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 and 5 months.

— Canard du jour —
Democracy is a beautiful thing, except for that part about letting just any old yokel vote. — Jack Handey

vn-256 This user talk page has been vandalized 256 times.


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)

Hi DVdm, Thanks for your conciliatory response & links to help a 'newbie'. I'll take your word for it that its not how Wiki works. ?Are you the sole author, censor & guardian of the TP page or can you introduce me to the 'responsible owners'? Please pass- on my comments to them.

I still think my attempted 'Cockings/ Symetric Twins Paradox' was highly relevant to the TP page & shouldn't need a citation/ reference. As you should know, a Thought Experiment is a [hopefully] logical device to give insight into a subject [& perhaps show inconsistencies]. Anyone may pose a TE [hardly a theory], like AE, me or you [ie: its the thought that counts(!)]. If A.Einstein had posed the Symmetric TP [rather than his Earth- ref' one], perhaps his GRTheory would be different. I may not be the 1st to pose the STP but have heard of no other source. If you dislike my name being advertised, then I concede that ideas & scientific progress are more important than giving my name to something. From the TP page, it seems that no professional scientist has really addressed the Symmetric TP situation [& has not 'seen my point'].

AE & his Relativity Theories have such cult status that many professional people fear to criticise in case they loose reputation. Since 'high school', I have always interpreted AE's TP symmetrically & gradually 'failed' to accept his SRT. Now that I am retired, I have little reputation to loose. Before I die, I hope to see a paradigm shift in 'Relativity'. I note that some Physicists are at last exploring new theories of gravitation [& relativity].

It seems to me that the TP page is highly biased towards 'established wisdom' & tries to deny any controversy. There is no link to 'Relativity Sceptics' [or equivalent]. I do not argue with 'experimentally verified' results, only that the predictive theory is flawed & that its about time the theory was improved- upon [now that AE can no longer be personally hurt].

Long-term Considered Regards, PeterKenC (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Re "highly biased towards 'established wisdom' ": indeed, that's Wikipedia in a nutshell. See, for instance, wp:FRINGE and the carefully crafted essay Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat.
Re "the sole author, censor & guardian of the TP page": nah, I'm just the messenger—don't worry about me, I'm insignificant. Try to concentrate on the message here: wp:NOR. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi DVdm, Thanks for your links to Fringe & NOR, although these are very discouraging.
While I don't peddle any alternative/ fringe theory, I have sympathy for outsiders & non- professionals who find it almost impossible to get ideas published in 'reliable, peer- review' journals. It seems that WP is even more conservative/ blinkered than the establishment & can hardly be equivocal/ honest about any fringe/ controversial issues. If an editor uses his own logic, discretion, experience to illuminate a subject, 'he' will likely be accused of bias, OR & lack of justifying ref's.
Apart from this, Thanks for referring me to the TPTalk page, which you also contribute to & is a lot more encouraging! PeterKenC (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Yes, Wikipedia is maximally conservative. After all, that's what encyclopedias are all about—by nature.
Re "for referring me to the TPTalk page": I don't recall having referred to the TP talk page. Do keep in mind that article talk pages are strictly reserved for discussions about the article, not about the subject—see wp:Talk page guidelines and, for instance, wp:NOTFORUM. I'm afraid that your comments would not be welcome there either... - DVdm (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DVdm, Thanks for your advice - I'll try & keep my subjective opinions to myself in any future on WP. Perhaps the WP system sent a link to the TP talk page. Thanks for suffering my frustration. End of this talk? PeterKenC (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. If you like my advice about your edit ([1]), feel free to ask. Perhaps I can help. - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Gerard Bursztein page[edit]

