcome back, and... well, you know... :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I know. It is appreciated.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your postings at WP:AIV. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"My pleasure" would be a bit inappropriate, and "my duty" a bit dull. So... you're welcome and thanks! - DVdm (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Ambiguity about the circularity wording.

DVdm: It appears to me that you have consensus on rewording the circularity statements. Maybe it is time to implement a change? I am sorry that my attempts to change the fifth condition to be satisfied in using primary sources has distracted from this accomplishment. Brews ohare (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that way. I'm going to wait a little while though. There's no hurry, and perhaps someone shows up with yet another take on the matter. Who knows? - DVdm (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. See update. Too bad it didn't really work out the way you would have preferred it. I notice that your wp-article got demoted to essay status now. I still think it could (and should) somehow be incorporated in the main space Wikipedia article, but the opposition turns out to be too strong. Win some, lose some, I guess. Take care. - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops.

Thanks for catching that. (!) Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It really did sound a bit weird, so I went to check ;-) It's good that you protected the article though. - Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright symbol

No per MOS:TM#General_rules Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha... that's a good thing to point to in such cases. Thanks a bunch! - DVdm (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP policy RfC

Hi DVdm:

Maybe you have an interest in |this RfC regarding policy on articles using primary sources? Brews ohare (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Query about finding images

D, I'd like a word of advice if I may. How does an editor determine whether an image may be used here? I'm dying to get a chart in the Birthstones article, and it looks as if I will have to do it myself. Not wishing to seem pushy or in violation of WP:OWN, I just need to know what guidelines Wikipedia provides us when we go hunting for an image. I've tried three editors, one admin, and no one is really responding. The article would look 100% better with a chart that people could consult.--Djathinkimacowboy 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter seems to be strictly ruled by U.S. law, and I'm not familiar with that. Once, for my talk page archive nav box, I added an image of one of my favourite albums here. It was promptly and automatically removed per Wikipedia:NFCC#9. The image seems to be allowed in article space but not in talk space. I had a quick look at the policy, decided not to bother, and put the books back in place. Perhaps you can do some reading of the policy, and/or put a {{help}} template on your talkpage. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Ta very much. Perhaps I can make out something from policy and see if one of the charts I already know would be suitable.--Djathinkimacowboy 07:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like bingo! - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed...and when I gather my wits about me, I'll try sticking it in and hope no one objects to it.--Djathinkimacowboy 10:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Taniec z Gwiazdami BEST OF 1-12

Welcome! Please delete this page because it is something wymyśonego. This program has never been on television and never will be. That someone came up with ... Please visit Poland Dancing with the Stars ... Was foolish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.56.252.228 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I have no idea what the article is about. DVdm (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

English or Portuguese

I am sorry but in that case we were two Portuguese, talking about one Portuguese footballer and Portuguse sources. Since i think the Vasco's talk page has no interest at all to the Wikipedia users i am sure it was better to talk in Portuguese, so we understand better and do a better job.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.128.211 (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I understand, but not everyone takes the trouble to go and verify whether some comment on someone's talk page could have been genuine, nonsense, vandalism, or even a personal attack. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for helping and advising me. I now see that the user likes to intercept messages, I think in that case the owner of the page should decide either it is genuine, nonsense, vandalism, or even personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.128.211 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm sure this is not someone "liking to intercept messages", but rather someone who patrolls for vandalsim. In this case the patroller assumed that the edit added nonsense to the page, as he is entitled to, as this is the english Wikipedia, and the string of characters is indeed nonsense for someone who is not familiar with the language. In order not to waste more time with situations like this, please consider avoiding non-English on talk pages in the English Wiki. - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

79.168.128.211 , I'm sorry for reverting your edit as I can now see that it was indeed not vandalism. However, I reverted it for the reasons that DVdm mentioned above, and I agree with his point that one should perhaps avoid non-English talk on this wiki. DVdm, thanks for commenting on the situation in the time I was offline. Metricopolus (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

TiME

Hello. You wrote: "DAB-pages are for disambiguation of article names." The article is indeed called TiME, so its mention in the Time disambiguation page is not just granted, but necessary. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha... when I look at TiME, indeed I see that there is a DAB. It wasn't there when I looked at Titan Mare Explorer. So you were correct. I undid myself but made a little change. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, gentleman. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe in Hypothermic Needles

Who are you to tell me I can't believe in and share my belief of hypothermic needles, I am an accredited hypothermic needle porfessor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3chopl0x (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is good for you, but I have no idea what you are talking about. - DVdm (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The word is "hypodermic" Dr. Echo Plz. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Occ Safety Page

thanks for watching out on the Occ Safety page... not sure what that person was thinking with those edits... that pages needs an enormous amount of attention to bring it up to some sort of organized look... I've been chipping away at it recently but there is a manure load left to do... Kurt Dundy (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Inquisitor S.'s talk page

Stefan Oswald1 was me, and I just redacted my comment. It was wrong and immature of me to have made that account, and I will discontinue it and post a notice as such on it's user page. --Imperator Sascha (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for link

In a discussion I had with you on 10,May 2010, You called up Maxwell's article about "atom". Could you please send that link to my talk page so I can find it again easier? Thank you.WFPM (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC) PS I have a copy of the 9th edition EB if you're interested in anything more in it.

Hi. Is this what you are referring to? I found it here in the history of the talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes! but I'm a poor typist and lazy and I was trying to get the link transfered into my talk page where I could find it easier. You experts can't understand how hard it is for us old fuddydudies to manage to function in the ambience of the Wikipedia editor environment. And I'm still thinking about matter and wanted to have that article readily available. I like him mainly because he was ready to tackle anything and to bring forward any information that he had on the subject. Not like today's editorial policy.WFPM (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have put the link on your talk page—and fixed the indentation of your preceding message :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And you'll note that the section containing the link has now been archived, and so keeping up on current information in other talk pages than your own is a dubius proposition.WFPM (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I store scientific memory stuff in my talk section or sandbox for reference purposes?WFPM (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you don't store stuff to which anyone might object — contentwise or sizewise. - DVdm (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've opened a file ([[File:Modified Chart of the Nuclides.jpg]]). Now I can't get it into my sandbox. Do you want to look at it and see what you think? It's got a lot of information for your cognitive thinking process as to the stability interrelationship between the elements if you're interested. Uses Table of the isotopes data. Compares to JWB and just granpa's contributions as well as Chart of the Nuclides.WFPM (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the image from your message. It is too large. I also must decline your request to look at it. Sorry and cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! don't know why it's magnified? It isn't in my "Contribution" listing. But thanks anyway.WFPM (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion Jumping

QUIT JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. iMac G3 reverted. 206.180.101.2 (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What does PAIC stand for?

Here's one opinion. Art LaPella (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah... that makes perfect sense. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of my additions to GNSS pages

I happen to disagree with your initiative to remove the links I added. The information I referred to on 10 or 11 GNSS related pages are of high quality and add value to the wikipedia pages. The European Space Agency had top experts write those articles based to the latest available knowledge. Are you a GNSS expert? What is your argumentation for the removal? Best regards, Timo Kouwenhoven User_talk:Timo_Kouwenhoven —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Replied on your talk page. Please reply there as well. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Relativistic Doppler Effect

Sorry, I just read your request above to reply on my own talk page. I'll do that from now on. Krea (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, although I've been on wikipedia for about 6 years now apparently. (I just don't bother with all of that frivolity that people seem to like to put on their user main page, and neither do I get too involved in editing unless it's some bit of knowledge that I think is lacking.)

Concerning the citing of sources, quite frankly, I think what I added is trivial: it is very basic first-year Special Relativity material. I think every undergrad uses the relativistic Doppler effect example to learn how to use the Lorentz equations, and all it is is plugging values into the equations. The only conceptual difficulty lies in visualizing what it is that you are doing. Of course, that's the only real difficulty in doing SR at all: making sure you know what it is that you are doing since it can be very easy to loose track of what is what in what frame of reference if you are being sloppy.

Still, maybe it would be better if there were some generally relevent source: I've put a source to Feynman in the references list now. Feynman uses the wave frequency and wave vector equations to derive the answer, put he is still plugging in values to Lorentz's equations. I could put a Young and Freedman reference in too, I guess, but I think they do it as it is done in the section above the one I added. All these methods are still equivalent, though: they just move the physics of the problem from the perspective of the moving source to the moving observer. If you want to be pedantic, you could argue that what I added is redundant because this is exactly the difference between what I added and what is already there in the article. Still, I think it's useful to demonstrate how the answer is the same doing it from the stationary observer's perspective.

The only points that maybe still need a ref is the contention that the classical results are formally reproduced in the limit $c\rightarrow \infty$, but I think the SR article should have that information recorded, if worded less mathematically (it is essentially the correspondence principle); Landau and Lifshitz state this explicitly, so I could add this ref if you think it's required. You could also argue that the line, "Note that this complication is not relativistic in nature: this is the ultimate cause of the Doppler effect and is also present in the classical treatment." also needs as source. But again, I think this is trivial for, otherwise, there is no Doppler effect: the whole point of the Doppler correction is that the source moves by the time it has emitted its second wave pulse. The classical Doppler effect article should make this point clear, but maybe I should put a source for it here. The only problem is that it is so fairly obvious that I think any physics text would not bother pointing it out. It's implied when they write down the relative velocity of the wave to the source/observer. Maybe it just needs a better explanation? Krea (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I'll just make a few little remarks:

• Re "Concerning the citing of sources, quite frankly, I think what I added is trivial...". Yes, absolutely trivial for you and for me, but that's not how Wikipedia works: see wp:V and wp:RS, and specially wp:BURDEN. We can't expect the average reader to find it trivial, so we need to provide that source. Thanks for having done so.
• I will not comment on the remainder of your message, as it is about the article. These comments really belong on the article talk page where other contributors can contribute as well. Our user talk pages are more suited for discussing user conduct related issues.

