# User talk:DVdm/Archive 2013

Archives by year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

## Time dilation

I'm new to editing wikipedia (or html stuff in general), so I don't know how to set hyperlinks. From the "Gravitational time dilation" article: "the faster the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes". Also from the same article: "Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower." Time passing slower in gravitation fields is also what I remember from my academic education, although it was only a very minor subject. So if time passes slower on the ground (nearer to earth's center of mass), the ground control guys will age less than the astronaut. Hence the astronaut will have aged more, not less. So I think my edit was correct. Maybe you are confusing things with the twin paradox in special relativity which concerns a spacecraft moving at relativistic speed. Sorry for my English, it's not my native language. Greetings. 79.203.73.5 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What you say is correct for clocks standing still in the gravitational field, but not for clocks in relative motion. The relative motion is more important in the case of low orbit satellites and astronauts. See for instance the GPS article and this sample chapter of a truly excellent book. Hope this helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The book's chapter still arrives at the conclusion that the satellites/astronauts clock runs faster (estimated 39000ns/day). Although less faster than it would by altitude effects alone (50000ns/day) with clocks not moving. GPS article says internal reference frequency in the satellites is lower than receivers. This also makes sense only if sat clocks are faster. Seems gravitational effects outweigh speed effects in that case, and my edit was correct. But I guess I shouldn't have made a "gut decision" about stuff as non-intuitive as that. If I ever feel like editing again, I'll check some sources (and figure out how to include them). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.203.72.151 (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thought about it some more. GPS satellites are on pretty high orbits (higher grav. difference compared to ground) and moving pretty slow compared to the ISS for example which is on a pretty low orbit (lower grav. diff) and thus much faster. May well be that the speed is the more important factor then. But does it make sense to include a definitive statement in the article, if it can be both? 79.203.72.151 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I just checked things with the equation [12] of Taylor's book. Typical GPS clocks in orbit run about 39 microseconds fast per day, whereas (at a low altitude of about 400km) ISS astronauts's clocks run about 24 microseconds slow per day. So indeed, most regular astronauts age less. If we can find solid sources for both, we can of course include them in the article, but we can't rely on calculations we make ourselves, per wp:NOR and wp:CALC. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
F.w.i.w, I created this little thingy:

It shows the daily time dilation (gain or loss if negative) in microseconds as a function of orbit (assumed circular) radius r = rs/re where rs is satellite orbit radius and re is Earth radius. At r = 1.497 there is no time dilation, i.o.w. the gravitational and velocity approximations cancel. IIS astronauts fly below, whereas GPS and Geostationary satellites fly above. DVdm (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Note(to self—probably), see fig 2, p 16 of Ashby's Relativity in the Global Positioning System. - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

TRH: What is thought of by readers as astronauts "most" of the time may be the more exotic moon voyages. Here is a reference from an excerpt published in TIME magazine that moon travellers age more; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839785,00.html Going with a time descrepancy per orbit alone may be somewhat illuminating but ignores acceleration periods needed to get off of and get back to the earth. Only a full computation including this could verify if a specific ISS visitor aged less overall. The article clearly should not state astronauts age less, when moon travellers aged more. I do not know why this discussion is not directly on the Wikipedia time dilation web site. 128.244.42.5 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(moved your signature to the end, hope you don't mind)
Meanwhile I had added the above image to the article. It fully complies with Asbhy.
I have now tweaked the lead caption of the article, adding the ISS specification to the astronauts, and moved the Ashby source citation up. I have also added the ref here. Everything seems to be correct and properly sourced now.
The Time magazine article, which is of course not really a wp:reliable source, is now not relevant, as the caption specifically talks about ISS astronauts. Perhaps it's better not to complicate things, and stick with the good sources, so to speak.
I agree that this discussion should have been held on the article talk page. Blame in on history :-)
Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