Hello DVdm, I would like you to change the name of the page Jean-Gerard Bursztein into Jean-Gérard Bursztein, so that it is possible to link this page to the french and german versions. Is it possible for you? Thank you in advance, --Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Article is now Jean-Gérard Bursztein. There is also an article Jean-Gerard Bursztein with a redirect to the new article. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Can you now link the three pages on wikidata? I tried to do so but I don't manage to it because there is a problem that I don't understand. Thank you in advance, --Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean with "on wikidata". Can you provide the link to the page? - DVdm (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I want to create a link between the french, english and german Jean-Gérard Bursztein pages using this: and this: (why are there two pages for the same person?) but I don't manage to it. Thanks, --Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea and I'm afraid I can't help you with this. If you put a {{help me}} template on your talk page (check the documentation by following the link), someone will hopefully come to rescue. As I still really have no idea what you mean, make sure you provide a clear explanation. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Hello DVdm thank you for your email. As you know I am new to the site and I am grateful for the links you have shared. My problem is I now understand that I have a conflict of Interest with the Bio Brian Anderson (boxer) because I am the subject matter. However the additions that have been added are biased, misleading and without context. Some of it has been sourced from articles which themselves have never been validated. I believe that it is to biased to have been written from a neutral point of view as it omits significant material from the articles it quotes. Please can you advice me of how I can rebalance the Bio without infringing the conflict of interest criteria.

Regards Banderson1961 (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian. I think the best thing you can do, is to open a section on the article talk page Talk:Brian Anderson (boxer) and explain your motivation to modify the article. You can then discuss with the other article contributors. They probably have the article and the talk page on their wp:watchlist. If, after a few days, nobody joins the discussion, you can go ahead and make the edit, but make sure to refer to the talk page in your edit summary. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear DVdm Thank you for your response and advice it is much appreciated
Kind Regards
Brian Banderson1961 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
(reformatted for talk page indentation)
No problem. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Everett Stern[edit]

Please help with the Everett Stern page. The comments made by the Wikipedia editor on their talk page are damaging and malicious. I have emailed support. This is a long standing issue with this user. This user was reported months ago. There is a major conflict. Not with the subject but with the editor. I'm greatly concerned that this article is possibly being written or edited by Stern himself and/or his friends and family (see link here where he directly says so). In my opinion this falls under WP:Conflict, as neither Stern (who stands to gain from positive standings as he is running for a gov position) nor his family should be editing in his favor.Ladysif (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly a bit of Search engine optimization (SEO) editing for "Tactical Rabbit" too. 220 of Borg 14:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Your comments against Everett Stern are libelous and false. The article is strongly sourced and was recently upgraded status. Ladysif appears to have a negative agenda against Mr. Stern. Ladysif was cited for attacking this page before and Wikipedia staff were notified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This article recently received a C- status. I'm interested in seeing articles follow Wikipedia proper formatting and policy, and I have never "attacked" this article nor have I been "cited." I actually recommended it for improvement, and then recommended it for deletion based on the opinions of several commendable and long-term Wikipedia editors. I would remind you to be civil in Wikipedia talk pages. See WP:Civil Ladysif (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC) I am greatly concerned that the editor Ladysif has a political agenda against the subject of this article. The article is sourced correctly and strongly. Furthermore the statement "possibly being written or edited by himself and/or his friends and family" can be said for any article. There is no proof of a WP:Conflict or Search engine optimization. Lasysif making the statement "possibly being written or edited by Stern himself and/or his friends and family" undermines the credibility of the article erroneously when the article is sourced and was recently upgraded status. Lasysif states that the subject "stands to gain from positive standings as he is running for a gov position" indicates that there is a possible political motive by Ladysif. There does not appear to be a conflict or evidence of such and the information contained in the article is properly sourced. The conflict tag should be removed as there are no factual grounds to the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ladysif attacks the subject on her Talk Page "Honestly, apart from the HSBC scandal, he has not made national news or had any media attention, and his campaign has not been given any mainstream attention. He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam, more or less. You can see his attempts to draw his attention to himself here and I have reverted a couple of edits on at least pages where someone had gone in and added his "conclusions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Ladysif, on attacks Everett Stern by stating that his company is fraudulent, therefore, he is committing a crime. A conflict? Neutral? "his website is a pay-per-use scam Ladysif" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article editor Ladysif states the following about Everett Stern "He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam." A great number of Americans disagree and this statement is libel, false, damaging, and malicious.