Again, as I said on your talk page, good job! Keep up the good —sourced— work! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try! Thanks for the critical eye. Krea (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Your help is appreciated, it really is, but that was really inappropriate for you to post at the ANI like that, D. Post on my talk, it'll be read and appreciated. Do you think your post is helping the cause there at ANI? Some admins are interested in this editor as a possible troll, I'm trying to do something good. It isn't about me and my lessons! Forgive me, my PC's or WP is haywire, everything is so slow. Let us resume this, if we do resume it, at my talk. Please, DVdm, unless it is apropos do not post stuff like that at the ANI.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I already replied there. I prefer to keep things in one place. - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, except this was a personal message as I'm sure you appreciate. It belonged here, not on the ANI. Which was my original point. Well, I've come here to just say, I withdrew at the ANI. You did nothing to help except make me look like a troublemaking fool, DVdm. Is that what you consider helpful? I was getting somewhere, and that editor in question is bad news. Sometimes you give an unfortunate impression of being ... I don't know what to say because it'll come out sounding badly. Think about it: what did you really do to help the ANI issue? Nothing.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, sorry, but except for that piece of advice of a few months ago, I really cannot think of anything to say. Remember what you replied to it. I'll keep out of it. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I should not have jumped so violently at you. Truly, I see what you mean there. I know the spirit in which you meant that, and I recall the lesson. Also, I appreciate that you see a little bit from my viewpoint. Well, this is over for me and I'm taking a break from the Columbo conundrum. I actually had neglected to re-read your advice from back then - obviously! It is a blessing you jumped in there. It's like you stopped an angry mastodon or something.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your expertise and advice needed (private for now)

OK, am here to ask something. How can I open a SPI without looking like a vengeful baby?--

1. User:142.58.187.134 (see[9])
2. User:B3430715 see[10])
3. User:Detectiveboy (see[11]) are clearly socks of an editor I have not yet discovered. Perhaps they are socks of User:B3430715, who has aroused some admins' suspicions, recently disrupted a related MedCab in progress and who responded to the resulting ANI about him on his user talk page. I really think these 3 editors are sockpuppets. User:Detectiveboy looks like a single-purpose account (puppet for B3430715 in issues regarding Columbo) but I can't tell yet. So far all he's done is support B3 in the Columbo issues and uses the exact same reasoning and goofy English. Is this a 'save WP complex'? Or do I sit back and wait ... for no one else to do it? Advise me. And recall, my friend, that once again this is not about me. Frankly I think all those users are hilarious, this doesn't really personally anger me! What angers me is what is being perpetrated and how everyone is allowing it. Sockpuppetry, absolutely imho. Tell, me, what do I do?—Djathinkimacowboy 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you have opened a specific ANI-report concerning this very matter and B3430715, and since some admins already have looked into that, your best shot would be to ask for advice there. If it turns out that nobody seems to care, or if you really don't want to ask there, then you could indeed —making sure you carefully follow the SPI-reporting rules— file an SPI and see how it goes. If that turns out negative, or if you decide not to go for SPI, then indeed this would be —de facto— one of those sit-back-and-wait-and-meanwhle-move-on-and-do-something-else situations. That's precisely how this community works. Again my advice is, do read the essay wp:RATSASS. Also, take some time reading the essays pointed to in its See also section. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW. WP:RATSASS! I certainly will look at it, but I cannot imagine where all these WP articles come from. It is very funny, that there seems to be a page for every human condition WP-style. Of course I agree with you. It occurred to me that I'd have to wait anyway, because really, who knows what this is I'm looking at right now. Only my gut and tiny evidences say it's sockpuppetry; I feel I am right but I don't think anyone will want that. So cheers very much because you have guided me again. As far as the ANI, my sense is no one's interested now. I withdrew, made a final statement in order to reply to something there. Sad but true. As you said: let someone else get tired of him first.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DVdm. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul venter

I would appreciate your not editing my talk page........Paul venter (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User The Border Patrol (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked now for vandalism and personal attacks. You were one of his first targets. See item 3 of wp:TALKO. At your service. - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Still no justification for your trespassing on my talk page. cheers Paul venter (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit on your talk page was made in the context of a vandalism patrolling session ([12] with a.o. [13], [14], [15], [16].). You can check the explicit justification for my action in item 3 of our behaviorial guideline wp:TALKO. - DVdm (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments if you have their permission"....... The guideline you refer to says it all. ciao Paul venter (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think you need to lay off, dude. He was doing you a favor. Calabe1992 15:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From the all saying guideline wp:TALKO:

• "if you have their permission" is the first example.
• "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" is the third example, aka "item 3 of wp:TALKO"

DVdm (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also: [17] and [18], and of course, How to respond to vandalism - For beginners. - DVdm (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for the revert on my userpage. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All in the line of duty :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Zappa Template

Just a heads-up. I was hoping that my recent reversion of the template had made everyone happy (I certainly didn't see any complaints), yet earlier today, without any discussion (or consensus, as usual), that version was completely reorganized yet again. If possible, could you add any thoughts you have to the discussion, and if needed, help intervene? I try to avoid edit wars as much as possible, and I would appreciate your help doing so. Friginator (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put a warning at User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus#Slow edit warring at template Frank Zappa. - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hate to come crying back to you like this, but Wisdomtenacityfocus is reverting the template again (and the discography, which apparently had been changed back a while ago), and apparently angry now, blanking his talk page and calling it "bullshit", and so on and so forth. I've changed the info back again, but this really, really is not a good use of anyone's time. Is there a noticeboard that the issue should be taken to? Are there any other users who could help in this situation? There don't seem to be many options left. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) is reported for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not edit warring. This is a content dispute. Handle these things the way they're supposed to be handled by trying to seek opinions from outside of the small circle of editors that usually care about the content. All my edits were justified by style guidelines. Yours weren't. Also, I have every right to say what I want in edit summaries on my own talk page edits. Why are you giving me shit for something that I have a right to do? When I improve articles, you should respond by thanking me, not harassing me because someone else besides you edits an article you're engaged in. YOU don't own articles. Let someone else contribute to the process. --WTF (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - User hasn't edited after last comment dd 3-Apr and wp:DRN case closure. Case at wp:ANEW archived without result. - DVdm (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not accusing you of something you haven't done. I'm stating what you have done. It is misleading and blatantly false to deny what you have done. --WTF (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page references

The talk page is advertised to provide space for general page comments that may be removed without response in as little as two weeks. It is used also for more extensive discussions. I use it to introduce my potential edits for prepost comment. This gives the page editor time to evaluate the edit and a source signature. My references are directed at content, not author or journal. My paper is analogous to a Wikipedia page. I use it as a reference to provide interested readers with added background for my edits. Since the possible talk page life is short, I don't believe its use should be considered promotion. (HCPotter (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC))

Copied your comment to your talk page and replied there ([19]). See User_talk:HCPotter#Purpose_of_article_talk_pages. - DVdm (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April 1, 2012

Thanks for templating me! Now go do the same to everyone else on today's AfD log. Happy april fools day, genius. - filelakeshoe 16:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Very original joke. Subtle touch. Congratulations. - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute

You are involved in a content dispute. Details here. --WTF (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Commented here and here. - DVdm (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those statements are personal attacks. Also, you falsely accused me of edit-warring. I merely stated what you actually did. --WTF (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You explicitly stated that I vandalised the pages:

• [20]: "You removed massive chunks of the discography...", "You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism"
• [21]: "... stop enabling DVdm's vandalism"

Now look at this very carefully:

The only edit I ever made to Template:Frank Zappa (edit history) is

• [22] 01-Apr-2012, minor fomatting

The only edits I ever made to Frank Zappa discography (edit history) are:

• [23] 24-feb-2010, undo anon unsourced change
• [24] 11-Jun-2010, revert anon vandalism
• [25] 14-Jan-2011, replacing minus signs with emdash
• [26] 09-Oct-2011, Restoring content and adding source
• [27] 12-Jan-2012, Proving translation for Polish phrase
• [28] 12-Jan-2012, Correcting a typo

Now, tell me, where have I "removed massive chunks of the discography"? Where have I "reverted an article based on [my] belief that [I] own the article"?

I would appreciate it if you would retract these blatantly false accusations. - DVdm (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the case has been closed now. - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A wp:ANI case was opened, resulting in a formal warning about wp:NPA by Atama. Archived here. - DVdm (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliability?

OK, at a loss on what to put on the article. Is the Jester's own link to the information not reliable enough? People have been saying he's been bluffing about the QR attack since day one, I think the first evidence that he isn't is worth adding. Is there any way to add this information that will make you happy? --Applegeorge (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put the reason for my revert on your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So it's merely the phrase "insinuated on his Twitter account" that you have a problem with? --Applegeorge (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. The source does not say that it is insinuating something. That is your interpretation. See wp:NOR, wp:V, wp:NPOV. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK now? The "insinuated" part came from the Jester's comment (something to the effect of) "why don't I just start releasing Anonymous information now?" although that may have only meant that one text file. --Applegeorge (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the source actually say that it "released a text file that was alleged to be a portion of the information gathered during the QR attack."? I don't see that on ¨this page. Please provide an exact quotation of the text, so we can verify the statement. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have reverted your edit for now. Please provide evidence for the statement you added by quoting the exact text. Then we can see what can be added. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say it word for word, but "the list" mentioned in that Tweet (and this Tweet) is almost certainly the so called "shit list" that the Jester has spoken of, i.e. the targets of the QR attack (members of Anonymous, Al-Qaeda propagandists, Wikileaks etc). Plus there's no other obvious way for this information to have been recovered. The second Tweet specifically references the "shit list" although doesn't say that the information was recovered from it. I think it's kind of unreasonable to withhold the link until the Jester uses a word-perfect Tweet that you're asking for. That's hardly his style after all. If you don't want the link publishing I understand. I won't start a flamewar; I understand that the Jester is prime flamewar material after all. --Applegeorge (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly not inline with our policies. See wp:NOR, wp:V, wp:NPOV. For your information, I have put a welcome message on your talk page, where you find some pointers to learn about how Wikipedia actually works. I hope it will be of help for you. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dja?

