This user may have left Wikipedia. Javalenok has not edited Wikipedia since 2 November 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Welcome!
Hello, Javalenok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using words like "mercenary" in your edit summaries could be taken as a violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, or WP:AGF. Please keep your comments in line with those official policies of the encyclopedia. Atlant 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The individual material gain is considered lelgitimate, even praiseworthy driving force of modern industrial civilization [1]. I cannot imagine how the protrusion of a company in wikipedia will not serve its commenrtial purposes. --Javalenok 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article talk pages are for discussing the ways of improvement of the aryicles in question. It is not a place for political propaganda. Please keep in mind the wikipedia is not an internet forum: it is encyclopedia, and people work here on its improvement. While your opinion may be interesting, it has no influence on article content. If I an mistaken, please start from saying clearly how exactly you want the article clanged. `'Míkka>t 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note: User:Mikkalai is a "sock puppet of Altenmann" --Javalenok (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:Convolution of two pulses with impulse response.svg[edit]
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Hi! I was just reviewing the article on power factor. If indeed "EPSMA guide to EN 61000-3-2 says not a word about switching regulators" then Wtshymansk should not have re-inserted the part about switching regulators you took out. I could not simply revert his changes, though, because I found some of the wording you used elsewhere in your edit hard to understand.
Could you do me a favor and post a new section on the power factor talk page that lists a few of the areas where you have identified errors? I am pretty good at wording things, and I believe that if we work together we can arrive at a version that is both clear and technically correct. Thanks! Guy Macon 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, to favor the posting I must be in power to stop the Wtshymansk. Yet, I would be glad to clarify what is unclear. Basically, for a cheaper design, the switching regulators mostly work in DC-DC mode. These are the plain rectifiers (AC-DC) that cause the non-linear consumption. Non-switching power supplies also include the rectification blocks. For instance, I can easily imagine a transformer-based voltage reductor + rectifier at the output, which will produce the same spikes of current consumption. Therefore, it is distracting to blame the switching elements.
Yet, the distraction is supported by a reference to EU authority. I could not believe that the regulations are so narrow-minded. The EN 61000-3-2 seems inaccessible, but, EPSMA's guide makes no special concern for the switchers in its review -- everything that is above 75W must care about harmonic distortions.
BTW, claiming that "power companies loose money on heating the transmission wires due to energy traveling forth and back" is wrong. In fact, no current is returned to the utility because of non-linear load. Moreover, drawing power at higher voltages is more efficient. In the beginning, EPSMA's guide states that PFC is desired not because of the energy transportation efficiency rather because of the stresses and the lifetime of the distribution networks. I addressed this importance in Old revision of Power factor with an explanatory link.
I wonder the people like Wtshymansk, who arrogantly looks for stupid formalities to fight the essence. Thanks. --Javalenok (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rotational delay, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I've just reverted your additions to this article, as they seemed to me to be blatantly non-neutral. All contributions to Wikipedia, even 'criticism' sections of articles, must comply with the neutral point of view policy, and not promote a particular argument. Also, generally the stronger the assertions you're making, the better sources you need for it. Content like what you were adding would need to be supported by more and better reliable sources. I hope this helps you understand where you were going wrong. Thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on September 11 attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Hut 8.5 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly edit-warring, and your edit summaries indicate that you have an issue with neoconservatives. Your next revert will be your fourth: discuss this on the talkpage, as you are supposed to, rather than reverting. Acroterion(talk) 19:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice to see how people having problems with neocons revert my edit without discussing and blame me in having problems with neocons, reverting and not discussing! --Javalenok (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you think everyone who disagrees with you is a neocon? Funny. I'd stop the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith now. ToaNidhiki05 12:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I do not think so. I think you is an idiot. --Javalenok (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. ToaNidhiki05 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those who revert without discussion, blame me in reverting without discussion. Those who come to my journal to personally attack me (saying that I think stupid things, which I did not given rise to) blame me that I personally attack em. We live in perverted society. --Javalenok (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you called Nidhiki an idiot earlier. This kind of attitude will get you banned on Wikipedia. Please do not make personal attacks on people in future (even if you believe that they are doing the same to you). – RichardBB 16:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The point is that you called Nidhiki an idiot earlier." Where? He came first and started to attribute me absurd ideas, without cause from my side. This is how idiots attack people. It would not be big deal. But, saying that this behaviour is normal is demand to counter the truth. This hits much much stronger. Not to say that I bear oppression from the people strongly committed to protect Wikipedia from the movement for truth. Ok, next time I will give him a chance. --Javalenok (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you is an idiot.
