User talk:DVdm

— Welcome to my talk 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 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." "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." "Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself." vn-316This user talk page has been vandalized 316 times. — Canard du jour — I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. — Jack Handey This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 1 month and 9 days. This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.

Nomination of Comparison of bitcoin wallets for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of bitcoin wallets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete - DVdm (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, I'm sorry we've been reverting each other. If you feel strongly about linking "dictionary" words (otherwise known as "common terms", in linking parlance), you might consider raising the matter at WT:MOSTLINK. On the English Wikipedia, this matter was settled long ago (I think from about 2009 to 2011). I can refer you to the discussions at that time if you wish—but they're voluminous. My best. Tony (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. See [1]. - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Libertas

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.16.236 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

My pleasure! - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't quite understand

I recieved this message. Thing is I don't edit at all on Wikipedia nor been looking into anything bird related. I just browse Wikipedia.--86.153.233.215 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a warning from some time ago. At that time someone else could have been using the same IP address as you are using now. Some addresses are shared by many people. There's a little explanation about that at the bottom of your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

eprint link

what's wrong with e-print link? Each article in this chapter has this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.129.57 (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

See wp:primary source, wp:COI, wp:NOR. Wikipedia is not a place where we promote our own work. - DVdm (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a link to open repository I have rather reacted to readers request than fiercely attempted to promote the article. it is your right, however, to consider that an article should not be mentioned among others.

I have a request. Who are you to command in such a tone like “Stop it”? Could you please stop it yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.129.57 (talk • contribs) 8:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

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

I will stop telling you to stop when you stop promoting your work on Wikipedia. You were warned about this before. If you feel strong about adding links to your work in an article, then you should go to the article talk page, say who you are, and propose to add that link. See wp:COI and wp:PROMO. - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Relativistic Trolley Paradox
• 90.135.129.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.140.224.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Olgmtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ehrenfest paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Relativistic trolley paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Olgmtv/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on in this section. Anyway, I've found the citation of this paper myself as part of a larger project, then I independently found the sandbox when the author mentioned File:Trolley Pic.jpg (which I was surprised to see included in an existing page). I think the sources are sufficient for this kind of content. The title can be changes if necessary, e.g. if somebody disagrees there are sufficient sources to consider it a paradox rather than just an exercise. --Nemo 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: But the entire article is based on a single primary source from the author, and the article is written by one of the authors (Olgmtv). I really think that this belongs in user space. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Also, note that there are copyright problems. The entire definition section is copied verbatim from the source. This really belongs in user space. Please move back to sandbox? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I filed for deletion: [2]. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Length contraction

That’s enough! I am scared stiff already to take any initiative. Whatever I did (it would seem for the good!) I have never been praised.

Still, in one article I found doubtful expression. May I propose some clarification? Also, are the Feynman Lectures on Physics either “reliable source” or “original research”? Is it ok to refer to them?83.181.150.84 (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What is enough? Which article are you talking about? - DVdm (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean that the article Length Contraction starts with wrong statement.

It claims that moving observer measures that rod at rest “decreases in length”. It is wrong.

If an observer moves, his measuring rod contracts. If he measures length of a rod “at rest” with his Lorentz contracted rod, that the rod “at rest” will appear to be longer, not shorter.

If an observer moves himself, his clock dilates. Since he turns into a dawdler and his own clock dilates, a clock “at rest” will appear to be ticking faster than his own.

However, SR never takes into consideration “opinion” of moving observer. An observer in SR is “at rest” in his own rest frame.

Let’s say Harry and Tom move relatively to each other, but none of them admits, that he is moving. The both think that they are at rest, and measure that they are “shorter” and “slower” one another.

But they can agree, who is “at rest” and who moves. Harry may think, that he is “at rest” and Ben may think that he is “in motion”. Harry will measure that Ben is shorter then, but Ben will measure that Harry is longer accordingly.

If they choose reference frame, in which Ben is “at rest” but Harry moves, Ben will measure that Harry is shorter (and slower) and Harry will measure, that Ben is “longer and faster”

If they choose reference frame, in which the both move with equal velocities, they will measure “proper” length and "proper" clock rate of each other. This was confirmed experimentally by Champeney and Moon in 1961 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0370-1328/77/2/318/meta) although it is so clear.

But, in SR we take and combine observations of observers "at rest" from different frames. It leads straight to those well - known wonders like “Ben is shorter than Harry and Harry is shorter than Ben.”

Please note that in some cases Ben and Harry will not able to conduct real experiment (measure rate of moving clock) with symmetrical setup, i.e. if each of them thinks that he is “at rest”. They will be able to conduct experiment of that sort only with a-symmetrical setup. If one of them is “at rest” and other must be “in motion”.

Thus, it is desirable to change the first sentence – an observer “at rest” measures that a rod “in motion” contracts. Or rename the article into “length extension” and to say in the first sentence, that moving observer measures, that "a rod at rest increases in length".

Do you agree with the statements above or maybe you also think that the rod “at rest” contracts from the point of view of moving observer? 83.191.3.37 (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

It is a well known, documented and sourced fact that a moving rod is measured to be shorter than it is measured in its own rest frame, so I see no problem with the article Length contraction. The opening statement was a bit awkwardly worded, so I made a little change with a proper source. - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?". 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 6 September 2017.

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. 14:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?, 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, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Calculus, History section

Hi DVdm, You have left a message on my talk page, that talks about an edit I made in the article Calculus in the section of history in the subsection of modern. I have to tell you that if you search in the original source which is http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/calc1/calc1.html then you can see that the only mention of the chain rule, is in the Leibniz section. And in the article Chain rule there is no mention, that Newton have discovered that rule. Also in the sources you have inserted, there is no mention that Newton have discovered the chain rule.Thanks - IJM98 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)

Hi IJM98, indeed in the original source [3] it says: "In 1684 he gives the power rules for powers and roots. The chain rule is transparent from his notation." and "His method builds into it the product rule for derivatives." so that's indeed not okay. I have removed that source: [4]. The other source that I added seems to back the text in the article.