I am Dja, dummy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.107.248 (talk • contribs)

Good grief, I'm speechless. What happened to the sit-back-and-wait-and-meanwhle-move-on-and-do-something-else thing, and your reply? Sigh. - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Help Anna

What can we do to help Anna? That IP wasn't very nice.512bits (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know why Anna would need help... - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, she's always been very nice to me and that IP wasn't nice at all. She doesn't deserve to be treated like that.512bits (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that Anna. That's a kind idea, but no, I'm sure she doesn't need help from us :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 76.195.87.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

It's Orwellian

For those familiar with George Orwell's novel 1984: you, on WP, you're all like Winston, in the torturous grasp of O'Brien. It is not enough for you to tell him what he wants to hear. He expects you to truly believe it. You know why Winston was being tortured: too many thoughtcrimes racked up, then they got him for a sexcrime.76.195.87.205 (talk)

Change that to 'battleground' or 'incivility', change the arrest to 'block', and O'Brien becomes WP. And guess who Big Brother is? What does it matter! He has you all to himself already! And if you threaten him, he won't threaten you - he'll indefblock you! It even sounds like Orwell's DoubleSpeak!76.195.87.205 (talk)

I never liked Orwell's poorly veiled but extreme paranoia. He must have been a very unhappy person. - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Cruising with Ruben and the Jets"/"Greasy Love Songs" dispute

Surprise! It's me again. Basically I was wondering if you could help weigh in on whether or not "Greasy Love Songs" should have its own article and entry on the Zappa template/discography. Since it's on Zappa's website as an official; album, I believe we should list it as such and give it its own article. User:‎Wisdomtenacityfocus disagrees. By which I mean ‎Wisdomtenacityfocus has redirected the entire article and removed the listing from the discography and template multiple times. And now I've apparently been reported for edit warring by the user. If you'd like to weigh in on that I'd appreciate it. But mainly, I was thinking that if this is really a major issue, one of us should bring up the Greasy Love Songs album on a talk page. Would you put it on the main Zappa talk page, or on the talk page for the album itself? Anyway, just wanted to give you a heads-up. Friginator (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a comment here. - DVdm (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Physical possibility

I removed the entire section on physical possibility, in the article about modal logic, since it also didn't cite any source. 187.113.192.25 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. - DVdm (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

108.215.177.89

I already placed a ban request for that IP address. I was trying to revert Laredo, Texas at the same time you were. - Denimadept (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Lollipop (Param Pam Pam) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OOPS! I was 100% convinced that this was vandalism. My sincere apologies if I was mistaken about this. - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It's a tricky edge. Thanks for the positive response. Toddst1 (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I also notice that you just blocked ip 79.97.153.17 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and they did have a 4th level warning for vandalism, followed by much more of the same. Tricky edge indeed :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, as an admin, sometimes it's better to do the right thing rather than split hairs. You were clearly acting in good faith and have been here forever. No need to spoil a clean block log if we can address the problem. However, the IP was likely also acting in good faith but clearly did not respond to talk page notices. S/he wasn't blocked for vandalism, but EW and disruption. At the end of the day, the edit war has stopped and the IP will be able to resume constructive editing shortly. We don't have a judicial system here, but we do manage to keep the peace. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Point taken. I see that indeed I should have been a good tad more careful. Thanks for the clarification — and the peace keeping work. - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if 79.97.153.17 (talk · contribs) is genuinely editing in good faith - most of their edits appear to be repeated addition of errors into to the same pet articles - activity which they have already been blocked for on other IP addresses belonging to the same ISP (Chello/NTL/UPC Ireland) - e.g. 188.141.24.232 (talk · contribs) which is currently blocked for a year, also 89.100.30.5 (talk · contribs), 89.101.46.212 (talk · contribs), 79.97.111.90 (talk · contribs), etc. This activity dates back at least three years if not more and seems to focus particularly on articles like Nickelodeon UK Kids' Choice Awards 2007, Nickelodeon UK Kids' Choice Awards 2008, Ellie Goulding and various other pop music related articles, usually while making unflattering comments about the worth or stature of the artists in question. In each case it seems to descend into repeated reverting of other's attempts to undo the vandalism, while at the same time claiming that they are the anti-vandal agent. Bonusballs (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice piece of investigation. That's the kind of work I should have done before carelessly assuming bad faith from the IP. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - just luck that they keep hitting the same old articles with the same old edits. I notice that they've resumed the exact same behaviour now that the 24-hour block on their current IP address has run out. :( Bonusballs (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So it seems. Have you notified Toddst1? - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

Hi. Sorry to bother you with this, but User:Wisdomtenacityfocus has opened another case against me here. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Commented here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi DVdm - i am a novice here

Hi DVdm - i am a novice here. I edited the No absolute framework in special relativity. You responded very quickly. I think you want me to insert or cite a verification reference? Sorry how do i do that? The only reference i can make is by virtue of the book recently published by amazon. It provides a new outlook, and meaning and mechanism for the expansion of the universe and how it determines the speed of light. As yet not thought of by any scientist! Please advise kind regards ewjEwjohnsonjohnson (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have copied your message to your talk page and replied there. Let's have it all in one place. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks. I've been cleaning up these Trivia-related vandalisms. Jwend392 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thx & cheers! - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for reverting my user talk page. Oxfordwang (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Goes with that beer :-) DVdm (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The User:UBX/vandalized parameter must be an integer.

Something's wrong with one of your userboxes:

Please change the value to an integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjkasi (talk • contribs) 12:38, 29 April 2012‎

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

I have no problem with the non-integer value. - DVdm (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Michelson–Morley experiment

Interference pattern produced with a Michelson Interferometer using white light.

Michelson and Morley (1887) and other early experimentalists using interferometric techniques in an attempt to measure the properties of the luminiferous aether, used monochromatic light only for initially setting up their equipment, always switching to white light for the actual measurements. The reason is that measurements were recorded visually. Monochromatic light would result in a uniform fringe pattern, and since the fringes would frequently disappear due to vibrations by passing horse traffic, distant thunderstorms and the like, it would be easy to "get lost" when the fringes returned to visibility. The advantages of white light, which produced a distinctive colored fringe pattern, far outweighed the difficulties of aligning the apparatus due to its low coherence length. This was an early example of the use of white light to resolve what is known as the "2 pi ambiguity". Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Miller (1933) page 210 wrote: "White-light fringes were chosen for the observations because they consist of a small group of fringes having a central, sharply defined black fringe which forms a permanent zero reference mark for all readings." Will I also need to explain why the central fringe is black? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to explain. Excellent source additoin. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Might need some help here. Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment#White or yellow light?

Suggestions?

All these young kids, all they know about are lasers and CCD imaging of interference patterns. Why, back in MY DAY, we had to mine our own salt to sprinkle on the tribal campfire if we wanted to get sodium D line fringes for a spirit summoning.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed the thread and had started reading the first handful of lines, but unfortunately it is, well..., wp:TL;DR. I have no technical suggestions and I'm not really interested in the details. I do however recommend trying to get some agreement on the talk page before continuing to edit the article, and, otherwise perhaps, dropping a little note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics to draw some attention. Remember that Wikipedia is about wp:consensus and avoiding wp:NOR and wp:SYNTH, more than about anything else. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:D.H's latest additions have impressed me a lot, and make me think that the article is nearing GA quality. Could you look the article over and suggest what still needs to be done before nomination? Dieter's scholarship vastly exceeds mine; I'm glad that I've been able to help with article organization, improving the English, and some contributions of my own. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It surely looks good to me, but as I have not kept an eye on the recent changes, I also have no idea what needs to be done for an official GA label. If you nominate it, you'll find out soon enough and in great detail, I suppose. Go ahead and try :-) - DVdm (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Illustrated Man

The Illustrated Man's section "Plot Summary" contains spoilers including the ending for every single story. I simply added "Spoiler Alert" to make it read "Plot Summary - Spoiler Alert". I think readers deserve to be made aware of the fact that they are about the have the entire book ruined for them. I read pages here to get a general feel for what a book is about, not to get the entire story ruined in a paragraph or two. Please add "Spoiler Alert" back until the author of the page decides to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't put spoiler warnings. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the section on "Spoilers". So it's acceptable to use "Plot" and/or "Ending" in a section title. So "Plot Summary" should be "Plot Summary with Ending" to warn others. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

You mean like this, yes that could work, although other contributors might object. Good luck :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

British English

In what way do you consider my edit to British English a "joke edit"? The flag depicted is upside-down. I know relatively few U.K. residents have the faintest idea which way up the Union flag should be flown, but that one is upside-down. the article would benefit from a flag that is at least the right way up. It would be even better if the illustration showed the front of the flag, not the back. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you and Pinethicket are the same user. Funny how you provide input at exactly the same time and support each other in the same incorrect allegation on a perfectly valid edit. And that neither of you have any idea which way up the flag should be. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was writing an apology re your previous message. Perhaps if you had specified how exactly you had noticed that the flag is upside down (like DieSwartzPunkt did), then neither Pinethicket or I would have thought that you were joking. Rest assured, we are not the same user. - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I spotted it the same way DieSwartzPunkt did. I'm a UK resident and wnow which way up my own country's flag should be flown (though a surprisingly large number of people don't). The sockpuppetry suspicion arose because you both adopted the same vitriolic tone and made more or less identical allegations. Now maybe we can get the flag fixed. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, perhaps you spotted it the same way, but DSP explained and you didn't. That seems to make a difference. I thought you were joking. Sorry about that.

