User talk:DVdm

— Welcome to my talk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I'll respond here. 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. "They never be working' when they oughta should." "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-at least 351This user talk page has been vandalized at least 351 times. Hello DVdm, what is the reason why my entry in HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS / INTEGRATED INFORMATION THEORY was deleted several times? Wolfgang Kromer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC) — Canard du jour — I wish my name was Todd, because then I could say, "Yes, my name's Todd. Todd Blankenship." Oh, also I wish my last name was Blankenship. — Jack Handey This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 5 months and 11 days. This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.

About fake news website

The source that was cited which claimed OpIndia was "fake news", itself was heavily biased and they were OPINION articles, not objective ones and therefore I removed the source as well as the claim :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Based47 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

@Based47: You better bring this to the article talk page and discuss. See wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Field line, Solenoidal vector fields and Maxwell's equations

Hello. I do not understand why you removed the changes that I made in the three pages mentioned in the title. All sentences that I have modified/added are based on the content of the reference that I had provided (on the contrary, I had removed some sentences that were not supported by any reference). The changes that I applied aimed at correcting a common mistake in Electromagnetic theory. The reference that I used includes the mathematical proof of the statements that I wrote. Such a reference is a peer-review scientific article, published in an authoritative international scientific journal, widely available and accessible. The reference, in turn, provides a lot of other references that support the statements wrote by me. Could you please explain why you believe that the reference is not reliable? I think you made a mistake and I kindly ask you to restore my version of the three pages. 47.53.123.202 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources, not a wp:primary source, as the one you gave is. The (primary) reference that you gave should be used as a reference itself in other (secondary) sources, in order to make sure, and clear to the reader, that the content is not wp:FRINGE. See also wp:UNDUE. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree. The reference that I used is a review paper, which analyzes the question from both the technical and historic perspectives. It is based on previous (primary) sources, that are elaborated to provide an overview and a synthesis of the issue. If you read it, you can find sentences like: "We review the problem and revisit...". In Wikipedia's guidelines about sources, one can read "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". The reference that I used fits perfectly this feature. Again, I kindly ask you to restore my version of the three pages. I am particularly interested in correcting those pages because they perpetuate a common mistake (recognized by the relevant scientific community), providing wrong information to the readers (including students).47.53.123.202 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But the new claim is made in the paper, which makes it the primary source for the claim. If the claim is nowhere mentioned in the literature other than by its author, which we can easily verify with Google Scholar and Google Books, then it is wp:UNDUE for Wikipedia, per lack of secondary sources.

If indeed you don't agree that our policy pertains to this matter, then per wp:CONSENSUS the recommended place to discuss this, is the article talk page Talk:Maxwell's equations, where you can discuss with other contributors. You can add a pointer to here and to your three edits [1], [2], [3]. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No; the mistake is here. The claim is given in some (more than one) references included in the paper. The paper simply puts them in oder and recaps the whole story. Hence, it is a secondary source, by definition.47.53.123.202 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The place to argue about this clearly is Talk:Maxwell's equations. - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on the discussion that took place in Talk:Maxwell's equations, I would go on modifying the pages.93.66.102.253 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@93.66.102.253: Thanks for the heads-up. I have seen the discussion but I didn't really scrunitize it. As far as I can see, I think some of the content is welcome on the Field line article but probably not in the others. Make sure the content is properly sourced. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit reverted

Hello,

I do not know why you reverted my edits on Factorial for "not citing". Those were pure math equations, and already had an example shown. (Similar parts of the article did NOT have cites and used only examples, yet they were not deleted). This isn't a page about a famous person, it is a page about a mathematical operation, with proof. Next time, I (and other editors) would appreciate it if you gave more reason and detail to the undo/warning to their edits, as those were not vandalism and were well-intentioned edits.

