User talk:DVdm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


— 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."

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 10 years, 3 months and 23 days.

— Canard du jour —
Marta was watching the football game with me when she said, "You know, most of these sports are based on the idea of one group protecting its territory from invasion by another group." "Yeah," I said, trying not to laugh. Girls are funny. — Jack Handey

vn-250 This user talk page has been vandalized 250 times.


A kitten for you![edit]


To keep your mind off the negative off-wiki stuff. Face-smile.svg

Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Cute Face-smile.svg. Actually, that off-wiki stuff is so interesting that I sort-of enjoyed it. Paradox! - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't apologize[edit]

Please do not apologize to DoNotGod for suggesting sock-puppetry. There were behavioral reasons to think that sock-puppetry was likely, with two registered accounts and one unregistered editor engaging in similar disruptive pursuit of their agenda. Just because CheckUser didn't find a relationship doesn't mean that you or I were wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

We'll see how things evolve at User talk:DoNotGod and at .... although I wouldn't mind apologising. Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Last warning[edit]

What is the problem? I am reverting the edit. -Richardparker207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardparker207 (talkcontribs) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you are systematically removing content in articles without giving any reason, despite the multiple warnings on your talk page. I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Have a look at wp:BRD: when you make a bold edit that gets reverted, you are supposed to discuss on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I should provide reasons for changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardparker207 (talkcontribs) 18:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as you can see in the messages on your talk page. And when someone reverts your deletion, you are supposed to start a discussion on the article talk page about your reasons. Don't just delete the content again. - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Richardparker207 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardparker207 (talkcontribs) 19:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Claims of Vandalism[edit]

You deleted a section on living person who's personal blog and opinions are is cited. It is relevant as they are a public figure. Unless you have some basis (not the actual person or a false source) please refrain from deleting material that is relevant and properly sourced. Your opinion on whether it is "helpful" is not a basis for suppressing fact. It is the verified author who posted this publicly so it violates no privacy or nondisclosure act. How is that "vandalism"? (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your source in this edit looked like an unreliable source. A closer look reveals that it might indeed be reliable. I will strike my warning on your talk page. Feel free to redo on article. - DVdm (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not trying to hurt anyone. This is her actual storify blog and while it is controversial it is her opinion. I will probably do this in the next few days as there were reversions to my edits that could put me over the three revert edit. I did not see them as wa trying to clean up links while the reverts were going on. (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I was too quick in my assessment of the site. Do be very careful though with wp:BLP articles. You know the drill Face-smile.svg. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have undone my revert. Whatever happens next, I will probably not touch it anymore. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Better ISBN tool[edit]

Hey, I remembered you asking me about ISBN hyphenation. I've been working on a tool to better work with ISBNs, and I finally got around to throwing together a prototype. It doesn't yet do much, but so far it'll hyphenate and convert ISBNs, and it doesn't use annoying alert() messages for errors like the LOC tool. I figure you might find it useful. If you spot any issues, let me know and I'll try to fix them—there are probably a whole bunch as I threw the UI together without much thought. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: Thanks. I have used it to go over Special relativity, checking a number of instances, and hyphenating the bare ones. I also made a few tests with faulty check digits. The tool seems to correctly propose corrections. It should be a POC to add an extra field for the corrected input, and then present the result in the remainder of the fields. Tip: when the input presents wrongly hyphenated data, a little warning note would be nice. Super tool! - DVdm (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Complaint (3)[edit]

Ive been making free (non profit) study materials for a while now and would like that students all over the world benefit from those. However, it seems the links are being removed by a certain person who accuses me in self-promotion or whatever. Yet again the links to other profiting organizations are not being removed on the same pages. I always thought wikipedia is supposed to be a free source for knowledge but it seems DVdm is following a totally different agenda. So yeah sure - go ahead with your "moderating" and keep removing quality study materials.... all for the betterment of mankind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maido Merisalu (talkcontribs) 11:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See wp:ELNO item 11. There is no recognised authority here on your link. About the "links to other profiting organizations", here's the standard answer: sure, wp:otherstuffexists. Perhaps some other links are there and managed to survive through wp:consensus. Feel free to remove more inappropriate links per wp:ELNO. Wikipedia is yours, so please be bold and go wp:FIXIT. - DVdm (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing for a mistake[edit]

I am extremely sorry for my action it was a mistake I was just experimenting it won't happen again.Mentalist karan (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


How to give notifications to other users.Mentalist karan (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Just like you did here, by leaving a message on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

7/19/15 Question[edit]

It looks like you are an active contributor to the GPS page. As I remember that page used to have a section on how the satellite clocks were adjusted so as to run at the same rate as the earthbound clocks. Part of it went something like: 1) GPS uses the velocity of the satellite clocks with respect to the ECI frame to determine how much each satellite clock has slowed relative to a (virtual) clock at rest in the ECI frame.