Watch out, you have all your letters "o" upside down, and, to me, your letters "s" look like they are inside out. Anyway, good luck with the flag. - DVdm (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Tee Hee! 109.145.22.224 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Thanks for reverting the personal attack on my user page! Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, so to speak :-) - DVdm (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong button press

Hi, just a heads up: this revert was worth doing, but the edit summary makes absolutely no sense because the previous edit didn't remove any text at all. Graham87 15:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, silly indeed. I had hit revert and aimed for "Advanced...", planning to type "Unhelpful", but I accidentally hit the choice immediately above that. When I noticed, I decided not to bother since this was a no-user-warning revert. Thanks for having notified me. - DVdm (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just some more hair-splitting, though: the next edit that you made was a dummy edit, not a null edit. I don't think there's any need to make another edit to correct that, however. :-) Graham87 01:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a dummy edit, and for two reasons, as I also made a spelling mistake in my edit summary. Ah well :-) - DVdm (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Content copied to article talk page Talk:Quadratic_equation#Inappropriate_external_link
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I found this site online and used it to complete some homework. I think it would be useful to the public as a resource. The external link in question is here The link that you keep removing from the 'External Links' section on the Quadratic Equation page does not violate any of the guidelines that Wikipedia uses for External Links (Shown here: external links). I will address each one individually: 1. This site provides a quadratic formula calculator that displays imaginary roots (a unique resource) 2. This site has no inaccurate or misleading information 3. It does not contain malicious scripts, malware, or illegal content. 4. It is not an online petition. Furthermore, there are no advertisements or AdSense accounts associated with this site, so there is no chance to profit from linking. 5. See number 4 6. No payment or registration for use is required. 7. Anybody with internet access can view the site. 8. There are no documents linked on this site that require additional plugins to view/download. 9. No links to any search results pages exist on this site. In fact, no external links at all exist on this site. 10. See number 9 11. See number 9 12. See number 9 13. This link is clearly directly related to the subject matter on Wikipedia to which it is linked. It is a quadratic formula calculator and it was linked to the quadratic equation page on Wikipedia. 14. No links at all appear on this site (See number 9) 15. See number 9 16. See number 9 17. See number 9 18. N/A 19. See number 9 20. N/A It is clear that you didn't even look at the link that was posted and you should not edit pages or reference guidelines without reviewing yourself. Please undo your last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.153.144 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. I looked at the link that was posted. It fails to produce an answer in my (standard) browser. This is a very poor quality external link on someone's personal web page and therefore inappropriate per wp:ELNO #11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. If you really want it in the article, the place for you to go, is the article talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC) It clearly produces an answer if you type in actual numbers. I checked it on Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and IE. If you are not using one of these browsers, then it is not standard!! Please don't remove this link again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.153.144 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Please read wp:ELNO #11 and wp:3RR. I advise you not to add the link again. - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Try this site again, it works on all browsers, and as of yet there is no link available to a calculator like this one128.104.153.144 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Please read wp:ELNO #11 and wp:3RR. I advise you not to add the link again. - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC) I did read it and I'm failing to see how it applies. You should really stop trying to clean up edits that are clearly adding to pages.128.104.153.144 (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Trust me, the link is not appropriate. I repeat — if you really want it in the article, the place for you to go, is the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC) The page is now semi-protected to deal with the excess spamming and vandalism it's experienced the last few days. But apart from the above objections I would also add that it's only a unique resource as it's a trivial one that anyone could recreate in e.g. Google docs or their favourite spreadsheet program in a couple of minutes. It's poorly presented ("roots of a parabola"?), not interactive (why doesn't the graph animate? Why can't you enter values by manipulating the graph?) and looks like something that could have been done ten or more years ago by someone with limited graphics skills a minimal knowledge of Javascript.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC) The calculator produces wrong answers. Whoever wrote it had no knowledge of basic numerical analysis, in this case, the phenomenon known as "loss of significance error" which results when subtracting two numbers which are very close to each other. Try a=0.001, b=5, c = 0.001. Root x1 should not be zero, but rather should be -0.0002. So don't try to link to it. It's a bad calculator on an untrustworthy site. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Quite. And this is not the first time this user has tried to add it. See 128.104.153.144 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 128.104.153.129 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) DVdm (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have copied this thread to where it belongs. Further discussion over there please. Thanks and cheers to all. - DVdm (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

GPS Edit - "Bancroft's Method"

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Global Positioning System. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism."

So removing incorrect info. isn't allowed on Wikipedia?

I have a Masters in GPS. I wrote programs consisting of 000s of lines of code to solve the equations required to provide a fix in a handset. If I edit the GPS page, it isn't vandalism I can assure you. What are YOUR qualifications re GPS? What gives YOU the authority to decide what's accurate or not regarding Wikipedia contributions. Who appointed you as surveyor-in-chief?

Editing not allowed on Wikipedia pages? Can you see what's happened here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.220.47 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page, in section User talk:78.149.220.47#On Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for removing that nasty little comment from my page (here) - happy editing, see you around! :) Theopolisme TALK 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yum! Thanks - DVdm (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What would count as 0.25 vandal attempts?

I was considering performing a minor vandalization that would tweak your non-integral vandalization count to a whole number. What would count as 0.25 of a vandalization? Adding an unnecessary comma? Changing a word from American English spelling to British English, or vice-versa? Adding an extra space between words?

I would naturally perform this heinous act under an anonymous IP...  :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

For me to know and for you to figure out ;-) - DVdm (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Took a while for me to figure out something that might work. As 155.203.40.78, I added a space and then reverted my addition on 16 July 2012 at 17:07 and 17:08. Simply the fact that the page is a user page not my own made my edit a vandalism, even though I reverted it immediately. Well, did that bump the count by a fraction? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars Won't Work ;-) DVdm (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Durn it! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've just made my second attempt at a fractional vandalism, this time not immediately reverting it. I'll revert tomorrow, if somebody else doesn't do it first. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't really mind your grafiti. It looks like Steve Quinn removed it — for witch, thanks, although by no means necessary. At this stage I guess I should slightly decrement the counter to accommodate for negative vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(groan) That wasn't the direction I wanted to go! Unfortunately, you're holding all of the cards here. :-( Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is very humorous. No, I did not realize it was a tounge-in-cheek experiment. I saw "I'll revert tomorrow, if somebody else doesn't do it first" in the edit histroy. I was confused that a regular editor's name was involved with graffitti so I thought maybe it was the IP of the previous edit, and so on. Then I thought --Oh the regular editor is going to come back and do the revert -- which was really confusing because the graffiti was sitting there in the article space with the regualr editor's name on top of the edit history window... As you can see I was really baffled. So after all that I say "carry on!". Perhaps you should post a warning to editors wishing to proceed into this section of your talk page (:>)) (See edit history). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In view of the misunderstanding that arose, I will describe my planned third and final mini-vandalization attempt rather than actually doing it. This would have been an "unwelcome helpful edit" under anonymous IP that would have actually changed the appearance of the User page. It would not be a vandalization if performed on an article page, but User pages are different. (I remember that the one time a editor made a "helpful" correction to my User page, I felt a bit violated.)

Dingle was not exactly a good English stylist. Actually, his writing was wretched at times. The following sentence only makes sense if you follow Dirk's link and puzzle out Dingle's original statements in context:

Thus, between events E0 and E1, A advances by t1 and B by t'1 = a t1 by (1).

Dirk very deliberately paralleled Dingle's language, warts and all, when he wrote:

Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, which is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, which is present at both events, by t'1 = a t1 by (1).

155.203.40.78's unappreciated partial correction (leaving the third confusing "by" untouched) would have been the following:

Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, which is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, which is present at both events, advances by t'1 = a t1 by (1).

A full correction of Dingle/Dirk's language, destroying the parallelism, might have been considered a true vandalization, and I didn't want to get anywhere near doing that. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You have sound judgement.

When I was honing that correction, I made several previews, all of which included your suggestions. I made several combinations of

Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, which is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, which is present at both events, advances by t'1 = a t1 by (1).

Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, who is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, who is present at both events, by t'1 = a t1 by (1).

Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, present at both events, by t'1 = a t1 by (1).

Thus, between events E0 and E1, A —not present at the events— advances by t1 and B —present at the events— by t'1 = a t1 by (1).

(et multa cetera...)

In the spirit of the context I finally settled on the current wording. - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine-structure constant‎

It appears that I made an error at Fine-structure constant‎. I mistakenly thought the Anon IP was being sarcastic and I didn't closely check the content. All's well that ends well. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Cheers and happy editing :-) - DVdm (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 Commented. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Elastic collisions

As you know, I hate to disagree with you; but when you agree that a 2mv momentum can have it's direction reversed by impact with an equal (Opposite direction) velocity 1mv particle, I'm forced to object The article must have not have been about a case of linear motion.WFPM (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DVdm. You have new messages at Maurice Carbonaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. Replied . DVdm (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

hi

please i need explanation how to edit a summary.