SolidState2 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@SolidState2: See wp:no original research. Sources establish whether content is worth being mentioned in Wikipedia. If unsourced stuff has been sitting there since some time, it means that there was a de-facto wp:CONSENSUS to have and keep it. The presence of unsourced content in article is no invitation to have even more of it. I have reverted again. Next time, you will be reported and likely blocked. - DVdm (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you do the exact equation on ANY calculator, such as google calculator or WolframAlpha, you will get the same result. SolidState2 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

@SolidState2: sure, but, again, sources are needed to make sure that content is worth being mentioned in Wikipedia. We can use any calculator to show that 464646446446 + 323232323233 = 787878769679, but unless the literature mentions this, we cannot have it on Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Gravitational Potential Energy Edit reverted

While the derivation is correct in the article on gravitational potential energy, it is confusing because it is presented in a way that is at odds with the other derivations of potential energy that are present on Wikipedia. I put a detailed comment on this point in the talk section of the article. Gwpjp (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I replied there. - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Pesky hobbitses, I hates them. /gollum

Muinn (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--103.150.187.3 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked for one year. See also wp:ANI#Harassment of a new editor and Talk:Minkowski space#Structure and postulates - DVdm (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Macro Magnetics and CuFe

Dear DVdm: I notice this is the second time you reverted the pdf's "Macro Magnetics.pdf" and "CuFe.pdf". These articles relate strictly to solenoids and help in defining them by means of how they are mathematically described. These articles are a result of a teaching PhD. at Eastern Washington Univ. who asked how solenoids were designed prior to Finite Element software. Both he and his students "learned" magnetics by means of fea software and never had to manually crunch the numbers, therefore not learning the basics of iron saturation and BH relationships first hand. The articles are useful, instructive, definitive and of no profit to me. I designed solenoids as an aerospace engineer for over 50 years; starting before fea was around. I thought this was the purpose of Wikipedia. You decide. Respectfully, David B. Mohler; Sr. Principal Engineer Johnson Electric North America. djdm@woh.rr.com 69.133.97.31 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages, provide a header for new sections, and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@69.133.97.31: there are many problems with the addition of these pdfs ([4], [5]): (1) they are your work, (2) they don't cite any sources, (3) they are not published, and (4) they are not quoted themselves in the literature, aka wp:secondary sources. That makes them wp:original research and wp:primary sources, and it also generates an obvious conflict of interest. Furthermore, see also wp:ELNO, item 11. All of this makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

sorry

I didnt mean to add unsourced info I was just asking the person to state the reason for why they deleted so much content with out saying why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedefender35 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Thedefender35 16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

@Thedefender35: No problem. Your rather terse edit summary had misled me. Meanwhile the IP has made things much better already. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sam Houston

These sources cannot be verified. I have tried searching anywhere for a speech transcript, which allegedly these sources were from. A full quote search returns only two sources on the internet, both of which are from books and both of which fail to offer any other information on the source of these quotes. It appears to be hearsay at best. Not only is the information unverifiable, it is added by a user with an edit history that clearly suggests the edits are not in good faith, and they are quite off-topic from the preceding text in this section. Finally, the information provided is not correctly classified as "Legacy." If there was discussion about future fallout from the quotes in question, then possibly. However, the sources provide no such post-death controversies of significance that would help classify this information as that of "Legacy."

Also, the edits that were removed were clearly explained in the respective "Edit Summary" sections. They were not left empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.253.98 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

@216.255.253.98: If you have concerns about the quality of a source, the only place to go with this, is the article talk page Talk:Sam Houston, where you can discuss with the article contributors. If after or week or so you get no response there, then you probably can safely delete the content. When you do that, make sure to refer to the talk page entry in your edit summary. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Reversion on the Taylor Series page

Hello. I added an external link to an interactive simulation for the Taylor series and you reverted my contribution.

I don't understand why the link immediately above the one I put (which is a simulation too) is relevant mine isn't. The previous link need a plugin that does not work anymore. The link I provide works on any browser.

Allan Martins (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ninguem wiki: See wp:ELNO item #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority". As for some of the other links, it's not because bad links are already present, that more bad links could be added. If you think some other link is bad, feel free to remove it, but make sure you explain the reason in your edit summary.