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
This should probably be discussed on the article talk page, not here. All I know about this, is that you removed a comment from the talk page ([2]) and I put a message on your user talk page ([3]). Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Mary Gordon Ellis[edit]

Ellis is to all intents and purposes a native of Kingstree. She actually grew up in the town itself - which I did not know when I began the article - and I have readded her and sourced the entry to note this. She was at least as much a resident of Kingstree as she was of Jasper County. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I'll leave that to the other contributors. Good that you have removed the fact that "she was one of ten children." Indeed, though perhaps interesting in an article about the person, that was not really relevant in an article about the town. Good thinking! - DVdm (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It slipped in accidentally when I was copying the ref from the article. Don't know how, but similar things have been happening to me over the past couple of days; I suspect some kind of browser issue is getting in the way. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: List of women in mathematics[edit]

Excuse me, first you complained that I added material without citing a source, and now you're complaining that I removed unsourced material??? (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not cast in stone, but most of the time new or changed unsourced material is removed or reverted (as I did here), whereas long standing unsourced material is tagged (as you rightfully did here). Removing the entire paragraph in response to my change is what we call wp:POINTY. If, after a month or so, nobody has shown up with a source, feel free to go ahead. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Jullianne Moore[edit]

I know you mean well, but I'm sure Loeba is fully aware of the rules and doesn't need the likes of you arriving to her page to wave a finger in an aggressive manner. And here's a tip: check who you're talking to next time before adding patronising tags. It was Loeba who authored Jullianne Moore to FA status, so any "guidance" on referencing is irrelevant and may come across as insulting. CassiantoTalk 18:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. See this. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


My edits are constructive and the article rAJ tv deserve it beacuse the page was created with such information so that it deserve it now to so kindly accept my contribution to Wikipedia in Raj tV page.Please accept Luise1998 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Luise1998: you should definitely stop adding improper {{nutshell}} templates to articles. Continuing this will get you blocked. - DVdm (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@DVdm: ok i will not add any more nutshell templates but please don't revert my edits.-Luise1998
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
If your edits comply with Wikipedia policies, they will not be reverted. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus[edit]

Contrary to what you say, I did put a refrence at the article, like this: Michael Crichton [1] states it as follows: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mth128 (talkcontribs) 11:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
@Mth128: see wp:primary source. Such point of view might be appropriate in an article about this person, but in article Scientific consensus this is wp:UNDUE, unless of course other relevant scholars mention Crichton, and think his comments are relevant. In that case you would need references to these wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

DVdm, please add back what I wrote for the talk of the page Hafele-Keating Experiment[edit]

DVdm, the page has a serious mistake about the interpretation of clock time in the experiment, which is to mislead readers. Please add back what I wrote to correct the mistake. Please aware that it is not a place for people to continue their misleading. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinhangshen (talkcontribs) 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

See my message here on top: "If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it." I already replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for contacting me--please excuse the irritable tone of what I've already written, if that comes through. It's very late where I am, and I'd clean that up, but I'm also sick of baseless reversions to...the baseless. Modern scholars are very fond of the independent, dual-invention hypothesis, especially as applied to something as august as the calculus--but there are also matters of fact and history involved, and I'm tired of making sure something that's close enough to the truth of this matter is up on the central location for any casual scholars (I apologize for the self-righteous tone I realize is coming across. This isn't really something I want to be dealing with--it's merely an obligation to me, and one I'm taking care of at 3:30am). Here's what I've written on the subject. Thanks for taking the time to read it. _____ I DID provide a source, sir, or madam, and thus I ask you to stop reflexively reverting the page. This is a historically a settled issue (90%--obviously I wanted to include more nuance on Leibniz's contributions, but the header was too big already; the solution is not to move it all back to a 'controversy' page for 'lack of consensus'--this is known, AND a source was asked for and I provided it. The rules specify that online citations are acceptable. Wikipedia is better than most (more on that at bottom of next paragraph).

Since more than a half-century after the initial controversy finally boiled down, this has been a very-near-settled issue (I would simply say 'settled' except that the issue is too old, and the older, the more noise; the 1849 discovery in Leibniz's papers is reasonably well known and that and other distortions are documented and accepted--that's why they're on wikipedia already--I won't pretend it's certainty, but it's quite close. Many historians consider it a settled issue.