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdrg22 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In the edit window, immediately above the Save page, Show preview and Show changes buttons, there is field called "Edit summary" where you can "briefly describe the changes you have made". See the help page Help:Edit summary.

Also, when editing talk pages (article or user), don't forget to sign your messages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. That way your username and a timestamp are automatically inserted.

Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

i edited a summary explaining why i deleted the unecessary image

it was occupying a lot of space and causing an impression that only the phycisists listed contribuited with quantum physics

thx for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdrg22 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored the image. If you don't like it, please go to the article talk page. Please also have a look at wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User 93.139.27.77

I think this IP should be blocked. What do you think? Thank you for your advice. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

They have a 4th level warning now, so the next time they remove something without a very good reason, they will probably be blocked. See 93.139.27.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Template on User talk:Timchya?

Hey, DVdm, I saw that you posted a level 2 warning on Timchya's talk page; which template did you use for it? I ask because it mentions using Template:hangon, which, if the documentation is to be believed, is deprecated (and indeed, I've never seen it used myself). EDIT: I just now realized that you issued him a warning for the same edit that I did, so I'm gonna go ahead and remove the extra warning. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I issued the warning through the Huggle interface. It looks like Huggle used a standard {{subst:uw-hugglespeedy2}} template. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir Chris Hoy declares himself British

You deleted my contribution to Chris Hoy. You claim it was non-constructive. I argue the most decorated British Olympian should be recognised and viewed within the context of the informal title. The British people who have competed in the Olympic games. This would be like some one from California, not being written as the most successful USA Olympian. It's factually incorrect and if this was not enough. Because I know Wikipedia has some sympathetic leaning to the separatist British users. I provided evidence proving he views himself British. Wikipedia should strive to be objective and factual, yet it appears to be appealing to separatist users, who are in the minority in Britain, hell bent on having famous person reduced to their lowest denominator. Can I remind you he actually said I am British on Channel 4 (British TV) today. So unless Wikipedia is ignoring the 'horses mouth' as well. Is it possible if we can have Chris Hoy as British? thank you. Erzan (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored your contribution when I noticed that it was made on a talk page. I also removed the warning that I had put on your talk page. Apologies. - DVdm (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know why you signed this message on my talk page as user British (talk · contribs). I have removed that username and put yours in place. Can you please explain why you impersonated another user? Thanks - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this was covered on your talk page. Let's forget about it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for help!

An editor asked for help. please have a look User_talk:S_D_Gage#Original_research --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the reply! --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Other helpers arrived at the scene before I got there, but I added a little note. - DVdm (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Frank Zappa and Partinico

I am not sure how to use this thing, but you did make a mistake on Frank Zappa's page. I didn't use a source because the source was already provided. However, the person who put in the information is wrong. The source he used does not say that Frank Zappa has Greek and Arab ancestry. It says his father is a Sicilian immigrant from Partinico. It then says that "Partinico is twelve miles west of Palermo along a twisting mountain road. An area of astonishing beauty, with Greek temples, Roman bridges, Saracen mosques, Romanesque churches and cloistered monasteries set among olive groves and vineyards, it is also the Mafia heartland."

http://i50.tinypic.com/z98c8.png

There is the link to the exact excerpt for that source. I changed it because the source does not say that Frank Zappa's father has Greek and Arab ancestry. It simply says that he is a Sicilian immigrant from an area where there were "Greek temples, Roman bridges, Saracen mosques."

So please revise it because it is incorrect.

99.169.166.61 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Mena

(Repaired previous section - Please don't remove other user's comments. Thanks.)

I had undone this edit because it was unsourced, and because it was irrelevant to the article. The Frank Zappa article is not meant to be a touristic advertisement for the village where his father was born. The original content was properly sourced and correct, as you can read in the source (The Real Frank Zappa Book, page 15):

My ancestry is Sicilian, Greek, Arab and French. My mother's mother was French and Sicilian, and her Dad was Italian (from Naples). She was first generation. The Greek-Arab side is from my Dad. He was born in a Sicilian village called Partinico, and came over on one of the immigrant boats when he was a kid.

Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Theory of Everything

The problem with citing my contribution is- I arrived to the conclusion with my own personal proof. I can't scan my proof, upload it to a website, and then cite the wiki contribution. I hope you can understand, especially with something as serious as the aforementioned topic...It is difficult to give out information so haphazardly...I would appreciate any advice..the reason I choose wikipedia as a medium to announce my discovery is the particularities various communities have, whether it be the scientific, or media outlets. Believe it or not, the world is filled with a hunger for credit. I am also a victim of such hunger and am fearful credit would be simply usurped by the undeserved. Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidyevgenyroven (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't really help there. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought —see wp:NOT and specially wp:FORUM— so I had to remove your unsourced addition. See also the two replies to the comment you made at Talk:Grey matter#Grey Matter(physics). I have added a welcome message on your talk page that provides pointers to articles about how Wikipedia works. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your feedback and the time you put into the greater good. There is no animosity coming from me, I am grateful for your contribution to humankind. Merci ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidyevgenyroven (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

... a rather modest one to humankind :-) - DVdm (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Dvdm, for all you do on Wikipedia, especially keeping my user pages free of vandalism. Regards Pinethicket (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, so to speak... - DVdm (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

..

you were right in doing so...cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.153.236 (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please sign messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Thx.

Ok. I have added some welcome pointers on your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your report to WP:AIV

Good evening!!

You made this report to AIV earlier, however this user does not seem to exist. Can you please check that you reported the correct name?--5 albert square (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He was attempting to report Special:Contributions/2A00:1CA8:18:0:216:3EFF:FECE:1ACB, but Huggle has bugs with IPv6 and only reports the last quad. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

^(ec) Hi there. Looks like a Huggle 2.1.19 shortcoming w.r.t. IP v6 —who ordered IP v6 anyway?—. The user in question is Special:Contributions/2A00:1CA8:18:0:216:3EFF:FECE:1ACB and the IP was blocked here, immediately before I reported it. Let's hope Huggle 3 won't break its teeth over it. Cheers and thanks for letting me know. Cheers to you, Reaper, as well! - DVdm (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah no worries, I didn't know Huggle has a bug in it as I've not used it for a while. DVDm, IPv6 is the replacement for IPv4 which ran out of addresses. Such a charming editor as well! :D--5 albert square (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I know about IP v6. The thing is, they started developing it before they discovered NAT. There's no need for IP v6. V4 could last forever :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Deserted island problem

Hey your page on desert islands and deserted islands is wrong. They are two different things, one is a desert, one is deserted/uninhabited. You keep yelling at me and reverting it when i fix it. Please stop and learn the definition of words. Dfriedeborn (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)dfriedeborn

Don't take it personal. You are free to raise your objection on the article talk page. Meanwhile, do have a look at a few pointers I have put on your talk page to find out how things work here at Wikipedia. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion. You do not take it personal but you need to learn the difference between the words: deserted, and desert and fix your page. I understand that you wish to continue to put false information up but that's not what wiki wants. Dfriedeborn (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)dfriedeborn

Well, one of the things you might need to know about Wikipedia, it is that it is about verifiability. As I said, raise the matter on the article talk page and discuss the issue with the ones who have a different view than yours. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Note - It looks like you went to the talk page. Good. I already replied. - DVdm (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page

Much appreciated. ... discospinster _talk 21:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! - DVdm (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. The perils of being a vandal-fighter, eh? Porterjoh (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again, DVdm, for all you do on Wikipedia, especially keeping my personal pages free of vandalism. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's really not all that much trouble — just a Huggle click actually. My pleasure :-) - DVdm (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Template misuse

I've reverted your edit that misused a vandalism warning template. If that editor breaks WP:3RR, please just report the violation but additional templates will not serve any purpose. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just reported the editor for edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right. I definitely should have issued a 3RR. Thanks for having done so. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Tubbs

With reference my Matthew Tubbs edits that you have reversed, can you actually look at the profile, which has been edited maliciously by Rotherham United supporters! There is no such team as 'Rotherham Mental Health Unit FC' and Matthew Tubbs has not played 123 times for England. I do not understand how these edits were approved, but mine - which were intended to set the record straight - were reversed. Having looked at the History, the profile needs to be reverted to the version that existed on the 22nd August. Thanks. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.212.246 (talk)

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

 Done -- See [29]. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note - Article is now semi-protected. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern

Please feel free to keep a watch on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but probably not :-)

Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IP user(s) at Richard Dawkins

Look at the contribution histories, and then the history of User:Kazemita1 Remarkably, they showed up just as he left. Not sure if that is enough for an SPI, but it makes one think... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, would not pass the wp:duck test. If they continue, it could be brought up at ANI. - DVdm (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have put some warning on the talk pages ([30], [31], [32]) - DVdm (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Hey there, my rant was not directed at you, it was a private message thatUser:Steuard sent to me. --Technoquat (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies. Please note that the edits you have made today on various user talk pages were indeed personal attacks, regardless what anyone might have sent to your email address in private. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's weird. I have no idea what this exchange was all about (nor what may have prompted that guy to post about vandalism on my talk page), but thank you for dealing with it. For what it's worth, I don't recall ever interacting with him before (and certainly not by private message; I suspect I'm happier not knowing what he claimed I said). --Steuard (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That user has not specified a valid e-mail address anyway, and it looks like they have been blocked indefinitely now. Strange. - DVdm (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated

Hello. A few of us are attempting to make some improvements to the article on Tom Van Flandern, and there's a disagreement about a particular quotation. Two of us (myself and Martin Hogbin) believe this quotation is non-mainstream, basically a thinly veiled attack on mainsteam physicists, based on Van Flandern's misunderstandings, and not very notable. One editor (Akuvar) contends that the quotation represents the accepted principles of mainstream science, and should be presented as such in the article. I know it's an imposition, and I apologize in advance for troubling you with this, but I was hoping you could give your opinion on whether the quotation is mainstream, or whether it should be presented (if at all) as an example of Van Flandern's NON-mainstream beliefs. Here is the quote, along with a link to the web article it comes from:

Physicists and mathematicians have fundamentally different approaches to describing reality. The essential difference is that physicists adhere to certain logical principles, any violation of which would amount to a miracle; whereas the equations of mathematics generally are oblivious to physical constraints. This leads to drastically different views of what is, and what is not, possible for cosmology and the reality we live in. Physics that adheres to these logical principles is known as "deep reality physics".

