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-332

This user talk page has been vandalized 332 times.

— 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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 6 months and 3 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.

The right of the Majority and the term KUKI

Hi,
  I appreciate your contribution but I would like to point out to you that you post incorrect information about the Kuki people.

  Firstly , you are confuse about the term Kuki. You should know that Kuki and Chin are two different term and two different people though they are related by blood. You are also confuse about 'Mizos' and 'Zomis". These two terms were never use by any tribe in our history. These are new invented terms and have no connection with the Kuki Tribe(but with clans). 
  Secondly, when it comes to religion, Christianity is followed by 99% of the Kuki Tribes. Out of the remaining 1% half of them are Pagans- followers of their forefathers religion, Atheist , Agnostic and Judaism. Less than or about 0.5% of them believe that they are one of the lost tribe of Israel even though there is no proof. The fact that they claim to be the lost tribe of Israel defies logic and common sense. You are deliberately promoting this falsehood about 0.5% of the people and not the side of 99.5 %. Why promote internal division among us?
  I can only conclude that you are not a Kuki and clearly you have no idea of what you are posting here about my people-the Kuki People.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amulmilk (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Amulmilk: you need to go to the article talk page Talk:Kuki people and propose your edit to the other article contributors. If nobody replies within, let's say, 3 days or so, then by all means go ahead and make your edit to the article, referring to the article talk page in your edit summary. Good luck.

Also note that all your edits need wp:reliable sources. Saying that you belong to some people is not sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riffian people

Hello DVdm, you made a mistake on the "Riffian people" page, I did provide a source Tribes of the Rif Coon, Carleton S. (Carleton Stevens), 1904-1981, so please would you mind stopping editing the page? Thank you.Ronaldoremi1 (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Ronaldoremi1.[reply]

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

@Ronaldoremi1: please provide the publisher, the date of publishing, the exact page number and the ISBN. See wp:citing sources. If you have the information but don't know how to format it, let me know, and I'll help... - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: see this. - DVdm (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hi. Regarding the message you left on my talk page — that's okay :) JackintheBox (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JackintheBox: something seems to be wrong with the most recent versions of Huggle. There was a major update a few days ago. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from ignorance

Okay, so what do you suggest then?Wizymon (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizymon: I suggest that you look at the edit summaries of the editors who undid your edit, and that you follow the link to wp:BRD that user Just plain Bill provided in his second revert. - DVdm (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Extreme

Hey you undid my edit because it was "unconstructive". That's fucking dumb. That's what the source says, it should stay in. I wasn't vandalizing anything, I was editing the article to be more accurate. 73.225.69.24 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@73.225.69.24: yes, my mistake. I should have checked the source. I don't know about the fucking dumbness, but I admit it was wrong. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up

This was an utterly stupid edit. Apparently you've developed some kind of grudge against me, based on my improvements to an article which you decided for no apparent reason that you objected to. Get over it. Reedsrecap (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedsrecap: yes, I had missed the colon, without which it would have been a school book example of wp:NOTSEEALSO. With it, it probably can pass, which is why I immediately undid my revert. Keep up the good work, and let famous remarks remain famous. Getting over it, DVdm (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, I knew it :-| - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation

Now blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:1205:C6AC:53C0::/64 for another month. Sigh. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @EdJohnston:, thanks. - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Square root

I didn't write in the article that square roots are not unary operations. Check out Category:Square roots and the categories it is in. See: WP:Category structure. Hyacinth (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, categories

- DVdm (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyacinth: ah, it's gone. Perfect! - DVdm (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I forgot to sign, delete this.

Coriolis Force "Intuitive explanation"

Hi,

I updated the "Intuitive explanation" section of the Coriolis Force page. The prior version provided a very opaque description that lacked much useful information and is not algined with the deeper physics/equations provided in the rest of the page.