Note that there is no requirement in Wikipedia for a wikilinked article (such as Chain rule) to mention the linking article—see wp:WIKILINKS. These Wikilinks cannot and must never serve as sources in the wikipedia sense (see wp:Reliable sources and wp:CIRCULAR). They are just there to stear the reader around in the encyclopedia. So you never have to worry about that. Having checked your edits, I now understand why you made some of them. So you can safely forget about back-checking wikilinks in articles. If you have more questions, feel free to ask here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi DVdm, I have not changed the article but i ask you to change the sources about the chain rule mentioned in that article, or delete the part in which it is mentioned because there are not sources that say that Newton have discovered the chain rule. If you have the sources I will be happy to read it, but for the moment, all I have read around the internet and on books, doesn't mention that. Thanks. - IJM98 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC+1)

I had added a source for chain and product rule:

References

@IJM98: Page 248 directly supports product rule, and if you look at the opening sentence of the section on page 247, under the heading The Product Rule and the Chain Rule, they seem to suggest that Newton had developed the chain rule too, independently of Leibniz. That part might be somewhat open to interpretation, so I suggest that you open a little section at the bottom of the article talk page Talk:Calculus and see what the other contributors think about it. Others may have relevant references. For me it's not very important—I have no preference of N over L or vice versa, even if I am a big fan of Leibniz' notation . So, good luck on the article talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Surface Gravity Links

Hello DVdm, recently you removed my link from Surface gravity page. The link provided by me was regarding how surface gravity works on different planets, natural satellites, comets, dwarf planet, asteroid etc and how our weight can vary according to variations in surface gravity of that respected celestial object. Anyone can check his/her weight on different worlds easily. Check this link again. http://antariksha.org/weight-planets-stars-worlds/ Its purely informative content. Here you can not find any kind of promotion. You can revert me here. Kumar Nikate (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kumar Nikate, the message you got was a semi-automated one. Indeed that link does not point to promotion, but it is nevertheless inappropriate, as you can verify in wp:ELNO, item 11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." This clearly is a personal website by a non-recognized authority, so we cannot have it. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass removal

I'm reverting your mass removal of Category:Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism. Don't try to pre-empt the CfD process – they can be deleted if and when the CfD is successful, not on your whim. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. By the way, I like that painting on your user page. - DVdm (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to self: category was deleted. - DVdm (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

And ditto for Category:Converts from Islam to agnosticism or atheism. - DVdm (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Great Bible

Not sure what the issue is with the edits, appending, I have provided given that I have included citations ....? (108.51.194.199 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC))

Your sources don't look reliable as in wp:reliable sources. The best places to propose and discuss these edits and your sources, are the respective article talk pages. Good luck there! - DVdm (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for the reversion on my talkpage, which made clear that it was the IP vandal messing around. The Old Jacobite and I were both pretty puzzled about why I received a warning from him, and when/how he would've posted such a warning; it never even occurred to me that someone else might have posted using his name. Grandpallama (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Special relativity:

I'm confused about the need for references when adding something that is simple logic. Do you have to reference the Pythagorean theorem? I'm sure there are many people who have used the spaceship example in some form or another to explain the of lack of simultaneity, length contraction, and time dilation. I have used it many times in class myself, but I have no idea who first used it--possibly Einstein since he liked thought experiments. The logic, however is straight forward and I'm not sure what to reference. Probably many textbooks have similar discussions, but I'm sure they are not original either. (Just because it's in a physics text does not guarantee it is correct--I've found many mistakes in textbooks.) I added the section because nowhere in the article does it explain what is going on in simple English. Just throwing out the Lorentz transformations does not explain anything. You could derive the transformations from the expanding light spheres as seen by two moving observers, an easy to understand explanation. (I don't know who first came up with that idea either.) If you can find something wrong in the article I would be interested. I also added a section to Bell's theorem, but the watchdogs on Wikipedia do not seem to be interested in explaining physical concepts. Most articles seem not be concerned with understanding ideas. They simply write down the formulas and feel that explains it. There is not a Venn diagram in the whole article, which would explain more than all the words. If someone wanted to understand a topic in physics, I would probably not direct them to Wikipedia. By the way check out "hyperbolic function" I added a section there, but I didn't know you to reference it either since it is pretty straight forward. The original article did not even clearly explain how the functions can be defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph C Boone (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

@Joseph C Boone: note that I found a serious logical mistake in one of your thought experiments. But we are not supposed to discuss that here on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has this basic policy as explained in wp:verifiability, wp:reliable sources, wp:secondary sources and, finally, wp:burden. Of course, we can always question sourced article content on the corresponding article talk page. There we can discuss the quality of cited sources, but we are not supposed to discuss unsourced content, per our policy wp:no original research.

Also note that the phenomena of relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction all have their own well-sourced articles, with well-known and documented thought experiment explanations—without Lorentz transformations. So there is no need to invent new or better explanations and put them in the general article Special relativity - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Property qualifications for voting

Hi,

Thanks for nominating Property qualifications for voting for deletion; I have deleted this now. Just to let you know though that the more appropriate tag to use was WP:CSD#A10, as that covers new articles that have content covered entirely in existing articles, rather than WP:CSD#A7, which is for notability. Notability doesn't really apply for this article; it's more for people, companies, bands, and products rather than well established concepts. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sjb72:: I knew there should be a better tag, but alas, Huggle does not provide A10, so I lazily took A7. That was inappropriate indeed. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)