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

By the way, I am posting the same question to one other editor ("D.H") who has also made constructive edits to the article in the past.Flau98bert (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The history of the article shows severe (but strangely unnoticed) edit warring with a large number of wp:3RR instances, many genuine edits reverted as vandalism, and possible signs of wp:ownership. Given that at this moment the article has 31 watchers, I think the best (and probably only) way forward is to put a properly (i.e. neutrally) formulated {{rfc|sci|bio}} (see wp:RFC) on the talk page and see what happens. If that does not resolve the problem, you'll have to go to wp:dispute resolution noticeboard (see wp:dispute resolution). Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. By the way, I actually did post an RfC some time ago, but only one person responded (Martin Hogbin), and although he and I have reached agreement, the two of us have been unable to resolve the problem with the other editor. I agree with you that dispute resolution is needed, but I think it's likely to lead to a genuine resolution only if there is a sizeable consensus of several independent editors, all making the case that some specific administrative action is needed. When there are just two editors, each claiming the other is trying to impose a non-mainstream POV on the article, the chances of effective administrative intervention are poor, because arbitrators usually don't have the time or interest to familiarize themselves with the issues and make an informed judgement. So they just "cut the baby in half". But if there are several independent editors all agreeing that one particular editor is imposing a non-mainstream POV on the article, I think the chances of effective administrative intervention are much better. For an article like TVF, the available pool of knowledgeable editors is really quite small. That's what prompted my request to you, but I understand that you prefer not to get involved. I will keep searching for knowledgeable editors who are willing to help establish a solid consensus for how to resolve the issues with that article.Flau98bert (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you have made an rfc. Don't forget the bio parameter. After all, it is a biography, and adding the param might attract a few experienced biography specialists. It might also be a good idea to add the quote to the talk page, in order not to force potential commenters to go and look for it in the article. Just a thought. Cheers and GL. - DVdm (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your views on whether a particular quote is mainstream physics would, however, be most welcome. Such matters are beyond the scope of most biography specialists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is of course just plain crackpot physics, as anyone from the science project will immediately agree. The problem is just to find someone who is sufficiently interested (—in what i.m.o. is essentially a non-subject not even deserving an article here—) to actually look at it and make a comment. It's a clear-cut case of wp:undue, wp:fringe and wp:ownership, but on this one I think I will be keeping the sideline. - DVdm (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sam Harris

You threatened to ban me for adding "unsourced material" to the Sam Harris page. However, every change I made is backed up with a citation. Thus, you are lying by claiming that my material is "unsourced". I'm considering reporting you to the appropriate authorities to have your moderating privileges removed. 90.202.202.24 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source does not say that Sam Harris is a guru. So by all means, go ahead and report me anywhere you think it might be appropriate, but it might a good idea to read wp:BLP, wp:NOR, wp:SYNTH and the entire wp:V first. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Note - Multiple IPs. See

• 90.202.202.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.199.137.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 76.125.249.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

DVdm (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

You have a history of contributing to Frank Zappa-related material and articles. If I proposed a Wikiproject centered around Frank Zappa as a way to make articles on the subject more organized, would you support my proposal? Friginator (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I surely would. - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could add your name to the list here, that would be great. Remember, we need the involvement of as many users as possible. If you know anyone who would be willing to participate, send them along! Cheers. Friginator (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello DVdm; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks!

I'm Matt, I teach at the Lab School of Washington. Many thanks for correcting the LSW page this morning. I'm teaching internet literacy, and I placed the word "superb" on the Lab School page, and before I could fix it a few seconds later, you had already fixed it! You really blew the students' minds. You really drove home the point that Wikipedia is accurate because of a community of caring people (many students and teachers feel it is not accurate since it can be editted). I'll be doing the lesson twice more this afternoon if you would like to participate again! After we edit and immediately fix the LSW page, we go to the sandbox and make major edits.

No problem. I will probably not be around, but someone else might be. Be careful doing this though, as your IP-address can (and probably will) be blocked for making such test edits. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm only going to do it one more time for educational purposes. I hope I don't get blocked! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.92.2 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the final warning! we are all done for today! we will edit tomorrow but we will be cautious and factual and try to contribute positively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.92.2 (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! I edited [Raghaveshwara Bharathi|that page] as i know about it and previous explanation was vandalism. Not the truth. Please correct it.

You know nothing about it... :@ :@ Grrr... And you don't have right to block me... Huh!! :@ :@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.206.98 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't just delete properly sourced content from an article because someone says it is not the truth. The best thing for you to do, is to go the article's talk page (Talk:Raghaveshwara Bharathi), open a new section and specify your reasons to remove the content to start a discussion with other users who do know something about the subject. If nobody replies withing, let's say, 2 or 3 days, you can delete the content and point to the talk page in your edit summary. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:86.166.70.84

Any suggestions for a resolution for this IP address (probably the same individual using one of several similar IPs for the last several months)? It's getting a little exhausting and even User:Andy Dingley and User:Guy Macon also show some concerns over this IP's contributions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Collapse for too long and not relevant here

No, it's Wtshymanski who is getting exhausting. Particularly repeated merging of articles where there is concensus for no merge. And also repeated mergng of articles, but carefully and unjustifiably deleting vast amounts of information from the source article. This behaviour was the subject of a recent RfC where this behaviour was specifically critisised by another Admin (the only reason no action was taken was that Wtshymanski had taken a 'holiday' from editing for a couple of months). There has also bee a recent spat of Wtshymanski inserting dubious material into articles without reference. When deleted, Wtshymanski reinserts it claiming that I have to prove it is false (not what WP:BURDEN says). Once again, I note that I am not the only editor with this problem. Wtshymanski has continually critisised and harassed me since I had the temerity to raise the RfC in the first place. Admins keep stating that issues should be resolved on talk pages. But that is also a continuing problem in that any attempt to discuss issues on Wtshymanski's talk page result in the usual response of the attempt being deleted unanswered (and I am far from alone here). Unfortunately, as several article discussion pages show only too well, Wtshymanski is always right, and anyone (and not just me) who disagrees is wrong. If you insist on diffs, let me know, I can provide plenty. Wtshymanski's belief that User:Andy Dingley and User:Guy Macon are showing concerns would seem to be in his mind only because there is no evidence beyond normal talk page discussion (some of which supports Wtshymanski whih is probably what he refering to). Wtshymanski has placed a comment on my talk page but its worded along the lines of "Here's my view take it or leave it". 86.166.70.84 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid that, apart from giving some generic advice, I can't do much here. Just keep calm, have a look at wp:BRD, avoid wp:3RR-lane, have a look at what's in wp:DRN, and ultimately keep distance and wp:DGAF. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC) I found this, more or less, by chance. I have to confess to a bit of a surprise that a block was not the result. Having said that, I would offer a few observations for your consideration. 86.166.70.84 (herinafter jast called '86') has been subjecting Wtshymanski to more or less the same level of frustration that Wtshymanski subjects other editors to. Wtshymanski can be likened to a school bully. Like a bully, once he gets a taste of his own medicine, he goes whimpering to teacher - in this case you as he presumably thought you were an easy touch having left a comment on 86's talk page. This is part of the problem. Wtshymanski regards a failure on the part of any admin to address his behaviour as condoning that behaviour (and has frequently said so). You suggest Wtshymanski looks at WP:BRD. Excelent advice! Except Wtshymanski (whether he has looked or not) does not do BRD. He does WP:DIRYWND (no, I couldn't find it either). It's [WP:Delete, I'm Right You're Wrong No Discusion]. Wtshymanski seems to regard Wikipedia as his to control. I quote this from one of his own talk page comments, "Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it.". That speaks volumes. Wtshymanski's editing style (resolutely tendatious) was the subject of a recent Request for Comment ([33]). Sandstein requested Wtshymanski to take the comments under consideration. That he didn't, led to a block on the 18th July 2012 for continued distruptive editing. That editing pattern has not changed since that date. Further comments have been made on the RfC talk page since the closure ([34]) but there has been a drop off mainly because of a real perception that nobody is going to do anything. One observation is worthy of note. One of the planks of the RfC was that Wtshymanski habitually drove newbie editors from the pages of Wikipedia. Something that I had not witnessed until recently. A relatively newbie editor Embrittled only been editing since 24th August. It all started here [35]. Embritled added a statement to the article Induction motor, and provided a citation to back his edit from an impeccable source (a university no less). It is clear from Wikipedia policy (and common sense) that such an edit must be accepted in good faith. Only Wtshymanski doesn't do good faith either. The edit was reverted [36] with just a statement that it was wrong. No backup no assumption of good faith. Embritled reverted the deletion (and there is no evidence that it was anything other than good faith) [37]. 86 then reverted the deletion [38] observing that it was correctly cited and that he had verified the cite. Wtshymanski once again failed to assume good faith and reverted the edit [39], with the terse tag line, "Web site is incorrect". No evidence offered. But the web site was not incorrect. The document that it reproduced may have been. There were a few more reversions, but the issue spilt onto the talk page (correctly). Now let's get one thing clear here: I believed at this point that Wtshymanski was actually correct (but my belief is not a valid reference). But regardless of that, Wtshymanski continued to insist that he was right and that the learned institute was wrong, but in spite of several requests failed to produce any references to back his claim. I eventually intervened, and proposed a compromise wording (which has so far held up). But have a look here:Talk:Induction motor#Eddy Current (Edit Point). All the discussion subsequent to this point is after that compromise. Wtshymanski still carries on insisting that he is right but refuses to produce any supporting evidence. As you may note from the end, it seems that the universities and colleges are now teaching what was originally edited in (reason: unknown at this time). As for discussing anything with Wtshymanski? These two comments on Wtshymanski's inversion of the WP:BURDEN principle were placed on his talk page (one by me and one by someone else obviously having the same problem) [40] and [41]. Wtshymanski has a standard way of responding to attempts at discussion like this. It is this [42]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieSwartzPunkt (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

wp:TLDR, and you have come to the wrong place anyway.

