Jump to content

User talk:DVdm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.166.216.40 (talk) at 15:24, 23 February 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  

— 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."

— Canard du jour —
As the light changed from red to greeen to yellow and back to red again, I sat there thinking about life. Was it nothing more than a bunch of honking and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way. — Jack Handey

  


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]

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
~6 weeks
1,021 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 1st and run until January 29th. 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, –Davey2010Talk 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]

Vandallising the Vandallizm Counter(& why reverting it is an error)

Of course, it's wrong to vandallize the vandallism counter(even as a jest, without malice), but consider, that vandallizing the vandallism counter is still technically vandallizm & so still increments the aforemention'd counter. That's part of the joke & why it seems silly to revert incrementing the vandallism counter when the incrementing is not truly a mistake & is technically vandallizm(see the polocy), even done in jest & without any malace. JustinCB (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well... been there, done that . Happy editing. - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational programming languages page

Your reasoning for removing the Wolfram Programming Lab from the list of programming languages for children is incorrect. The programming lab is actually designed for children and folks with no prior experience. Further, it is a free program to use and is in use within grade-schools across the country. My eight year-old daughter uses it twice per week in her elective science class.

Then, the same goes for the Wolfram Language with regard to use within universities. This language is used in hundreds of university classes throughout the world. Your claim of it being a commercial language is unsubstantiated and false. I realize that you watch several users and pages, but please do not pull down content that is actually valid. Thank you! Badtoothfairy (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages — see Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
Perhaps. Instead of reverting and explaining here, you had better opened a section on the article talk page and discuss. See wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He should have seen this coming. - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello DVdm, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't removed

Hi dvdm can you please not removed I add edit Sigmar Gabriel I already did it and then you deleted it would you please not removed I add, thank you AdmiralNelson (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AdmiralNelson: I think you should go to the Wikipedia of your own language. Not a single edit that you made up to now, was appropriate for the English language Wikipedia. See also user PaleoNeonate's message on your user talk page User talk:AdmiralNelson#English. See the section about Language difficulty in the essay wp:CIR. - DVdm (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not removed United States relation to eroupean union

Hi DVdm can you please stop removed edit, this not English unfortunately, I sorry I edit on Germany by mistake, can you please stop removed edit thank you AdmiralNelson (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to a Wikipedia in a language that you master. You can not properly contribute here. - DVdm (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the first citation for "scientific consensus" be reviewed to see if it meets the guidelines. 24.166.216.40 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DVdm&oldid=827236491"