Now: regarding the revisions to 'The Calculus', and the assertion that 'wikipedia is not a reliable source' as a justification for a SECOND reversion back to the previous, and, I have to add, inaccurate, accreditation for the creation of 'the calculus', (no, I'm not English despite my punctuation, and no, I have no particular love for Isaac Newton in particular, only the truth as best we can get it), I reject that claimed inaccuracy of wikipedia as a source (THIS source) is not enough in this case, from that page. It seems to me, rather, that some evidence to the contrary would be appropriate for a reversion. Why? Wikipedia pages vary, but last time I checked, comparable pages between Wikipedia and a 'normal' encyclopedia show the same average number of errors per thousand pages, according to the best study. Other encyclopedias are valid sources, therefore, so should be wikipedia, provided it's not a frivolous page. If I err, please...well, where do I err?

Again, if the critical claim is inaccurate, why not find a contrary source? Accusation of wikipedia's inaccuracy (in the page on the Leibniz-Newton 'discovery' controversy? That is an unreliable page?), is not alone an adequate reason for reversion, it seems to me. Thanks for your time. It's my opinion that something resembling the version I wrote up, perhaps with qualification for derivatives, should stand unless contrary and compelling evidence is brought to bear. Thanks for your time. -RA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Adhemar (talkcontribs) 07:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
See my message here on top: "If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it." I already replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again,

Okay. My status on wikipedia is changed, gently welcoming me as a novice scholar. I apologize for not knowing the ins and outs of format. You asked me to respond on your talk page, however, so, I'm doing so, now. Moving on, I thank you for the kindness, but I'd point out you appear slightly in error about wikipedia being used to cite itself (skip to the end if you're short on time--the big paragraph, skip that. Do I have a point to make, yes. Absolutely necessary, no.):

   'of course wikipedia cannot be used to cite itself because that is circular and therefore invalid/self-defeating'

you say, or words to that effect. Okay. But you're relying on a false assumption as concerns wikipedia's nature, unless it's all written, sourced and edited by one person or a very close cabal, of course. IS NOT Wikipedia, in fact, a series of separate efforts and articles based on widely varying sources included by different contributors with differing sources of evidence? Like most encyclopedias, that is (older, in some ways better, ones, at least)--only a bit moreso, of course, because of Wikipedia's democratic nature? I assume so--therefore, obviously, hypothetically, obviously one contributor could borrow solid material from another portion of this vast, disunified, and disparate work which is constantly being improved on, no? Perhaps I digress, or perhaps I merely wish you to know that privately casting aside humility that gets in the way, I have three degrees from three universities, and I do know how scholarship and citations work in a way that's functional. All that said, sure, taking from another page (on a dead issue--but you know how scholars like to push their careers by reviving dead issues to make a splash) was a little lazy, on my part.

So, as you requested, here's your outside source. Just a webpage, but likely the original (or deriving from the same) that the text cited in previously from within wikipedia came from.

Control-F for 1849 to confirm you have the necessary info within--the source. It should pop up right away. I hope that suffices to fulfill your request for outside sourcing. The discovery of the 1849 papers and all that. I hope that takes care of that, as I believe you suggested it would--it's not my desire to spend more time on this just now (or in general). Thanks for your time. I can google you up two to a half-dozen more sources, or you can check it out. But there it is. Thanks again. R.A.Randall Adhemar (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (minor edit)Randall Adhemar (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Randall Adhemar (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your original edit mentions that Leibniz "agressively claimed discovery," and that "researchers unexpectedly found critical portions from Newton's early work borrowed and recopied in Leibniz's hand." As far as I can see the word "aggressive" does not appear in the source . Furthemore, the source says that "... it was implied that Newton had borrowed the idea of the fluxional calculus from Leibnitz." The content of your edit seems unsupported by the source.
The best thing you can do, is go to the article talk page Talk:Calculus and open a new section there. Make sure that you have a few sources (with exact page numbers) that explictly support the content. Expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content is not a good idea—see wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

___ DVdm: You wrote: Expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content is not a good idea—see wp:BURDEN.

I already explained enough of who I am (scholar/knows and avoids fallacies) to know that the 'BURDEN' link above, obviously is a link to a page that will explain to me the fallacy 'shifting the burden of truth'. Am I wrong? I much doubt it--in any case it doesn't apply to the current situation on this page. My statement was not fallacious, as I provided evidence as requested--twice--and suggested that the revision at this point ought to stand unless, indeed, there was some good counter-evidence (which there is not). It is indeed a shifting of the burden, but it's certainly NOT a fallacious one, not the recognized fallacy of shifting from your own weaknesses by shifting the burden of truth.

