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-324This user talk page has been vandalized 324 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, 6 months and 3 days. This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.

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)

No worries. I'm not a Huggle user so I've no experience in getting things changed. It might be an idea to go to the Huggle developer and request that they add A10 to the list. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done, but you obviously beat me to it . Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Hello, regarding the message on Valentine Joseph you left on my talk page, I wanted to let you know that I have changed the article with the Einstein bit because I have referenced it now. Regards - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anish Mariathasan: Ok, that looks good, but I suggest you don't add the same content to the Albert Einstein article per wp:UNDUE. It clearly works the way you did it now, but probably not the other way around. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for retracting my FTL article.It needs more comprehension...

K.P.Anastasiadis 06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who you are and if you have the right to retract my editing rights. However if you are the owner or the master in some way I would not wish to participate in that.

The tan(α)=v/c in minkowski diagram is incorrect. Pythagoras and trigonometry suggests that in the orthogonal triangle tan(α)=ct/x=c/v and cot(α)=v/c=tan(α)^-1

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.24.82 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Actually, usually tan^-1 denotes arctan. But much more importantly, α is the angle between the x and x' axis, or between the ct-axis and the ct' axis. For v=0, the angle is 0, for v=c, the angle would be pi/4. That means that indeed tan(α)=v/c, as you can also read here on top of page 93 and in figure 3.20 on the preceding page. - DVdm (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added the source: [1].

@Cca2012 and 178.59.24.82: also, when you have a username, please make sure you do not edit in logged-out mode. - DVdm (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cca2012: regarding this message: 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. - DVdm (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear DVdm,

You say "usually tan^-1 denotes arctan" which is wrong.

I agree with the added information refering to the axes of Minkowski diagram, but your deduction

"That means...."

is also wrong, because your assertion does not mean that.

To justify tan(a)=v/c, you reference a figure 3.22 on a web page but what about figure 3.21 on the same web page?

Did you account for that as well?

K.P.Anastasiadis 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs)

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.

The alteration is properly sourced. The angle α of the article is the angle between x and x' , or between ct and ct' , as is explained in the text, and shown in the image on the side in our article. That corresponds to image 3.20 on page 92 of the cited source. The images 3.21 and 3.22 on page 93 use a different angle α and do not correspond to the image in our article. - DVdm (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the image in the article is consistent with the definition of the tangent.K.P.Anastasiadis 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Look here:https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/lorentz-transformation/v/introduction-to-the-lorentz-transformation K.P.Anastasiadis 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs)

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. If your next message here is again unsigned and unindented, I will remove it without comment.

Blogs such as this are not reliable sources for Wikipedia—see wp:Reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are probably right about the tan(α)=v/c but in the image it is not well justified α must be the angle between axes ct and ct' to be consistent with the tangent definition also. Over and out. K.P.Anastasiadis 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cca2012 (talk • contribs)

Tom Waits genre

Hi, I am inviting past editors of the Tom Waits article to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Tom_Waits#Genres. I am in dispute with User:TheOldJacobite, who has reverted even my sourced changes and ignored my appeals to discuss the issue. Please express your opinion on the issue if it interests you.--MASHAUNIX 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ether Space-Time & Cosmology

Hey, new here. You said said to me recently on the Lorentz Ether Theory page: //PLease get a reliable wp:secondary source (with pages number) where this claim is supported. (TW)// I don’t understand how a compilation book with PhD physicists in it cannot be reliable. Most of these have given papers at PIRT (Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory) and are Professors or were. Their credentials can be looked up online, for example Franco Selleri even has his own wikipage on wikipedia itself, others like Duffy and Levy who are editors were good friends with H.E. Ives and Jean-Pierre Vigier (who even read and commented and replied on Lèvy's book from Galileo to Lorentz..and Beyond). I don’t see why it needs a page number when all the Volumes are a discussion on Lorentzian theories. That's kinda weird to me. Can you explain more to me why it was unacceptable? Maybe just do to the Publisher?