My suggestion to everyone involved was to just keep calm, have a look at wp:BRD, avoid wp:3RR-lane, have a look at what's in wp:DRN, and ultimately keep distance and wp:DGAF. Good luck to everyone involved. - DVdm (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Pioneer anomaly - this time really resolved

Sorry, didn't have time to write a paragraph about the new results, just deleted the outdated section. Anyways, here it is: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-interstellar-physicist-anomaly.html ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.47.193 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Looks like something to be discussed in a new section on the article's talk page at Talk:Pioneer anomaly. - DVdm (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Split-step method page

I really do not understand why you blocked my link from "Split-step method page"! I explained why I reverted the last Incnis changes. I did not even get any answer from this person why he did it in the first place. I am not a sales person, I am a researcher. I wanted to share with Wikipedia users that there is a software which implements split-step method. However, I has been shut down. Our website has a lot information about nonlinear optics in general and I do not see how this only link can be considered a spam. What about other users who placed external links on the same page? Why they are not considered as spammers? Can somebody tell me what should I do to stop being seen as a spammer in Split-step method page? Thanks a lot. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Evpstek (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please have a careful look at wp:ELNO. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my talk page. May the stroop be with you. DFTBA! Piandcompany (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah.... I love these -- specially with a Duvel. Thank you very much! - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Michelson–Gale–Pearson Experiment

Just wanted to mention a few things about the recent addition (and removal) of my Michelson–Gale–Pearson contribution. This was my first ever Wiki edit so please keep this in mind and excuse any misinterpretations!

I made no edit changes to the existing material, only adding the perspective of the original experimenters, Michelson & Gale (Pearson was the assistant), who were were verifying the existence of the ether. The Wiki entry describes the results from the perspective of Einstein's ether-less SR, therefore it seems only right to include the perspective from the original intent to detect the ether.

I'm reading-up about the definition of reliable sources and can't seem to find anything wrong with referencing peer-reviewed conference publications. If necessary, I can also reference the chairman and vice chairman of the conference who actually attended the session in Moscow last month where this discussion took place, they commented that the new work is "of great value to the community".

Thanks for all your great work on Wikipedia. Kelvin Wright (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kelvin, thanks for passing by. You might open a section on the article's talk page, or perhaps better, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics and propose the addition. I think that you will find the response interesting. Prepare for possible objections along the lines of wp:UNDUE and/or wp:FRINGE. Cheers and good luck! - DVdm (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Note — When you open a section on the physics project's talk page, it would be a good idea to directly link-refer to your edit and to my revert. That makes it easier for the contributors to respond. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I placed a proposal for the addition at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics more than a week ago and did not receive any response. What does that usually indicate? Best - Kelvin Wright (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen it and I can imagine that you're a bit disappointed. Taking into account the very courteous formulation of your inquiry, I suspect that this lack of response means that no-one objected to my removal and the reason as stated in the edit summary (see [43]). Mind you, although based on my experience, this is just speculation, but I'm pretty sure that someone certainly would have responded —in the negative— if you had formulated your inquiry in a more aggressive, or even in a strictly neutral way. - DVdm (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Best Girlfriend in the world

Think you confused G7 with A7. ⁓ Hello71 17:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Sorry, and thanks for correcting. - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Some new work at crossroads

D, I desire you to read this as well as this, so you might see what I have done to remedy this matter. Honestly, I thought that was a great deal of bother over a common misunderstanding but I did not want to aggravate Paul any further. I think this matter ought to be raised someplace. I have stated my concern that if we say it is fine for an editor to just post wherever, no one will be able to follow any threads. That seems preposterous to me. However, I do wish to thank you for keeping an eye on what is occurring. You and I have had a bumpy history but I believe you have been very good to me.~©Djathinkimacowboy 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: [44]:

Just read wp:INDENT more carefully, and specially look at the time stamps in the indent examples. Doing what Adam A did is 100% common practice, and he shouldn't have apologised for it as he did here. But never mind now, as I notice that you have struck the request. I know you don't like the practice, but I think you should try to get used to it because it really happens a lot and it fully complies with the wp:talk page guidelines. Good luck overthere and cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, no, you are very correct in this and I have been either blind to it or my usual stubborn self. You know my excellent User:JamesBWatson has explained this to me in great detail, and I do see how it works. I also understand what you explained to me about it. I think User:Paul A probably posted what he did in reply to my posts to him. It is a happy thing to report that we are climbing to a higher level relationship when we stick to basic civility. I'm grateful to you, D.~©Djathinkimacowboy 22:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Always glad to help. Chrs - DVdm (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		DVdm, it is my special honour to award this for your assistance, generosity and your vigilance. ~©Djathinkimacowboy 21:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A star for a dot — sounds like more than fair a deal :-). Thx! - DVdm (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

'Twere a pleasure, that dot saved millions. ;) And of course, it isn't only for the dot my friend.~©Djathinkimacowboy 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Are you working on this article? In Saif Ali Khan article they have already mentioned about the marriage, that's even with past tense like "One 16 Oct they tied knot", but they are going to tie know in next few hours. Anyway.. But, I can't find same info in Kareena Kapoor's article! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, apart from having reverted obvious vandalism, I haven't been working on the article. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Microexpression article

Hi DVdm, thank you for your message about Microexpression. I've read and learned a lot about micro expressions, and the association I added seems adding value to the article on wikipedia, because it has links to more articles and relevant resources, what is useful for the readers. It's a non-profit organisation and it's not spam, so I don't understand why you removed it. I beleive what I foudn there does contribute to more information about research and micro expressions. Can you redo the changes or let me know how it's more approriate to contribute with this resource? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microexpress (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should use the article talk page (Talk:Microexpression) to propose your addition. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands

Hi DVdm, please stop reverting my edits in Netherlands-related articles using automatic reverting tools. We all know the Netherlands as a country is singular, but we still need to use 'are' because the country name itself is in plural form. See various sports teams-related articles for example, they all use "Place Nickname (plural) are a professional football (or whatever) team competing in the (whatever) league" etc in the intro. There is another article discussing whether we should use are or is for the Phillippines which might interests you.

Happy editing. 110.5.117.243 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What happens in sports clubs if of no concern here. As I said on your talk page, see MOS:RETAIN. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is. They are the same thing. Technically, we should use 'are' after a plural term, whether that plural term refers to a singular object is of no concern.

110.5.117.243 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That might be true in British English. As The Netherlands is not a British country, and as the articles have been using the non British English variant, the singular should be retained. See —again, but more carefully— MOS:RETAIN. - DVdm (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The country is still singular. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is cetainly singular as well, because 'kingdom' is singular. Are you suggesting we should start the United States article with 'The United States of America are...' as well?  thayts t  09:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The United States of America is a North American country.

The United States are a North American country. 110.5.117.243 (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want edit wars. That's make a compromise, should we? The article European Netherlands was originally created and written by a British Wikipedian in British English. Therefore I will use plural auxiliary verbs in that article only.

Cheers. 110.5.117.243 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We have guidelines for this. See MOS:PLURALS and —once more— wp:RETAIN. - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That about the US simply doesn't make sense. Adding 'of America' behind it doesn't suddenly make it singular, 'states' is still plural.  thayts t  10:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, see also Google fight "The Netherlands is" vs. "The Netherlands are". - DVdm (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Faleristics which ought to be Phaleristics

D, this I hope is no inconvenience but I wanted to ask something. I came to you because I think I have overloaded JamesBWatson a bit much of late. I would like to know the best way to properly title this article with its correct spelling. This has been addressed here, but no one seems to care. There is no excuse, let alone source, for the spelling with an "f". Can you just walk me through the retitling? Thank you.~©Djathinkimacowboy 03:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, see this Google fight. The original name seems to be the clear cut "winner" (4.5 to 1). If that is not important, read on...

Normally, if there's no objection on the talk page, just open the article, find and hit the move button, provide the name, keep the check boxes checked, provide a simple reason, and hit the button. Everything will be taken care of. The old name will remain accessible through a redirect. After that, make sure that the article content reflects the change, specially the lead, and even more specially in this case, the opening sentence of the lead.