That is what you said, Javalenok. You seem to think everything on wikipedia is a conspiracy run by 'neocons', and try to apply that term to anyone who dislikes you're edits. I would be very careful doing this, as personal attacks are valid grounds for being blocked. Rather than holding bad faith against anyone who disagrees with you, try and constructively contribute to discussions here. ToaNidhiki05 12:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly incapable to understand what I say and go on imputing me absurd ideas. I asked not to do this two times. Thank you for confirming your ill behavior once more. --Javalenok (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ill behavior? Like most people, I don't appreciate being called an 'idiot'. Instead of attacking people, why not participate? ToaNidhiki05 13:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
09:13, 17 Sept, by "giving a chance", I mean that a person who comes to his opponent and starts an attack by imputing nonsense to the opponent. Perhaps it is a temporary failure. We must give him a chance to revise and correct himself. Three times I helped, asking not to attribute his nonsense conjectures to other people who never implied them. He systematically ignores my remarks and goes on, begging for some participation at that. Nobody stated that I call somebody "ill behaving" because he does not like it. This is new absurd idea of this person imputed to me. I do not know which participation is wanted, but no participation is possible with person who, instead of reading, demonstrates his ill behaviour over and over again. --Javalenok (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ToaNidhiki05 12:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Javalenok, I would have liked to write to you directly but there is no link to reach you by E-mail in your toolbox. I must therefore be prudent about what I say on your talk page because I have been "banned from editing all articles which relate to the September 11 attacks, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages." User_talk:Oclupak#9.2F11_topic_ban
I just want to say that I greatly appreciated something you wrote on Sept. 13 at 19:03 (UTC). I managed to get a glimpse of that bit of information, which was complete news to me, in spite of the fact that it was deleted 38 minutes later.
I would have liked to discuss this matter further, which obviously I cannot do here without incurring the risk of a total ban from wikipedia. If you wish, please contact me at my E-mail address which is availble in my toolbox. To preserve your anonimity, you could also enable the "E-mail this user" link in your toolbox.
My purpose is to try to cool you down because I wouldn't like you to suffer the same fate I have by being barred from contributing any more worthwhile info on the subject that I am not allowed to discuss here. Cheers. Oclupak (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your (reverted, and for good reason) edit to Oscilloscope, and your comments to W.[edit]
The bandwidth of bandwdith-limited systems is almost always quoted in terms of the 3 dB down point (which is equivalent to a voltage drop of 0.707 from nominal). It is perfectly possible and expected for the response of an amplifier to be flat (or practically so) until shortly before that point. If you assume the rolloff is 3 dB/octave (which would be a very shallow rolloff for a scope vertical amp), then if your bandwidth (really the 3dB down point) is quoted at 300 MHz, then attenuation is negligible at 150 MHz (one octave down from 300 MHz) and you can assume a "flat" response below that. In practice the rolloff will be considerably steeper and so you can count on flat response extending correspondingly higher. Bandwidth is nearly always quoted this way because quoting the point at which response drops "just a little bit" from nominal is both vague and impractical. Jeh (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the bandwidth-limited systems almost always quoted in terms of down point if their response is flat? Why to limit the bandwidth for a device that has flat response? How can a flat line curve down? IMO, it cannot. The only "good reason" is the complete nonsense. OK? The very first search in google tells everybody that an ideal "flat" frequency response means that the microphone is equally sensitive to all frequencies. Is the microphone bandwidth-limited? Obviously, it is. Yet, the article says explicitly that "flat response" is only in our minds or range but we know that "flat" is not really flat. Enclosing "flat response" into the quotation marks, reminds this to us. Even yourself use the quotation marks to say "flat" as joke. It means that response is not flat in general, especially outside the region. We just pretend it is but you play too long and so heavily that you started to deny the reality. Now, if you go on, you will never be able to explain why do you need the oscilloscope bandwidth, why do you limit the device bandwidth if it is really flat. I could