User talk:DVdm

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

—wwoods 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC filed and deleted

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DVdm. Don't say that you were not warned. --EMS | Talk 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the rfc was deleted due to lack of endorsement. DVdm 09:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for Babylonian confusion

Hi DVdm,

my apologies for the babylonian confusion on the Twin paradox talk page.

I copy and paste from the Twin paradox Talk page:

See This is a less technical introduction, not a non-technical introduction:

"Special relativity is a physical theory based on a particular extension of Pythagoras theorem and an elementary knowledge of the mathematics of squares and square roots is required to understand it."

... combined with Mixing Time Dilation and Length Contraction, where Geometer clearly demonstrates being able to manipulate equations with squares and square roots, yet having no idea about the physical meanings of the variables in the equations he uses.

My only point was - and still is - that Pythagoras' theorem and an elementary knowledge of the mathematics of squares and square roots is not nearly sufficient to understand special relativity. DVdm 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All along, my assumption was that Geometer was using the turn of phrase 'extension of pythagorean theorem' metaphorically.

I have a user subpage with an article about special relativity in which I present the aspects of special relativity that are in my view the essentials. I rely on animations that I have manufactured; the animations are doing the job of presenting the concepts. Please have a look, and tell me whether you think it approaches being sufficient for basic understanding of the physics of special relativity. --Cleonis | Talk 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen your page and the animations. I guess everyone has his preferences. Some, like myself, prefer lots of text with a few simple drawings, whereas some, like yourself, prefer an approach with attention capturing animations.

In my opinion the only webpages that manage to provide sufficient material for a basic understanding of special relativity are parts 1 and 2 of [Relativity And FTL Travel].

However, to really get started, I don't think that anything can replace or comes even close to Robert Geroch's "General Relativity from A to B" and Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics".

DVdm 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your comments and refrain from personal attacks

I have been unable to find any clear explanations in your critiques of my suggestions. However, I have found numerous high handed comments that are basically personal attacks such as: "where Geometer clearly demonstrates being able to manipulate equations with squares and square roots, yet having no idea about the physical meanings of the variables in the equations he uses". Please stop these. Geometer 13:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove peer-reviewed and cited references from scientific articles

Hi I saw that you removed a peer-reviewed and cited article from Twin paradox, contrary to WP:V. Probably you overlooked that fact. Also, you motivated it with marginal and erroneous article. Please take note that "erroneous" is only a valid argument if you can cite it as an overwhelmingly held opinion by others. See also my practical suggestion on its Talk page. Harald88 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning out harry's antirelavistic "reference" Moroder 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moroder. I removed it because it clearly is a marginal article, it is about another marginal (i.e. "unusual and rarely cited paper"), it is loaded with errors, and it is cited only by the usual handful of anti-relativity ether crackpots on Usenet. DVdm 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of absolute acceleration

Have raised the point in the talk page of the twins paradox article. If you can say one frame has zero absolute acceleration you must be able to provide a definition of absolute accelleration. Please do so, I am intrigued. AnnabelBuxton 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your antics on GR article

I'd like to add my voice to the apparent cacophany of voices calling you down. Please be more considerate and thorough when you revert articles, especially those edited by people who know more than you do. If you'd looked at the talk page for the GR article you would see that I sourced the changes I made, and was met with stony silence and non sequitur by the opponents of these sensible edits to the article. It doesn't matter if people disagree with me if they can't support their claims with reliable sources as I have done. Stop reverting the general relativity article or I will seek to have you banned. SteakNShake 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General relativity

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. - Tangotango (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the page. The talk page clearly had become inadequate as a means to work towards consensus among editors. DVdm 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reassure you I am definitely with the regular editors here, but there are several possibilities for what might be going on with this new user. Some probing is needed to find out, so I think we should try hard to follow WP:AGF and WP:DNFTT. This underlies my questioning approach. Geometry guy 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the WP:AGF approach will work in this case, but I wish you good luck :-) - Cheers, DVdm 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when you most doubt good faith that it can be most effective to assume it, but there is a pragmatic side here, which is to make SnS do the work, not the regular editors. So instead of making statements which SnS could develop into unproductive arguments, I have been asking short questions. Geometry guy 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIVIL

Go have a quick read over WP:CIVIL before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Thanks. Nick 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and whilst I'm at it, two other things. Please don't mark all of your edits as minor, only small corrections and reversion of blatant vandalism should be marked as minor. Blatant vandalism does not include reverting based on your interpretation of our non free image policy. The removal of non free images from articles is certainly not a minority viewpoint and it certainly shall not be treated as vandalism by you or anybody else. Nick 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you are right about that.Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Good point. DVdm 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Your userpage says 'see talk page'. Using the following code

#REDIRECT [[User talk:DVdm]]

you could get the page to automatically redirect to this page. Just a thought :) ck lostsword•T•C 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. But... supposing the redirection is in place, how do I access my userpage if/when I change my mind? DVdm 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm! You can do so by adding &redirect=no to the end of the URL. Note the difference between this and this one with the expanded URL. You can also use the expanded URL to see the old history that gets hidden behind a redirect after it's created. Tim Shuba 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim... ok , I get it. However, I have merely put a link on the page. No redirection needed. Thanks guys :-) DVdm 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Paradox talk page

The anonymous user on the twin paradox talk page obviously doesn't want to learn the answers to his questions, but just wants to tick people off. That being the case, may I humbly suggest that continuing to argue the point and sniping with him is precisely the worst response...? -- SCZenz 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I think I'm done with him. And with his other less anonymous identities ;-)

Cheers, DVdm 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caiuszip

Have you dropped by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to report the website? Tabercil 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to me that the 5 points in section Removal how-to have been exhausted. I can't do much more I guess. The last point refers to intervention against vandalism page which is what I did. Last time this was taken care of by admin Ed. Cheers, DVdm 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History:

201.53.42.63 Multiple warnings, blocked: [1]

201.53.0.244 Warning: [2]

Profes001 Indefinitely blocked: [3]

201.53.33.182 Anon block: [4]

Spamming Report to WP:AIV

I note that your report to AIV was removed when I blocked an ip address. I believe that the two users are unconnected, and you may wish to re-add your report. I suggest that you include the username/ip address, per <nowiki>Template:Vandal/''name or ip here'', to avoid the bot regarding your report as a comment on an existing report. Cheers. ~~~~