User talk:DVdm

— Telcome to my walk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I will respond on this page. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check —which often happens when I am practicing the Fine Art of Real-life Living— don't hesitate to remind me here. "Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow." "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

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 [1]). 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: [2]:

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)