not understand this for many years reading the "perfectly reasonable" WP article. Only stupid second person outside WP could address this clearly and resolve the mystery. Finally, Wtshymanski acts as evil advocate -- he deletes the discussions without archiving it, which is considered as misbehaviour in WP. Should we warn him or he will delete this warning also, automatically? The masters of WP are allowed to. --Javalenok (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nobody expects any signal-handling path in the real world to have a NON-bandwidth limited response. Hence "flat" always means "within stated bandwidth limits," regardless of anything you find on the web or how you interpret it. (It is quite possible for a device to not be anywhere close to "flat" within its stated bandwidth limits, particularly where a wide tolerance is part of the spec, as in all practical loudspeaker designs.)
1a) Similar uses occur in everyday speech. The "mesa" I live on is considered "flat" but that does not mean it doesn't have steep sides! Nor does it mean the top of the mesa is perfectly flat; of course it isn't.
2) I do not put "flat" in quote marks to indicate a joke, but as shorthand for "within stated bandwidth limits, as is understood by any reasonable person with more than three seconds of practical experience, unless they are off on a tear about the word "flat" or are being unreasonably argumentative, or both."
3) "Why do you limit the device bandwidth"? Because, one, it is impossible to NOT do so (all signal paths have a bandwidth limit, if only due to parasitic capacitance and inductance), and two, because not every scope buyer has unlimited funds. The wider the bandwidth that you implement, the higher your component and manufacturing costs. It is not uncommon to find successive models, such as (from history) the Tek 455, 465, and 475, that are nearly identical except for vertical bandwidth (60, 100, and 200 MHz respectively, IIRC) and price. So you buy the scope that has the bandwidth you need; that way the audio engineer doesn't have to spend for a 1 GHz digital scope, as there are far cheaper (but lower bandwidth) models available. (The lowest bandwidth "serious" scopes these days are at about 20 MHz because it just does not save much cost to go lower than that.)
3a) Heck, even probe costs go up as bandwidth goes up (and for good reason, this isn't just gouging by the manufacturer). "Standard" probes these days are good to about 100 MHz. If you need to handle higher frequencies than that, you have to spend more for your probes... A lot more if you're in the GHz range.
4) Deleting comments from your own user talk page is NOT considered "misbehavior", the item you linked refers to article talk pages. See WP:ARCHIVE:
Archiving one's own user talk page is optional; some users simply blank the page, as the history is kept available for future reference, but this is not considered the best practice (as it makes things more difficult to find and link).
In fact, on the page you linked, the following is among the stated exceptions for "do not edit others' comments":
Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.
I do not believe you will get much support for the notion that "not considered the best practice" is synonymous with "bad behavior". And regardless of your opinion of Wtshymanski, please remember WP:AGF. Jeh (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first, cost does not explain anything. You try to downplay the fact that oscilloscope's sensitivity degrades at practical frequencies where it can be useful. By such long monologue on prices and costs you try to conceal the fact that osc. has non-flat response in reality. You say that it is not flat, therefore prices, hence it is flat. This is how magic of manipulating words works. Secondly, our group of graduated digital HW engeneers had very difficult time when we needed to buy a scope. Nobody could understand the meaning of BW at all, no matter in 3 seconds. We looked for a digital osc. and nobody could understand what it has to do with the bandwidth, the bits per second, when spec. already provides us the samples per second. We know that the digital devices have a clock and cannot operate faster. That is the limit. What else? Why do we need some BW additionally? It is not obvious at all that signal can be Fourier-decomposed and osc. still can measure higher frequency components with reduced sensitivity. This is a big surprise. Today, majority of professional EEs think in terms of digital sampling and it takes time to turn to analoge knowledge and refresh it. Do you laugh at this incompetence and stand against Wikipedia:MTAA? Should WP be written by serious contributors, experts like you for other experts, or WP should tie up things for mundane people? How can not flat be nothing but flat? --Javalenok (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think you need to be more concerned with learning how things are, rather in arguing for your current view of things or for your current confusion.