Note that I already removed some more: [6]. - DVdm (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'm an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering with Phd in Computacional Intelligence with two Post-Doc (Florida University and University of Geneva) Scopus H-10 impact factor. How can I verify my "recognised authority" to be able to share the visualisation app (which all my students find very very informative) with Wikipedia readers? Can you attest for the "Cinderella.2" app (which by the way needs a plugin that does not work anymore with modern browsers?)

Pardon me for the opinion, but your edits to this topic seems authoritarian and non-democratic. I guess Wikipedia philosophy if to let the community to decide about an edit. If you feel that any contribution is not suitable or is at "your your personal taste". You should start a discussion and let readers share opinions.

Im sharing this link because is one of the few demos that is purely based on Javascript (which is cross browser compatible) and shows the Taylor approximation for two variables (which is rare).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninguem wiki (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 April 2021 (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.

@Ninguem wiki: Our personal credentials are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Whether some author of some blog or personal website would indeed qualify as a recognised authority for some particular external link on some particular article, is ultimately decided by consensus on the relevant article talk page. Also note that Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Your previous attempt to add a similar external link to the arcticle was reverted for the same season by user D.Lazard. The ultimate key to Wikipedia probably is wp:CONSENSUS. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I see your point. So, how do we reach a consensus in this case? I think my link is useful and in accordance with the goals of the Wikipedia. The credenciais of the authors, as you correctly mentioned, are irrelevante, so we should arrive to a consensus wether or not I have a better qualification than you to evaluate the relevance of the link I provide. What would be your argument? the word "blog" in the link? I can easily change that and put the app in the oficial university link. Would that be acceptable for you?

I understand the value of what you guys do (patrolling wikipedia). It keeps it clean and reliable. The problem arises when you over do it. But I trust that you do not do it for vanity, so please lets reach a consensus. What is wrong with my link? Would be a oficial university URL be ok?

Please notice that the app does not have ANY propaganda, tag, self promotion or advertisement. Even my name is not present! Its a pure and simple app without any mention to any organisation or person, so please state your case of why its not ok to use it as a link? And why we had some links with similar apps allowed before?

Allan Martins (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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

As far I can see, it is not ok to use to use your link as an external link, per wp:ELNO item #11.

As I hinted above, the kind of consensus to make an exception here is to be established on the relevant article talk page. It's related to what goes for wp:reliable sources as outlined in wp:BURDEN, which obviously is upon you. - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you about the exception. I honestly recognise that Im not a valid reliable source to be qualified as an exception. My question is what would qualify my link as valid? Would be ok if the URL was from my university (which IS a reliable source)? Can you point out why my link is hurting wp:ELNO item #11 and Madhava of Sangamagramma or Cinderella.2 are not?

If you enter the link your would verify that its content is in perfect accordance with all Wikipedia guidelines (no promotion of any kind of anyone or any organisation, etc). So is that about the "blog" in the URL? is that about the URL? As I said I can transfer the app to the university website. They would be very happy ho host it.

Is a consensus defined by what you and me agree? Im would be happy to agree with if you argue why my link is not in accordance with wp:ELNO item #11. I kindly ask you to answer my question: Is it about the URL and if yes, would be ok if I transfer the content to a university website? Or is it about the technical content of the app? I would be very happy to discuss the technical side and would completely accept (to reach a consensus) if you point why the app is not technically acceptable (but remember to answer for the Sangamagramma and Cinderella.2 links.

Allan Martins (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you are wasting your time here. The place to discuss this, is the article talk page, where other article contributors can weigh in — Do note that the guideline about wp:external links says: "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Also, my experience more or less suggests that, in general, Wikipedia goes like, the less external links, the better. - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A agree... I'll revert to put the link back and we can discuss if someone finds it inappropriate. Thanks.

Allan Martins (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ninguem wiki: you definitely should not put the link back and then discuss. You should do it the other way around: discuss, and perhaps then put the link back. See wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. - DVdm (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are wasting your time here. We should be having this discussion in the article itself. Again, I fully understand your effort to make Wikipedia a good place. Thank you for the effort. But since on this matter you are wrong (not by intention), I understand. I'll keep my edit until I can talk to someone from a technical background on the subject.