In this case however, there already is a redirection page with the target name, so this might not work, although, according to wp:MOR it should work, as there's "only one line in its edit history". You can try it and see what happens. If it doesn't work, you can still ask JamesBWatson. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, D. In light of the attitude toward that thing, and just from studying it longer, I believe an AfD is in order. That thing doesn't belong there at all, with either spelling. BY the way, the Google thing was cute--but I saw no results at all. That part was blank. In this light, do you think you can walk me through nominating an article for deletion? That article is the only one I want to try for now, but I have about a half-dozen articles that should be deleted. Let me know.~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I found it very instructive to read what's at {{afd}}, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#How to list pages for deletion, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Creating an AFD. The process is quite simple, actually, but do read that stuff.

However, when I look at two users' objections against deletion at Talk:Faleristics, I would definitely advise to quickly forget about deletion —and renaming—, but turn your attention to something else, so to speak. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

D. yes I will follow the links and have a gander at those, because in consultation with a few admins there are some articles that need to be deleted such as Posie ring. Also, your advice is noted and agreed upon--it may be better to try and save that article, which had been my intention from the start. I just don't know if we can: we have a field that is bolstered solely by collectors, what appears for the time being to be a made-up term for it, and here I was arguing about the spelling. The field itself is notable, no question. The trouble I see is whether the field is mature enough for a wp article beyond a stub. Anyway, cheers, cheers, cheers my friend. And thank you especially for the heads up. I don't want to or plan on pursuing any negative or oppositional course with the article.~©Djathinkimacowboy 03:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DVdm, you may also wish to consult here and get a different perspective of what is happening with Faleristics. I will not budge as promised, and I want that article saved, but I just don't think it can be done now. And so I'm praying--it's all I can or will do--for someone to come along and do AfD.~©Djathinkimacowboy 03:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed these replies due to the star here below. Sorry. Meanwhile I notice that the article swap has been done by John of Reading.

I also noticed the unfortunate block/ban news for you. I think it's best for you to really stay away from Wikipedia as a contributor, for some aspect of your philosophy seems to be incompatible with the way things are supposed —and designed— to work here. Try not to lose too much sleep over it, good luck and take care. - DVdm (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Yeah thanks for the correction. I must have got confused Anastronomer (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The guy from Genesis

No problem. I was familiar with epinions already because I knew of people who posted reviews there years ago since it was all user-submitted content. And as it still is user-submitted according to their FAQ, that means we can't source them at all for anything on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My doubts were not so much about the site, but about that particular commenter. If the site itself is not reliable for sources... then what about the ±500 references to it?

epinions.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Ouch. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely need to be removed if you see them. Even its Wiki page says outright, "To add reviews, contributors register for free and begin writing their own personal views, including personal satisfactions or dissatisfactions." Per WP:USERG, it fails the reliable source criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing 500 of them, I think this should perhaps be reported to the wp:RSN. Will check later. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

External links

Hello, DVdm. I've just read the fact that you removed what I added to such pages concerning the first world. I just want to inform you that the link is a first world war soldiers database managed by the official Calais in which I work. I believe that knowledge for the user of a database of names of British soldiers who died on the floor of the town of Calais (France) can actually engage the world as many nationalities (Belgian, British and countries but also members of the commonwealth) have transited in Calais during the conflict. Reference the database pages on Wikipedia for British regiments can be very useful. Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yield77 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yield77, I know the link and I have checked it. I don't really think that it is appropriate per wp:ELNO #13, but others might disagree. You can go ahead, be wp:BOLD and reinsert them, or you could propose to do so on one of the article talk pages and see what others think. In any case I will not revert. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Contemporary art

Re: Information you removed from Contemporary art. I took that information from the Wikipedia articles Art movement and Style (aesthetics). I didn't go to a blog. Why haven't you removed that text from the latter WP articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matnatlak (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matnatlak, thanks for letting me know. I didn't know that —and it doesn't really matter whether— the same text appears in other articles on Wikipedia. If the blog was first then the text should be removed from our other articles as well.

However, the blog's date is 28-Sep-2010, whereas the text was already present in our article's version on 12-Sep-2010, so as far we can see, we have no problem here. So feel free to, sort of, undo my removal. Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I presented proof that Spinnin' Records are copyright-thieves.

I presented proof that the Holland-based company "Spinnin' Records" is copyright-thieves.

You reverted my edit because it was not constructive in your opinion.

However, the information I entered is TRUE, and shouldn't Wiki project TRUTHFUL information to the public even when it may be considered of a problematic nature?

How about adding the picture of the evidence I posted? Is that allowed?

I sincerely believe a company that has been proven to be a copyright-thief should NOT be allowed safe-haven on Wiki. Atleast allow my added information as long as it is presented WITH evidence.

The image I posted as evidence is this:

<removed image>

Thank you. JEL (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi JEL, stating in Wikipedia in an article about a company that they are thieves, is not allowed for (at least) three reasons:

1. It falls under wp:BLPGROUP.
2. The proof that you provide falls under wp:NOR and cannot be used as a proper source.
3. It violates our wp:NPOV policy.

I think it would be wise not to add that kind of content again, or you will probably be blocked from editing. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have filed the image that you uploaded for deletion — see here. - DVdm (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

New Note. Sorry for the possible confusion. I have now filed a proper image deletion nomination on commons. See nomination page and talk page notification. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: Attack file deleted, user blocked. - DVdm (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Greg Janicki

Hi - just a friendly reminder not to violate 3RR at Greg Janicki; I'm watching the article already so will be able to deal if/when the IP continues his edits. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, although I don't think that 3RR is applicable when reverting flagrant negative BLP-content —not even properly— sourced by some youtube video. But thanks for the heads-up. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's always better to err on the side of caution. I've now blocked the IP for 3RR and BLP violations. GiantSnowman 14:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

It's always somethin'!! Many thanks, DVdm, for watching my personal pages. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No Problem. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For keeping Wikipedia clean! -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Clean & mean :-) - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My Apologies

I'm sorry, it was a mistake. --Costalfy (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

unjustified and unconstructive critique

hello, you recently wrote this on my talk page:

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nicaraguan general election, 1984, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

and 13 minutes later:

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Nicaraguan general election, 1984. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

and then, in the end you finally deigned to agree, writing: ok, but please try to use a properly constructed sentence then. how generous - i'm overwhelmed.

the not properly constructed sentence you refered to happened because i forgot to delete 2 words. else the edit is perfectly fine and has had "verifiable" and "reliable" sources from the very beginning. even if this had not been the case, it is customary to give an editor a few days time and if patience runs out to add a citation-tag. unless something is totally out of place or unbelievable, there is no justification to delete it, as you did. i am quite familiar with wikepedia etikette and if you find my edit controversial, which i don't, you are very welcome to start a discussion with me.Sundar1 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you were victim to my having a somewhat bad day. My sincere apologies. DVdm (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

apology accepted. Sundar1 (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cantor's diagonal argument

The proof is my own.

I submitted it because I believe Cantor's diagonal proof is disingenuous. Assuming we consider the sequence of binary numbers generated by all the numbers with n digits, then Cantor's table would be 2ⁿ times as long as it is wide.

For example, for n = 2 we would have a table 2 with four rows and two columns:

1:	0	0
2:	0	1
3:	1	0
4:	1	1

Cantor's proof presumes such a table can be constructed (albeit in the imagination) and posits it to be square as a prelude to moving along its diagonal and changing each digit. His proof ignores the fact that the table doubles in length for every new digit added. In essence he proposes that a square table be constructed and then proceeds to discover it is truly rectangular, though not to what degree.

Cantor's proof avoids the shape of the underlying table by positing a countable sequence of elements, each of infinite digits. If something is countable then it can be represented by its count, and we arrive back at the rectangular table above.

I think that understanding the shape of the underlying table is helpful in understanding both the nature of an uncountable infinity and Cantor's diagonal. I accept that my proof might not meet Wikipedia's standards and appreciate the attention you have given it.

CamCairns (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the appreciation. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy

Hi, You messaged me saying "Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Creation–evolution controversy without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, DVdm"

I removed the segment because the opening sentence, from which the rest of the segment I removed stemmed from ('Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia') is not only not factual, but also extremely biased.

First of all, there is a vast group of scientists who do not believe in, or are at least unsure about, evolution and even if there was a statistical method which could get an accurate figure for the proportion of scientists who do not believe in evolution, I highly doubt it would be smaller than the 0.1% which I would say is required for such a statement to be warranted. If the statement were true, then why would Wikipedia need an article entitled 'Creation–evolution controversy'?

Secondly, as I said, the statement implies that there is no controversy. The statement is extremely biased (something Wikipedia should not be) in that it implies that if it is controversial, the only reason anyone doesn't believe in evolution is that they are scientifically ignorant. I have done significant enough research to have the opinion that it is in fact evolutionists who are scientifically ignorant; and yet I would not put such a biased statement on this article myself, because it is about a controversial issue - not something which even the scientific community knows the answer to.

Thanks for your concern, but please could you remove the statement again for me? thanks, ma5t2Ma5t2 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like up to now, you have made only one edit ([45]), and your talk page is empty, so I must assume that you are talking about this edit of mine and my user talk page warning here. If that is the case, I suggest you go to the article talk page (Talk:Creation–evolution controversy) and talk about this with the regular contributors of the article. Can't help you here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Frank Zappa WikiProject

You are receiving this message because you rename is on the list of interested parties at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Frank Zappa. This message is being sent to let you know that the project is now active! Pleasfeel free to join in discussion on the project's talk page, and be sure to add {{WikiProject Frank Zappa}} to the talk page of any relevant article you come across. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing logged-out

Regarding your comments at the bottom of User talk:Kazemita1/Archive 1 — as long as it's not done for illegitimate purposes, there's nothing wrong with a registered user editing while logged out. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, but see [46] and [47] - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)