Cost explains many things in this world, my friend. And I'm not trying to "downplay" or "conceal" anything. The user base for these instruments is expected to understand that no real-world system exhibits a perfectly flat frequency response (even over a stated bandwidth), that high-end instruments will exhibit a "reasonably" flat response (usually to within less than 1 dB) within the stated bandwidth, and that a bandwidth spec in instruments usually refers to the 3dB down point. Such info is normally taught in EE102 (AC circuits), the second course in the usual EE curriculum. Yes, these principles are still relevant even if you're (supposedly) working solely in the digital domain.
I agree with you that the article (which does not, by the way, claim anything about "flat" response; scope specs don't claim they're "flat" either) should explain the bandwidth issues better, particularly in regard to digital scopes. To answer your question on that point, per Nyquist, the sample rate divided by two does determine the absolute maximum frequency the ADC could accept without aliasing. However, there is always going to be a preamp, a voltage divider network, and an anti-aliasing filter in front of that ADC, and that circuitry will have a bandwidth limit. (Implementing a limited bandwidth is in fact what the anti-aliasing filter is for.) This limit will usually be considerably less than half the sample rate, on the order of 10:1 rather than 2:1. For example a sample rate of 1 Gsample/s would imply a maximum usable frequency, per Nyquist, of just below 500 MHz. But it is more common to see 1 Gsample/s scopes with a 100 MHz analog bandwidth (see for example the Tek TPS2000 series). This is because to go all the way to just below the Nyquist limit (500 MHz) would require an antialising filter with a very steep rolloff just before 500 MHz. This would commonly be called a "brickwall" filter - the response curve is (pretty much) flat to just below 500 MHz and then figuratively speaking hits a "brick wall". But brickwall filters, particularly ones designed to work at fractional-GHz frequencies, create undesirable artifacts within the passband. Instead digital scopes use a gentler (but still fairly steep) filter and quote a bandwidth (3 dB down point) of 100 MHz. The response will of course not stop abruptly at 100 MHz, but will roll off to 500 MHz (by which it will be cut off essentially completely). Using a gentler rolloff, with more than two octaves to get to the desired cutoff frequency, avoids artifacts that a steeper filter would create. Again, I agree that the article could explain these issues better than it does.
Not meaning to confuse you further, but it is possible for a digital scope to measure signals with frequency greater than the Nyquist limit, sometimes many times greater. This is done with a technique called "equivalent time sampling." It works only on repetitive signals -- it doesn't work for one-shot signals. I'm not going to detail that here, but you can look it up.