Allan Martins (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't....

Hello, DVdm - Thank you for your guidance. I will follow your direction going forward. ORSfan (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ORSfan: Very well, thanks. Always keep in mind that many types of styles w.r.t. many fields are present in Wikipedia, and in this regard, the golden guideline is MOS:STYLERET: "Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable." The Usual Suspects are wp:ENGVAR, MOS:DATEVAR, MOS:ERA, MOS:PUNCTSPACE, MOS:SERIAL, MOS:SEMICOLON, MOS:FORMULA and MOS:MATH#Roman versus italic. These are the ones I regularly encounter, but I'm sure there's many many more . Cheers and happy editing. - DVdm (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Why is a link to a research article referred to as spam?

2. Is the DVdm user a specialist in Relativity?

3. Why the DVdm user does not justify his editing efforts? Providing the problem code does not constitute a substantive justification.

4. The statement about the three warnings is untrue. Previously, IP entries in another section of the article were removed. As a registered user, I have made one edit in different section and it is an abuse to suggest breaking the three-repetition rule (in 24h).

This time, please provide a description and answer to the points 1,2,3,4.

Regards, RodriguesVector.

Answers:

1. See the above links to our policies and guidelines wp:Conflict of interest, wp:Secondary sources, wp:Fringe wp:Primary sources
2. Irrelevant, but yes, I am.
3. My edits are all justified,see (1)
4. Read the statement. It does not matter if you used IP-addresses or a new special purpose user account. This is about your edits, and if you persist, you will be blocked by username and/or IP address(es). - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@ DVdm Ad. 1. This is not the answer to my question! You incorrectly identify primary and secondary sources. You have no grounds to accuse me of a conflict of interest.

Ad. 2. If you are a specialist, have a scientific discussion and read what is written.

Ad. 3. I do not think so. Let another editor decide!

Ad. 4. Don't pretend you don't understand: the rule of three repetitions in 24 hours has not been broken - including IP and user identity. Do you want to keep making a false allegation ?! RodriguesVector (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

@RodriguesVector: You copied my message on your user talk page to here, adding my signature here in the process. Please don't do that. Keep the discussion in the original place at User talk:RodriguesVector. See wp:talk page guidelines.

I might reply on your talk page later, but I will wait until some of the other users Srleffler, JRSpriggs, and/or Klaus Schmidt-Rohr reply to your inquiries on their or your user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of entries

Hello DVdm, what is the reason that my entry in HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS / INTEGRATED INFORMATION THEORY has been deleted several times? Thanks, Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer:, I considered your addition of the string <ref><ref><ref></ref></ref></ref> in this edit of yours to be a test, so I undid it. In your next edit, you made things OK. On the other hand, the two users TonyClarke (talk · contribs) and WikiPedant (talk · contribs) found your edits to be inappropriate for the reasons given in their edit summaries [7] and [8]. Now, after you had put back the content (which amounts to spammy promotion of your own work), I just did the same and left you a warning at User talk:Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer. - DVdm (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello DVdm, what you are saying is not how it is. I did not even know who deleted my entry, I also did not get any critique at any time, and I never changed or deleted the entry of other contributers. So I did NOT start an „edit-war“ as you obviously think. How could I discuss and seek consensus if I even don’t know who the competitor is? THAT‘S UNSCIENTIFIC BEHAVIOUR. I did not receive any arguments. It’s also not correct that the two users Tony Clarke and Wiki Pedant provided sound reasons in their edit summaries why my contributuion was „inappropriate“. It is appropriate and it directly addresses the term „integrated information“ by modifying what the term should cover. It’s an „edit-war“ initiated by competitors in an unfair way.

What is correct is that I added my own (preprint-published) view on „integrated information“ but that’s a legitimate and, in my opinion, scientifically important contribution. How then can we solve that problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2021 (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.

Also, there is no need to duplicate your messages here and on your own talk page.

@Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer: You can see who deleted your entry in the edit history of the article: Hard problem of consciousness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There are links pointing to that on top of the article.

The problem is that you have a wp:conflict of interest and that you use a wp:primary source, where Wikpedia needs wp:secondary sources. It only possibly (yet unlikely) can be solved by going to the article talk page, opening a section to discuss your edit with the other contributors, and reaching a wp:CONSENSUS to have it on board. In my experience it will not be accepted, so If I were you, I would let it go, and wait a few years until your work is picked up by the relevant literature, and perhaps gets listed here by someone else through a wp:secondary source. Patience is the key here. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello DVdm, I wonder what the scientific basis of Tony Clarke is to decide my contribution was „inappropriate“. All what I could find on his user page is TonyClarke’s statement: „My interests include sailing, cycling, philosophy,photography,healthy eating (vegan) and general messing about with computers, eg wikis, Python programming, etc.. [...] I try to follow the teachings of Jesus.“ No one single scientific entry that I could find. It’s different with User:WikiPedant. From a retired university professor, I had expected sound arguments, not just a „NO“. That’s poor! Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, please indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages.

The scientific basis of TonyClarke (talk · contribs) to decide your contribution was "inappropriate" is irrelevant. Tony Clarke removed it for reasons stated in this edit summary, in which he pointedf to the article talk page with a more detailed explanation: Talk:Hard problem of consciousness#Recent citations of Psyarxiv article. That is the place for further discussion. But as I said before, I think you'll have to let it go. - DVdm (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Dear prof. Kromer. Did you remove my comment or is it DVdm that censors the statements of others? I assume that a discussion is a discussion and more than two people may speak. RodriguesVector (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@RodriguesVector: I removed it. You can talk to this person on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I did NOT remove your comment - so it probably was the administrator. Best regards, Wolfgang Kromer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kromer (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Dear prof. Kromer. My post should not be removed from the discussion by the editor. On my "talk" I showed that the editor does not understand or do not know some Wikipedia rules. Please see maybe the same problem applies to your topic.

Regards RodriguesVector (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Article

Hi, hello. You told me I have to nominate an article in good articles for it to be a good article. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Could you tell me? Danglerofhell (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Both user Bryanrutherford0 and I told you where to go. See the messages on your talk page. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"Developed"

The point I was trying to make was that GR wasn't developed in 1915. It took Einstein years to develop his ideas into GR. – Tea2min (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tea2min: Ah yes. In that respect your version is more accurate. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yozdek response

Please stop putting up messages on my talk page now. I will taie care. Yozdek (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Yozdek: If you stop adding inappropriate entries, I will obviously stop giving warnings. Please be carful, and have a good look at wp:NOTSEEALSO. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

secondary reference for relativity priority dispute

Would you accept just this change:

curprev 18:41, 6 June 2021‎ WhiteBeard120 talk contribs‎ 72,510 bytes +1,902‎ →‎Timeline: add description of recent book on this subject undo Tag: Reverted

(and changes specifically related to it)?

It specifically adds a relevant secondary source.

WhiteBeard120 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@WhiteBeard120: I'm not sure what you mean. You probably should go to the article talk page and open a section there, to discuss with the other article contributors. When you ask there, I might comment too. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that you rolled back the changes with the explanation that the changes added primary sources and did not add secondary sources, however the majority of the word count added was about a new secondary source. So I am asking you: Would you accept the changes if it only had the part about the new secondary source?

(And I note that you didn't use talk to address this to article contributors, and that puts you on at a different level. That is why this reply is directed to you.)

WhiteBeard120 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be new here. See wp:BRD: you made some bold (B) edits. I reverted (R) them for the reason stated in my edit summary. The idea is that you (not I) start a discussion (D). You came here, but I think it's better that you go to the article talk page so other contributors can weigh in.

By the way, on your user page User:WhiteBeard120 you say that you published two books on the subject of the articles that you were editing. That might cause a conflict of interest — see wp:COI. Wikipedia is not a place where we promote out own work. - DVdm (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have started D on article talk page. Thank you. WhiteBeard120 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)