2) GPS uses the velocity of the earthbound clocks with respect to the ECI frame to determine how much each earthbound clock has slowed relative to a clock at rest in the ECI frame.

3) GPS uses the results of 1) & 2) to compute the expected difference in satellite clocks rates vs the earthbound clock rates due to velocity.

And equations were included. Anyway, I don't see that section anymore. I'd like to see the "old" description in that section. Can you help? - as in providing the approximate date of the deletion and who made the deletion. Also, I'd be interested in the "Why?" in a few words and anything else you think might be relevant. Thanks!HarvPhys (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I merely vaguegly remember something like this. I had a look at the history between now and September 2012. The only significant unreverted removals I found are this and this. I don't think this is what you're after though, so I suggest you try asking on the article talk page. Beware of RBH. Succes! - DVdm (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to look through that time period. I will put an entry on the article talk page. ThanksHarvPhys (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert on one way speed of light.[edit]

Just so you know, this claim is likely based on Feenberg's claims [1]. There's some additional material saying this was refuted however, which should be included if Feenberg is mentionned.

Whether to include Feenberg or not is an entirely different matter. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a matter of wp:DUEness. Probably to be discussed on the article talk page, if at all. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be most grateful for suggesting any additional sources and references, related to this synchronization and one-way speed of light measuring method --Olgmtv (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

light cone and causality[edit]

Well, it is true that The light-cones define a causal structure not only in SP, also in many models of GR, but not in every one, take for example Godel's models. In particular, it does not follow from GR that "These sets are observer-independent" (in fact you are citing SR sources). As far as I remember, "the light-cones can be used to reconstruct the space–time's semi-Riemannian metric, up..." is Penrose Theorem, but its statement needs some more assumptions (exactly about causality). Yes, perhaps I am a bit pedantic, and the problem probably is uninteresting for a casual reader, however that paragraph [2] makes an exact sense only in SR, it makes some sense in GR only with additional assumptions. Cheers (PS. Maybe we can discuss in the talk page ot the article, my IP will probably change; anyway, I am not sure to have time to go on studying physics. But I want to be certain about what I learn ;) (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the article talk page is the place to discuss this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


try out the links added before you delete them. the models are made using Open Source Physics, can check the source codes to check the equations used as physically acceptable equations.Lookang (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea is not that we check the source codes. Have a close look at wp:ELNO. - DVdm (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

i believe these links serve the public good. some day Wikipedia will accept them instead of the java versions that is not support in chrome anymore. Javascript runs everywhere. Lookang (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And see also wp:COI. Wikipedia is not a place to present our own work. - DVdm (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and have removed a bunch of these links (and removed a bunch of self-serving/promotional-tone content from the article you created about yourself). DMacks (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@DMacks: Thanks. There's still some links to the site: see Special:LinkSearch/* Needs a cleanup too perhaps? - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleaned up a bunch. Interference (wave propagation)#External links, Lunar phase#External links,and Wave#External links are each a whole pile of such things. Could you take a look if some should go away as WP:LINKFARM? DMacks (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Checked the remaining links. Two in three articles. Afaiac they serve some purpose, so perhaps they can stay. - DVdm (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for double-checking! I guess we'll call this cleanup {{done}} for now. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep an eye on the search results... Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On modifications to the history of calculus, and subsequent reversion, though much that was changed was also not sourced.[edit]

CA to DVdm, DVdm, are you there? Are we in contact?

If so, I'd like to start by thanking you for letting me know about the reversion, and giving me a chance to talk. I hope we can reach a satisfactory result for all parties, most importantly the truth as best we can ascertain it, while keeping this as positive an interaction as possible. Fighting about this is in no way my aim--I've been editing, with various IPs, since 2006, and while I've never touched something as...radioactive like this, to my memory, I will begin by suggesting that if you need a source for the primary headline change, there are many possible, but one should probably use that of the original inquest--which was universally considered, for 200 years after, even initially in Germany, among the intellectual community, to have made the correct judgment, and with very good reason; European society, including many or most German citizens and the entire intellectual community, actually made a much more decisive judgment against Leibniz on the matter than the inquest itself had--only parts of what's now Germany back-tracked). Contra present revisionist and forgetful modern historians who like ideas like parallel intellectual development, it's much more improper than my edits to give Leibniz a full joint-authorship of this branch of math, just because we live in an era where knowledge on the subject is has been temporarily lost, is, I believe, entirely improper.