I do not laugh at incompetence, but I do sometimes despair over it. The fact that you have degreed EEs who are unfamiliar with the fact that a digital scope will have an analog amplifier and etc. behind the input jacks and this circuitry must have some bandwidth limit, or with bandwidth being quoted in terms of the 3dB rolloff point, or with the fact that an ADC utterly requires a bandwidth-limited input, suggests that their curricula were sadly lacking in practical matters. Bandwidth limits (and transmission line effects, which are related) are most certainly of concern in digital systems; if you are unaware of them, you can send perfectly good digital signals down a wire and receive nothing but noise at the other end. Jeh (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the bandwidth section of the article to include the analog bw aspects of digital scopes. If you have further questions or comments it would probably be more productive if you posted them to that article's talk page - then many can help edit the article to be more informative on these points. Jeh (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that computer engineering is the same as EE and everybody is educated as EE. Anyway, we had the communication course, telling something about non-equal transfer of frequencies. Yet, only once I heard the 10x vs 2x Nyquist for logic analyzers in (digital) Microporcessor Systems course, in discussion of timing (not level sensetivity) resolution. And, there was nothing about signal level sensitivity/bandwidth. I do not understand why you are so scared of referencing this aspect and disregard the Wikipedia:MTAA. Fortunately, there are web sites in the Internet that do not. --Javalenok (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the revisions I made to the bandwidth section of the Oscilloscope article? If you have and you think the coverage is still insufficient, please make your comments on that article's talk page. Then others can help edit it and, we hope, answer your further objections. As for your specific comments above, I do not understand why you seem insistent on framing this as, previously, me "concealing" things and now me being "scared". Because of this insistence of yours on making this a personal issue, I'm done here. Attributing editorial opinions to personal issues is not something that has a place on Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You persistently stand against the complete, vanishing response picture (in all frequencies). Now you say that we cannot discuss this your position because it is personal. I see a bit of clarification in your last edit. But, what is the point if response is flat and article is dedicated for EEs? You also have added a section on equivalent-time sampling. However, instead of addressing the issue of analogue sensitivity drop, it does quite the opposite -- it enforces the misleading digital view. Saying that we can use the undersampling technique with reconstruction of the periodic signals (behind the BW) adds to the opinion that response is flat at and behind the BW and it is the notorious digital timing (horizontal performance) is the only issue. Yes, the article you reference literally says that we can overcome the BW limit with "wider bandwidth" advantage. So, clearly attenuation seems not happending with frequency. Finally, anybody living in the market economy understand that difficult solutions are more costly. You tell that there is no need to include the obvious things and bring the cost argument over and over again. It is especially odd when we start speaking in terms of natural units already, what makes the things costly. Cost do not add to understanding of the physical topic that we consider. People just need to understand what is BW and which measurment performance they need. Do not worry, they will be able to compare the prices themselves afterwards. The cost here is only used to overly complicate the explanations and thereby fraud the logic, as happens in the derivation: sensitivity is degrading, therefore costs, therefore it is constant. That is why costs are important in this discussion. They wrest the vanishing into a stable and flat constant. I moved the discussion into the article's talk page. --Javalenok (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Contraposition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conditional statement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from calling other people "Nazis". This is insulting to millions of people on multiple levels, and violates many, many Wikipedia guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wolfsangel, Svoboda's party logo, proclaim anti-semitismNazi always want me to refrain to call them nazi. I do not see the millions of wikipedia editors, who are nazi. I se Львівське user, who calls nazi all the russians, right after your message, just because russains are anti-fascist, who are the only ones who stood against the nazi coup in Ukraine. Yet, nobody is going moderate him. Because he is a true nazi. I understand that the nazi and the West, who funded and supported the recent nazi coup in Kiev, feel it very inconvenient when sombody points at them as nazi. But learn what is the "right sector", whose members welcomes each other by Hitler salute, learn who is Bandera, learn what is Svoboda party, how they carry swastica, white power and slaughtering the russians during Maidan and marches in Ukrainan cities, destroying Lenin's monuments and banning russian language by ministries who claim that russian speakers in Ukraine are degenerate and must be imprisioned over the Ukraine (whose eastern part was annexed from Russia in 1920 by Bolsheviks), how West spread the nazi virus from Львів, how "dictator" Yanukovich refused to arrest the opposition leaders, allowing the nazi opposition to kill his Ukraine milicia officers on the streets, while nazi started to arrested the opposition leaders (we are speaking about Guborev) after seizing the power by force rather than by election. So we have all attribtes of fascism: antisimetism, anticommunism, russphobia, dictatorship, fascist marches, invoking the mass slaughters - everythign to build a bloody right wing dicatorship nation. This is nazism. The true offense is from your double standards and your support of nazi here, in the Wikipedia. --Javalenok (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the internet in general. Again, regardless of all the above propaganda which comes from both sides, calling wikipedia editors nazis is a very bad idea.