My new version seeks to provide a clear text explanation of these underlying physics in as simple of terms as possible. You noted that I did not provide sources for this information. Here is a viable reference: http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/faculty/Cook/Coriolis_force.doc . Does this work?

Thanks, Dan Drchavas (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drchavas, i.m.o. your new version is much less of a really intuitive explanation than the original one, and, more importantly, it is wp:unsourced. You might bring this to the article talk page, but please do bring a reliable source. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. The bigger issue is that the current intuitive version is also fundamentally wrong: bending in the opposite direction to our actual motion opposite implies motion is reversed, which is incorrect. The remaining sentences are not comprehensible to me, and I am a professor of atmospheric physics. I believe a description that uses basic physical concepts and explains the effect in the context of motion on the Earth (i.e. North/South/East/West) would be much more useful. To me the term intuitive would answer the layperson's question why is an object turned when moving in the atmosphere?" The current text does not achieve this.

The reference I provided above is a derivation of what is described in this text and is taken from a Cornell University course. I use it in my introductory atmospheric science course at Purdue University. If a proper published reference is more desirable, it is also discussed in this book, which is standard in atmospheric science: Holton, J.R. and Hakim, G.J., 2012. An introduction to dynamic meteorology (Vol. 88). Academic press.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Dan

Drchavas (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the real place to bring this up, is the article talk page Talk:Coriolis force where other contributors can have their say and share their thouights. The source that you mentioned above does not qualify as a reliable source. We really need something that satifies Wikipedia's standard, as in wp:RS. Regarding your claim of expertise, please see point 6 of the essay Wikipedia:Expert editors#Advice for expert editors. Point 7 is worth reading as well. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I'll take a look, thanks. Dan Drchavas (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bell's spaceship paradox:

I'm sorry, I was going to make a replacement. An article by Harry Lass has been discovered which essentially changes the idea of the paradox.I tried to outline the solution of the problem, following this article.

HarryZakharov I do not mind if someone is more experienced and knows English. I'm not young and it's hard for me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryZakharov (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Hello DVdm,

Your request regarding Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein, in my talk page, seems as a dictatorship-style of mouth shutting.

I am very amazed by the fact that some Wikipedia editors look for excuses how to avoid writing some simple basic well-known historic facts.

If this won't be corrected, I am planning to initiate a wide protest of removing the prefixes "Christian", "American", "British" from every wbepage in the internet - as many as possible.

טחינה (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coriolis

Dear DVdm

It is obvious to anyone with a physics background that the "intuitive text" paragraph that I removed is incorrect. You cannot use angular momentum conservation to provide an "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis since angular momentum is not conserved in a non-inertial referecne frame. See the mathematical details that are presented in the later part of the Wikipage. That mathematical derivation contraditcs the intuitive explanation you keep trying to re-instate and that I keep trying to correct.

The number one viewed video on the internet explaining Coriolis is by PBS NOVA. That video has the same intuitive explanation that has been used in the past on the Wikipage for Coriolis. If you now goto to the NOVA web apge you will see they have remioved the video because I have pointed out that it is wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/coriolis-effect.html

So, how do you want to proceed here with Wikipedica coriolis? The old "intuitive" explanation of Coriolis on Wikipage is dead wrong. It seems you do personally not understand the physics here and are serving as a block to having this corrected. The NOVA explanation will be corrected going forward and a new video produced, and I will see that likewise the Wikipedia page is corrected. Blatant false scientific information being on Wikipedia out of pure ingonrance by an editor is not an acceptable way forward for me. This page will be conrrected.

Davidmholland (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)davidmholland[reply]

The article talk page is where this should be discussed. If you continue reverting to your version in the article itself, you will be blocked for edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your comment on my page.

I look forward to hearing from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofdominion (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello DVdm, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edits

Hi there. After creating an account here, the Wikipedia asked me to edit a random article and I edit just what I noticed. The similar edits were on the next article. Sorry, if it was some kind of rules violation.