Thanks, ~~Rick~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.86.173 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

@173.49.86.173: the statement was: "A neo-Lorentzian Interpretation of Relativity Theory is still an active area of research and dialogue." I don't think that the sources that you cited actually say that. Perhaps you concluded this from reading the sources that you provided, but that would be wp:synthesis (aka wp:original research), which is not allowed on Wikipedia, so I undid the edit it: [2]. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly says (—on a specified page—) that this interpretation is indeed still an active area of research and dialogue, then we might take this, but otherwise it would be inappropriate. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So to be clear you are saying it is not enough to reference a book all about Lorentzian Theory and Scientists and such giving their research and dialoging on it but I must quote that exact thing in those words to be able to link it even though that's the whole point of the book? That seems very strange to me. And by reliable source you just mean one of these Physicists saying this or are you saying it isn't reliable to begin with? 173.49.86.173 (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Rick173.49.86.173 (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Not the exact thing, but a paraphrase of a passage in a book, on a specific (and specified page) where the statement to be added is explicitly supported—see wp:SYNTHESIS. Can you point to such a page in a book where there say something that can be unambiguaously paraphrased as saying that this interpretation is indeed still an active area of research and dialogue? I mean... that is Wikipedia—see also wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me since the whole project of the book is in active research and dialogue that finding any quote like that wouldn't be needed since that's obvious since they are Scientists actively discussing it and dialoguing on it (hopefully I didn't confuse with the word active as if it meant common), why would a quote be needed? That's like saying if Scientist's showed in 3 Volumes and with developments from a Science Conference that a certain Theory was better than another but didn't explicitly say those exact words that it was better, it cannot be used if I said they showed it was better. I find that just dumbfounding. The link you gave me before was on quoting. The problem is I wasn't quoting or paraphrasing any particular sentence so is not relevant. I was giving a link about Active Research and Dialogue in the neo-Lorentzian Interpretation which the book was about, so not sure what quote I would need to back up what they are doing. As for burden do I have to quote that it is on the neo-Lorentzian STR? Or Ether? I don't think it is hard to show it is an active of research and dialogue since all the Scientists are actively discussing it and dialoging on it, I mean it explicitly says in the foreword even that they are based on a "neo-Lorentzian ether concept". Just doesn't make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.86.173 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 October 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.

If it is indeed not hard to show that it is an active of research and dialogue, then it should be easy to find a good source that says just that. Otherwise it is wp:original research. You see, wp:Verifyability and wp:BURDEN are what Wikipedia is all about. Please do read the policies to which I have linked. - DVdm (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First you say it cannot be included as it doesn't have a direct quote, now I give a new direct quote and you now say the publisher Apeiron is a fringe source (which is completely different then your argument from before which seems inconsistent, you mentioned nothing about the editors/authors ironically who have the relevant qualifications). How do you define fringe? And do you think holding a neo-Lorentzian view of Special Relativity is considered a fringe view? I am trying to understand why it cannot be included because you think the publisher is a "fringe" source. 173.49.86.173 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Rick173.49.86.173 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, fringe is defined as explained in wp:FRINGE. A main-stream wp:secondary source, that refers to "modern science" would be handy. Perhaps you can open a little section on the article talk page and see what other contributors think about it. Ultimately such things are decided on the article talk page through consensus among the article contributors. I'm just a passer-by as far as this article is concerned. So by all means, ask there at Talk:Lorentz ether theory whether this edit would be acceptable. Feel free to add a link to this section here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Неllo

Hello from Ukraine, DVdm Патріот України (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello to Ukraine, Патріот. - DVdm (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you SO MUCH for not removing Scarlett Johansson from Category:Fraternal twin actresses as well as One Direction's Category:Family musical groups reputation! But I want twin paradox and/or twin for them so badly! --2606:A000:4AC8:1100:A8B5:ABD9:14B3:E573 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Twin paradox is not related to the subject One Direction, unless you can find a wp:reliable source that establishes a significant connection between the subjects. So we cannot have it. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Latin

The 2/3 of the english words derives from norman (above all the "high" one used by the powerful normans and not by saxons)so from old french and so from latin.Kingofwoods (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You know the drill: take it to the article take pages. See wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Lost time with ignorant people.Kingofwoods (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Electron as a 3D Electromagnetic standing wave edits removed

Why did you remove my edit on the Electron Wiki talk page?