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What of the above comes from the "both sides"? Unsubstantiated nonsense is offense. Refrain it everywhere, not only in Wikipedia. You ignore the nazism in one side, blame it on the other and demand that the other side silently swallow that? --Javalenok (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gravitational energy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources? For what? Gidence for citation? What the sick joke! I have no censored words. --Javalenok (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources for everything that is challenged—see wp:verifiability. Also, please note that this is the English version of Wikipedia. Perhaps you use Google translate to translate text from your own language to English, but what you say here makes no sense to me. - DVdm (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I translate badly myself, without support of translators. But, that is a twist. You lead astray from what and why needs to be verified. Should I verify every word in my edit? --Javalenok (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RTFM is inadequate answer when you are asked to be specific. --Javalenok (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Gravitational energy, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, see wp:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your nonsense. Bad phrasing challange cannot be supported by verifability. That is nonsense. --Javalenok (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop referring to bad phrasing. The problem is wp:verifiability—see edit summary in my revert. Go to the article talk page and discuss—see wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Gravitational_energy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. - DVdm (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to say to people who invite me to discussing instead of reverting. Because these are the people who revert instead of discussing. --Javalenok (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Event dispatching thread, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SWT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Event dispatching thread, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AWT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Variation (Combinatorics)[edit]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tuple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your comment at Talk:Floating point because it had far too much commentary on another editor, including personal attacks in the heading and the body. Please stick to commenting on content when using an article talk page. If the issue is this change, please just explain why that text should be added to the article and include any sources for verification. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed your comment at Talk:Floating point because it had far too much commentary on another editor, including personal attacks in the heading and the body. Please stick to commenting on content when using an article talk page. If the issue is this change, please just explain why that text should be added to the article and include any sources for verification. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go fuck. Removing discussions of other users is abuse of wikipedia. You have very nice position: replace content with bullshit, deny discussing it violating wikipedia rules (WP:TPO you should not edit or delete the content/comments, even if comment is rude). You can always do it because strighforward qualification of your activity is a "personal attack". One criminal deed justifies the other. That is a very nice position. Invitation to "discuss mr. Vincent crap" means that crap/vandalism is discussed. This inevitably casts bad light upon its proponent. The fact that you interpret it as personal attack means that you is vandal yourself (you will take it personally) and not going to discuss the content, that you is not somewone who deserves the right to judge the civil disputes. It is also misinterpretation of intent (another violated rule) to treat multiple references to Vincent insistent reverts as "personal attacks". How do I else address the disputed content? How do I say that his edit message is misleading? I cannot say "his" because it is also a personal attack, right? Graham pyramid that you see there actually reminds us that you respond to tone. That is, it is you who personally attacks rather than addresses substance. Therefore, you start acting in this judge role. Only criminals demand "tolerance" towards the crap around. This helps the crap go on. Not surprising that you have missed the target in your verification link request. Not to speak that demanding verification links for illustration is just another nonsense, the idiotic statement that you defend provided no verification links. Despite it is obvious nonsense, you have made it undebatable by other, dirty, means. --Javalenok (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Javalenok with this edit that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. 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) 10:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to Talk:Floating point. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User talk:DVdm. DVdm (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for violations of our civility policy[edit]