I've got my two advanced degrees, and I understand sourcing perfectly well (though one of wikipedia's virtues used to be its ability to spread knowledge well without the academy's gatekeeping, which is small-c conservative.

I'd like to say more, but, well, I haven't the time right now--this isn't my profession, I'm afraid. I've never edited a page unless to fix something within my areas of expertise--and I know history and math well enough to say it's grossly inappropriate to list Leibniz as a full co-creator of Calculus, without severe qualification--OR, as the article does, use Leibniz's calculus work notes as references,or discussing them as evidence (as the article does), without immediate mention that one of the results of the inquest was the finding that he'd heavily backdated and falsified the most important areas of his working notes, and that similar backdating and reworking of his old notes was to be found throughout his other work. In other words, we're talking sources, and Leibniz's notes are a deliberate falsification of reality.

Nevertheless, this isn't my profession (wikipedia, or the science and maths section of its history content). I've always done what I could to do my part, but my time is limited. On that note, the page was WRONG when I found it. If you want to keep the headline the same, to avoid people's heads exploding, fine, but I'd appreciate a reversal of the full reversion. Much of what I did was individual tailoring of statements to on unsourced statements with an unsourced assumption and both unevidenced and incorrect implication, reworking the material to be more simply neutral. I'm sure my work wasn't perfect, but I assert it was an improvement, and request that reversion at least be sort of 'paused'--again, leaving Leibniz the credit at the top, even though that is not well-supported by history, tradition, traditional history, or a preponderance of evidence either traditional or contemporary.

Here's a citation for the headline. It's hardly perfect, but it's much better than an incorrect conclusion, which is seemingly the alternative: - (accessed 8-5-2015 at12:29pm)

Most examiners (as it were) these days, the assumption that the Academy's Inquiry into Leibniz should bear no weight because of bias--and on these grounds dismiss it and claim it has been 'shown' that Leibniz developed the technique on his own. The problem is, that all these revisionist historians don't actually read the details of what happened during the investigation, which is that Leibniz was found to 1) have extensively tampered with his research papers (including the backdating) 2) Produced some stuff that fits with the reasoning from Newton's report above 3) Been found to have a fairly advanced Newtonian manuscript (i.e. in Isaac's hand) working with Fluxions in with his own notes between 1673 and 1676, and when asked about it, he became angry, refused to explain and claimed it didn't matter and he didn't remember what exactly it was doing in there, because that was four decades ago, and insisted that they look at his own 1676 manuscript where modern calculus notations appeared, insisting there was no relationship with the Newton manuscript that he was keeping in with his own notes on the subject.

In 1849, another researcher went over Leibniz's papers, like, all of them, and found another manuscript of Newton's next to a drawing up of the same problem by Leibniz, and a copying of Newton's solution with Newton's integral/derivative notation replaced with Liebniz's own derivative notations. Another manuscript dated to, I believe, 1676--and which I suppose would seem to prove Liebniz did not believe (in 1676) that Newton's manuscripts and their relation to his own precise methods 'did not matter'. Now that's in reputable print, sourced--and doubtless on the internet, somewhere, too. But I am definitely out of time, now. Please do not just revert--it will be a disservice to the truth, I humbly submit. Thanks for your time and patience, CA - (Non-Newtonian partisan, fan of busting up historical myths, but limited just now in being able to adequately source the evidence to disprove a largish consensus on a history issue outside his field, notwithstanding that probably thousands of old print volumes contain the requisite material, with evidence strong enough to override the dubiously based modern consensus). Cheers.

PS - Leibniz died in disgrace over this (well, also Theodicy. Mostly this)--no one in Europe but his personal secretary was willing to go to the funeral (which WAS held in Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
There are many contributors to the Calculus article. Please take this to the article talk page Talk:Calculus. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Twin Paradox Redax[edit]

Trophy.png Unsubstantiated Authority
You redacted my 'Cockings twins paradox' for lack of citation/ reliable reference. The author was me [catch_22], so you deem me unreliable.

I'm a newbie [to Wiki], told no lies & tried to abide by the rules. I expect people to think for themselves & expect a scientific rationale [at least]. Apart from slighting me, I feel you are hindering scientific progress. PeterKenC (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Alas, that is not how Wikipedia works. I have put a large welcome message on your user talk page with lots of links that explain how things work here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Thanks for your message. I recently removed all content from Talk:Global Closure Systems because I thought the content was not relevant. I don't think the talk page is the right place for what it was written. You're right, I should have explained why. Mistake of a beginner! May I please ask you to restore it - without content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireDavaine (talkcontribs) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

On talk pages, please put new messages at the bottom, provide a section header, and always sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Talk page content is usually not deleted. It can (and should) stay where it is, no problem. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)