My edit was hardly 'inappropriate discussion' as you described it - it accurately describes all the properties of an Electron from both a Classical and Quantum Mechanical perspective. You seem to be against the better understanding and advancement of Physics. It was not even an edit of the actual Electron Wiki page - it was on the Talk page for crying out loud!

Declan Traill (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Declan Traill: indeed, your edit ([3]) described the properties of an electron. Alas, as was explained before to you on your user talk page, article talk pages are for discussions about improving the article, not for discussions about the subject. On top of the talk page Talk:Electron it says:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electron article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

That is why I removed your edit. See wp:talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely this would be an improvement to the article! It is not a general discussion about the topic, but a fundamental piece of information about the Electron!

Declan Traill (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC):::

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

@Declan Traill: The article talk is for proposing to add something to the article. You did not do that with this message. But more importantly, the source that you gave ([4]) is your own original research, and we don't take that on Wikipedia—see wp:NOR. So proposing on the talk page to add something to the article, based on that source, will be a waste of your time. - DVdm (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The NOR clause applies to the main Wiki page, not the Talk page (it says on on the NOR info page). It is a shame that it cannot be added to the main page, but it should at least make an appearance on the Talk page, even if it cannot be added to the main page. 203.27.181.178 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, NOR clause applies to article space, but the article talk space is for discussions about improving the article, which you did not do in your message. If you push your private work to appear on the talk page, you are effectively abusing the talk page. Please have (another) carefull look at the wp:Talk page guidelines. Sorry, but that is, by design, how Wikipedia works. Hyde Park is over here. - DVdm (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Gold rush page

I apologize we all have made mistakes of our own in one way or another Tylermax365 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Even before breakfast, I make at least one mistake. - DVdm (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Square Root

Hi there.

With regards to your revert of the edit I made on the square root page, no property in the Properties and uses section is currently backed by sources. In my experience, it is common practice on math pages to present such results without citation as they are considered standard, but I could be wrong I guess.

But now wouldn't you agree that deleting the edit I made would then warrant deleting the entire section as it stands? 91.230.41.206 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

No, it doesn't . The content that was already there may or may not be backed by non-inline sources at the bottom of the article, but that content is de-facto accepted by all the past editors. This is new unsourced content, and all challenged content must be backed by reliable sources. It is the responsability of the person who adds the content to provide the sources when challenged—see wp:BURDEN. Removing other (seemingly) unsourced content would be wp:POINTy and thus disruptive. If you have honest doubts about other unsourced content, you can tag it and request proper inline sourcing. Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why was content removed (speed of light)?

Dear DVdm

Could you please elaborate why you deleted my edit for the Speed of Light?

I have, as you request, put sufficient references to make my text valid.

Thanks in advance

Darkch2 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See the edit summary of my removal. See also this reply by user JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs). Please do take this to the article talk page - DVdm (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

One needs a paragraph/section link to the Einstein paper in question, already linked in the article?

Hunh!? (LOL.)

The source was algebra.

The content of the deleted edit was an insertion of: multiply both sides of (Einstein's) equation, and a "Looky there!"

No new source material was being added? Eleaticus (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

All new content, when challenged, must be sourced—see wp:verifiability and wp:BURDEN. Besides, even if it was just algebra, it would be a case of wp:original research, which is also not allowed in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please

Please read the official IMF list in the article referred.Italy has a very high level of development.Kingofwoods (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As expected: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets. - DVdm (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

AGE OF AQUARIUS

you are probably a auto-bot computer editor and not even a human. i just read about other edits you have made to other people that are also incorrect. you just deleted my edits to the "aoa". i am an astronomer(that is my reference-citation).the edits-additions i made are "common knowledge" to follow astronomers. you must not be an astronomer, however you are lame- that i do not need a citation to prove.i also saw that you are a "registered editor", wow you should start a family, or attend a university and become somebody in reality(planet earth).prove your a man, and interested in the truth and dont delete my comments. 172.58.46.216 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.46.216 (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)