("When the evidence changes, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" -John Maynard Keynes)

To reiterate and continue, what we actually have here is something else: adequate evidence--your demanded citation--has been provided, along with easy instructions on how to find the information on that page. Therefore, either you haven't actually read my previous post, are possibly too biased to be 'managing' this page ("the content seems unsupported by that source?" you wrote? I'm afraid I feel I have to challenge you, or others, to examine that statement or citation, and politely request you remember that finding the relevant section is as easy as doing a CTRL-F on the page for "1849". Or you can use the section already provided from the 'controversy' wikipedia page, which was previously provided, as the text is the same, and a search for "1849" will get you to the second sentence of the appropriate paragraph, right at the beginning of the relevant section, just as easily).

Regarding the source, it's an older text (you can tell by the spelling) that says many things, for and against (more 'for'--you've cherry-picked your favorite statements amid a long page). However, that doesn't actually matter tremendously: the issue at hand in such a case was the sustenance, as evidence, of the 1849 papers (Newton's early work redone in Leibniz's hand and notation). The source (among many, many others) obviously sustains that, and is therefore valid. There are newer and fuller analyses of the details of those issues.

However, we ARE dealing with a fallacy, however, merely a different one, and yours: shifting the goal posts. You asked for ONE citation. I accepted your objection to the first, and found you another that fit your criterion, yet you still refuse, based on the false allegation that I haven't directed a reader to the important evidence contained on the page. Since that's not true, you would seem more or less obligated to unrevert the page, based on your own requests and promises. You've gotten the evidence you asked, and your answer is, effectively 'No', plus a not-so-subtle suggestion that you will refuse to discuss the issue further, go somewhere else. I will. But not treasure-hunting for you any further, given the circumstances. I'll be re-reverting the page--unless, of course, you've managed to pre-emptively removed my ability to do so. -Regards, RARandall Adhemar (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC) __________ Brief further addition to previous discussion:

   "Your original edit mentions that Leibniz "agressively claimed discovery," and that "researchers unexpectedly found critical portions from Newton's early work borrowed and recopied in Leibniz's hand."... The content of your edit seems unsupported by the source.
    - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)"

I agree with the first statement, certainly. However, it's most certainly, and a little bizarrely, irrelevant; a general scholarly rule is that if you can find something stated three places, at least with reasonable ease, it's established fact, and citation is not needed. The 'aggressiveness' I mention is frankly legendary in the history of mathematics. I, or anyone, could find 3, 30, or 300 citations for it, whether we're talking, say, of the famed, and infamous, 1704 anonymous pamphlet falsely accusing Newton of plagiarism of Leibniz's original calculus...and a little later discovered to have been written by Leibniz himself, or other evidences. Absolutely no citation is required to document such an incident. I question whether you, managing such a page, have adequate historical knowledge of this matter to be inserting yourself into the editing of it.

As for 'expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content', that statement is false/nonsense/whatever, as simply explained in the section immediately above. Obviously I dismiss the unfounded accusation out of hand.Randall Adhemar (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Randall Adhemar (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read your message—see wp:TLDR.
I will only comment on a few bits here:
  • Re "I'll be re-reverting the page": if you do that, you will find yourself blocked in no time—see wp:edit warring and wp:3RR, policies.
  • Re "Absolutely no citation is required to document such an incident": a citation is needed for every bit of challenged content. See wp:verifiability, a basic Wikipedia policy.
  • Re "I question whether you, managing such a page, have adequate historical knowledge of this matter": I do not manage the page. The body of contributors does that. Changes are to be discussed on the article talk page Talk:Calculus, where these contributors can take part—see wp:CONSENSUS, probably the most basic Wikipedia policy. And I would not even need adequate knowledge of the matter to request a proper source for added content.
Note that your edit was reverted by someone else (user NeilN) too ([4], [5], [6]), so I will only repeat this:
The best thing you can do, is go to the article talk page Talk:Calculus and open a new section there. Make sure that you have a few sources (with exact page numbers) that explictly support the content. Expecting that contributors read the entire webpage in order to verify content is not a good idea—see wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Poincaré & the Nobel Prize[edit]

