User talk:DVdm: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:24, 28 January 2018

— 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-332

This user talk page has been vandalized 332 times.

— Canard du jour —
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. — Jack Handey

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 1 month and 20 days.

This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

Archives downhere

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 14 sections are present.

G-force page

Regarding your edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#cite_note-28 , I am not very experienced... I just wanted to update the links with correct ones. Why do you think the links are not good ? Thanks, Gabriel aka. Sokoban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokoban (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Sokoban: The links are not very good because they read like advertisements from manufacturers. They are also wp:primary sources, whereas Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources. But I will leave them alone now. Don't be surprised if someone else removes them. If/when that happens, don't revert again, but start a new section on the article talk page—see WP:BRD. Also, avoid adding these same links to other Wikipedia articles. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Sokoban (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Hollyfield School— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Samf4u (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samf4u: You are mistaken. - Please check the edit history. - DVdm (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm, you are correct. Thanks for fixing that. - Samf4u (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to Philosophy game

Hi DVdm. Thought you might like to know (if you didn't already) that this edit, which you reverted is related to the "Getting to Philosophy game" mentioned here. It turns out that, as described at Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy, most Wikipedia articles have the property that:

"clicking on the first link in the main text of a Wikipedia article, and then repeating the process for subsequent articles, will usually lead to the Philosophy article."

where the "first link" is defined to be the first link which is neither in italics nor in parentheses.

However some articles' link paths end in "loops". Currently, for example, the following loop exists: Knowledge -> Fact -> Knowledge. So any article whose link path ever enters such a loop, stays there and so never "gets to philosophy". The edit you reverted was intended to "fix" that loop so that more articles will "get to philosophy". Paul August ☎ 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: Ah, thanks. Now the edit summary makes sense. Yes, I recall a topic about that on the radio some time ago. Good grief

' - DVdm (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Changing colours

I changed the colours to match the dominate colours of the DVD/release covers, it's standard on Wikipedia. Your best asking users like User:AlexTheWhovian or User:Drovethrughosts, who can explain in detail. Theo (edits) 00:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: ok. Next time, please use an edit summary where you say what you do and why. That will help avoid patrollers have to guess and to go and find out whether perhaps you are testing, or fooling around, or adjusting to your personal taste, or vandalizing. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

(Redacted) RonMaimon (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) RonMaimon (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, DVdm.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Requested here. - DVdm (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DVdm. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello DVdm. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purgy's concerns

While we had a small, friendly exchange on my talk page in August 2016, which I enjoyed very much, I lately perceive an extent (continuous function) and style (fraction (mathematics)) of turning down my suggestions that I perceive as sort of offensive. Honestly, I can't interpret "if you don't understand it", with "it" being some obvious triviality, as an appropriate remark in reverting an edit of mine, especially, since an other editor re-reverted yours. In the proximate controversy, a wholesale reversion of a few minor imprecisions and layout variants, you yourself corrected the same wrong content in two places in an equivalent, maybe even better way. So why the claim that it "was better before"? While I am quite sure that my actual 4. step is an improvement in the consistency of the layout, I am prepared to argue the typesetting of the constant "c" in roman, in contrast to the italics for the variable "x". I think that contrasting the two notions is valuable, and using "x=c" may be even better than the also often used "x=x₀". The remaining points from my edit concerning the "ending graph" and the "continuity of the square root" are, imho, definitely weak points in that paragraph, deserving improvement.

I am absolutely inclined to discuss in an unbiased climate all this at the talk page of the article, but I do not want to partake in a discussion governed by troublesome hostility. I am not aware of having started any intentional hostility, and humbly ask to tell me, if and where I gave any perceived reason of assuming such. Friendly regards, Purgy (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Purgy Purgatorio: My apologies for having been bitey. Probably just a bad day, nothing personal. I'll be more careful in the future. - DVdm (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orient versus orientate

In reverting my edit of the Millikan oil drop experiment Wikipedia article, you pointed out that this is a difference between British and American usage. Could we agree to replace the word with “positioned,” which is synonymous and removes the issue of whose English we are using?

Thanks for raising the question.

Cieljaune Cieljaune (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cieljaune: to me "positioned" has a slightly different meaning. "Orientated" and "oriented" relate to direction, whereas "positioned" does not. Anyway, meanwhile it looks like someone changed it to "oriented" again. I really don't care about which variant is used. The message that I had put on your talk page was just to let you know about the wp:RETAIN guideline. Imagine what would happen if users were allowed to change variants according to their whims

. - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And happy holidays to you, Bzuk! - DVdm (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, DVdm.

AfC submissions
Random submission

4+ months

3,127 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry

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

Aw, Davey2010, no apologies needed there. Your edit summary was sufficient

. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 {{!xt2|"Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that [[Apostrophe (')|yellow snow]]."<br />"Remember there's a [[You Are What You Is|big difference]] between kneeling down and bending over."<br />"Jazz is not dead, it just [[Roxy and Elsewhere|smells funny]]."<br />"[[Burnt Weeny Sandwich|Everybody in this room]] is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself."}}
 {{Userboxtop | toptext= | backgroundcolor = #8B4513 }}
-{{user talk vandalized|331}}
+{{user talk vandalized|332}}
 {{userboxbottom}}
 </center></div>