Since you ignored several warnings about personal attacks and decided to tell another editor to "go fuck yourself" I have blocked this account for 48 hours. This sort of abusive behavior towards our editors, particularly in a content dispute, has a chilling effect on our goal of reaching a neutral point of view. After the block has expired you are welcome to resume editing without the nastiness. Chillum 17:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Brutal force is your ultimate argument. Keep perverting. --Javalenok (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evolution of sexual reproduction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Replication. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've already had one block for civility violations. Please cool it at Knowledge Sharing or you are likely to end up with another ----SnowdedTALK 15:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Brutal force is your only real argument for people like you in Wikipedia. Keep demonstrating us what civilization is. --Javalenok (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has behaviour standards - its how it works. If you think a temporary block is 'brutal force' when you persist in uncivil behaviour after several polite warnings then so be it. It seems a little disproportionate to me and I'm old enough to have seen 'brutal force' that is brutal----SnowdedTALK 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if you torture and murder people, use scotch or both. Both shut up the opponent in order you to prevail. Do not try to present it otherwise. --Javalenok (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked you again for engaging in personal attacks[2]. This time for 1 week. If you continue to be nasty to people you will find the blocks increasing in duration. We are a collaborative project and we need to treat each other with a minimum amount of respect. Chillum 20:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had no doubt that you will miss the aggressor for the victim. Can you use previous ban as a ground for the next? This would enable an infinite series of blocks and ultimately a block forever. --Javalenok (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Message passing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also please note that this is the English Wikipedia. Apart from being unsourced, this edit is unreadable. - DVdm (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, no sources is necessary in your revisions. No, it is not curious, it is outrageous. I have all right to think that you rank my English similarly, using double standards. --Javalenok (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Failure rate, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Referring to this edit, also written in very poor English. - DVdm (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have referred the logic that I used. Everybody can check if it is right or not. Being crazy about "reliable source" you soon will ask to support the reference with a reliable source reliable source. Probably that is your goal. Also, "poor English" is not an excuse to remove the information. It is your way to argument why some voices must be shut down. --Javalenok (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia we don't refer to logic, but we provide proper sources—see wp:NOR and wp:VERIFIABILITY. You have been warned about this many times before. - DVdm (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also remarked that others do not need any reliable source when speak about simple verifiable matter. There is no reliable source referred in the statement that fault rate can be > 1, for instance. Yes, I am going to remove that piece of information. There is also no reliable source supporting the statement that people interpret fault rate as probability. The rest of the paragraph is not supported by the sources either, as the most of the article. How do I verify them? I need to remove almost all the article if you refuse to support it with reference. No, I will remove the article first and then will leave you a chance to provide wp:NOR and wp:VERIFIABILITY links, as you insist. --Javalenok (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that you are the only one who has right to fix the articles? You was accused in the ownership as well. You behave like owner, demanding something unconscionable from editors. You deny my right to behave the way you do, to remove other crap on the basis of wikipedia laws. You ability to abuse Wikipedia rules is bottomless. Now you confess that you are disrupting the Wikipedia. --Javalenok (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, telling the truth, trying to find commons sense is a great threat in US. Thanks for reminding me that. When you delete every bit of information that I add, use nonsense justification for that, when you look for my personal history to see which personal attacks I experienced before to attack me with them once again and prove that your attack are right, you demonstrate the decent behaviour, we should think. --Javalenok (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why there was no warning for this crime. Likewise this guy, they say that they do not see a reference when look at the reference to the main article. Moreover, they say that a reference to the mechanism of the planes polluting the sky is "meaningless" when discussing it in the Contrails article. --Javalenok (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Javalenok. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I undid that edit ([3]) not because, as you claim, "using wikilink is improper in wikipedia", but because, as I said in my edit summary, that specific edit was "improper usage of wikilinks - see wp:EASTEREGG" and I asked you to "try to make a proper sentence using a direct wikilink to the article, or a proper source." You clearly misunderstood my edit summary: I do not think that "using wikilink is improper in Wikipedia."
I am not a criminal, so please remove that personal remark from your user page. Thanks.
I have seen the good Wikipedia rules that prescribe correcting the contributions made by others rather than remove them especially if formatting is the only issue.--Javalenok (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of the formatting, you produced the following text: "It is not actually the case because rate of one failure during some period means the probability to have a single failure is only .368 during that period. Also, failure rate goes higher than 1 as you consider failures at longer period of time." I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned, that unsourced statement cannot be fixed. So I asked you to cast this into a proper sentence.
Hello, Javalenok. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Javalenok. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rotational delay, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Gravitational energy, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, see wp:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Gravitational energy. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