Dear DVdm, I put back the info about him not having received a Nobel Prize into the article. I added more sources, do you think it's ok now?--VorerstGescheitert (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear VorerstGescheitert, the sourcing of your edit seems to be ok, but this looks somewhat overloaded. This says more about the Nobel Prize than about Poincare, so this information might put too much weight on this—see wp:UNDUE. I will leave it, but if this gets reverted or trimmed again, before editing again, you definitely should put a comment on the article talk page (Talk:Henri Poincaré) first, where other contributors can comment too—see wp:BRD. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, originally I had intended to put this to Nobel prize controversies, but there it was also reverted on the grounds that in order to qualify as a "controversy", a more persistent coverage was needed. I simply stumpled upon Poincaré's high number of Nobel nominations and thought it might be interesting to have this info added somewhere to Wikipedia. Don't you think so?--VorerstGescheitert (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. That's precisely why I had kept that particular part in my amendment to your original edit Face-smile.svg. - DVdm (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Other contributions by[edit]

Besides's contributions to Special Relativity which you reverted today, he/she has also contributed to Abraham–Minkowski controversy. That whole article being rather fringe, I'm not sure that that's contributions are out of place. Face-sad.svg What would be the best course of action? Abraham–Minkowski controversy began being usurped by "alternative thinkers" maybe around 2013 or so. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stig, I had seen those article edits too, but decided to let it go for now. In that article the content seems to be at least on-topic and there's a Nature source. Can't judge the content merits though. Perhaps a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics could be helpful. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Abraham–Minkowski controversy Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Whitch Hunt[edit]

threatening? what is the problem with correcting a false information on wikipedia? could you pls show me in the list of nations Islamic State -as you want to refer to it? why aren't you argue with the fact if you think I am mistaken instead of trying to cut my edit privileges? you know what? go on make your day and supress someone again, I am sure it's not the first time you felt you have the powere...

I still stand by that

“This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims, and Islamists,” France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement. “The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats.' -it actually an offending term for me, but who cares huh? (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs wp:reliable sources, not our opinions ([7], [8]). - DVdm (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
in the edit I did provide a link to the quote. btw where is your source of righteousness? i asked in an earlier edit to show me it on the map, show me if any country in the world accepted it it as a nation, show me any proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
The source that you provided ([9]) does not qualify as a wp:reliable source for Wikipedia. See wp:V. - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
so where is your proof then? stating it is actually a valid term to call it ismlamic state?
similar content to proof
are these MSM for you ?
-as it seems you are the one who makes the rules, pls let us know what are valid sources and how many links each edit need to prove that one is not against the greatness of wikipedia, but try to work for its success?
what are actually valid resources? reuters? (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
These are opinions. For reliable sources, see—again—wp:reliable source and wp:V. If you insist that your source qualifies as reliable, then the next thing you can and should do, is to go to the article talk page Talk:Witch-hunt and propose your change to the article and establish wp:consensus in a discussion with the other contributors. That is how Wikipedia works—see also wp:BRD. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
obviously not reliable enough for you. but these are not opinions. but now i had just about enough of your ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pipe symbol space ("| ") sets key article of category[edit]

A brief interjection from a talk page stalker, in case you don't get a helpful answer to your very reasonable question about why someone would add a pipe "|" and a space at the end of a category: It sets the current article as the key article for that category. Note how Tide is now the first page listed in Category:Tides instead of being listed under "T". This is alluded to in WP:CAT and somewhat more fully explained in the {{cat main}} section of the categorization FAQ. It's abstruse syntax. An edit summary, even "set key article", would have been helpful. Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! See also. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)