TRH: Yes, leading caption is fixed. However, the new caption needs work. The primary issue is an irritating tiny detail. From the article, with respect to proper time, satellite clock tick rate is; (ds1/dt)^2 = 1-2GM/(r*c^2)-v_perp^2/c^2, where orbit radial velocity is zero. A clock on earth at the North Pole has; (ds2/dt)^2 = 1-2GM/(Re*c^2) For classical mechanics, equating F=ma for the orbit's circular acceleration and gravity yields v_perp^2=GM/r so the satellite simplifies to (ds1/dt)^2 = 1-3GM/(r*c^2) Now equating the two clocks gives 2/Re=3/r, so r=(3/2)Re. Therefore, in lieu of original research, one should report 1.5 Re as where the two clocks tick at the same rate. But this caption claims 1.497 is a better answer. There is nowhere near the plot resolution to argue about the 3rd decimal place. Is 1.497 even really correct? What mystical effect does the author have secret knowledge about? 128.244.42.5 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The value 1.497 is based on equation [3] on page A-3 (or [12] on page A-6) of Taylor and Wheeler, setting it to 1 and solving for rs (satellite radius), and using at least 4 digit precision for the numerical values. This equation is directly drawn from the Swartzschild metric in equation [1].
When we put vEarth = 0 in equation [3], ignoring the fact that equatorial ground based clocks are moving in the Earth centre based inertial reference frame, we get of course the exact value 1.5 that you mention above. That is in essence (almost) what the above analysis does when comparing with a pole based clock. However, when doing that, one should also use the polar Earth radius (6371 km) in stead of the equatorial radius (6378 km), which would reduce the 1.5 back to 1.498.
Anyway, Ashby's source says that "the effects cancel at a ≈ 9545 km", which of course perfectly corresponds to ≈ 1.497 equatorial Earth radii, so the value 1.497 is indeed backed by the source. Note that we can do this per trivial routine calculation 9545/6378=1.497 (see wp:CALC). So I think it would be safe to leave the caption as is, since "Earth radius" is usually assumed to be the equatorial one is such context, but I have tweaked the caption anyway. Thanks for having drawn my attention to this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

TRH: The sources you quote are expanding expressions into series and dropping lower order terms, but NOT dealing with the earth eccentricity. A-3 Eqn [3] is identical to a ratio of the two equations I wrote for (ds1)^2 and (ds2)^2, and A-3 Eqn [9] gives the identical satellite velocity equation I gave. You are saying 1.497 is derivable from the identical equations that I am showing you actually yield 1.5. Do you agree that the earth equator rotational velocity is negligible, for the 3rd decimal? You indirectly mistakenly suggest that the more precise north pole gravity term is obtained by plugging in a smaller R in the spherical 1/R formula. In the limit of large eccentricity the earth becomes a pancake, the two poles touch each other, and there is no gravity at all (on the surface at the north pole). But for your approach gravity is going to infinity, because you keep plugging in a smaller R into 1/R. The basic reality is a caption, surrounded by Wikipedia equations that point to 1.5 Re, states 1.497 for reasons that are not stated. What is the point in going to the 3rd decimal? Readers are best served by a caption that states (3/2)Re (or an altitude of Re/2) and avoids the complication of new flavors of Re. The equatorial versus average and polar earth radii distinctions are too detailed for the Wikipedia article in the first place, and even the more involved references quoted in this discussion do not cover it.128.244.42.5 (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If one sets the "earth velocity" to zero in the Earth centre based inertial reference frame (see article Earth-centered inertial), one ignores the fact that the Earth based clocks are not inertial, and one gets 1.5 exactly. Not ignoring this, and thus more correctly applying the general relativistic equations, gives the value 1.497. That is certainly significant in an article about time dilation, and specially relevant in the section about the combination of so-called gravitational and kinematic effects, which are of course in turn both approximations of the originating Schwarzschild metric. Ignoring a significant part of the kinematics would be highly inappropriate in that context.
But no worries, the 4 digit expression 1.497 in the caption in the article is directly derivable from (and tracable to) the 4 digit expression 9545 in the Ashby source (see policy wp:RS) in the same caption. The rest is just informal chat on my user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

TRH: You correctly point out the earth's velocity is not negligible to the 3rd decimal for a clock at the equator. Assume we stay consistent with the segment of the current Wikipedia article where the caption is placed by NOT resorting to earth eccentricity. For the north pole we get 1.5*Re and for the equator I get 1.4974*Re = 1.4974*6371 kM = 9540 km, and this rounds to 1.497*Re. Perhaps the caption could state "the clocks agree for a satellite orbit at 1.5*Re for an earth clock at the north pole and 1.497*Re for an earth clock at the equator". If sticking to only 1.497*Re, at least specify that the earth clock is on the equator. Note the current caption does tell you to use an equatorial value for Re, but does NOT explicitly tell you the earth clock must be on the equator for 1.497*Re to be correct, which may be confusing. It is a dubious idea to introduce eccentricity with only indirect motivation from a reference that states APPROXIMATELY 9545 km. Mentioning a distinct "equatorial" Re is unfortunate because this references eccentricity and thus gives the false implication that references are taking eccentricity into account to get this 0.003 correction, when in fact it is primarily a rotational velocity effect. 128.244.42.5 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the value in the caption is properly sourced, so, per policy, we don't have to worry about that. Whether we understand it, or accept it, or not, is of no importance for Wikipedia.
All the above here merely serves to help you understand that the value is correct. We don't have to do that here in Wikipedia. What matters —per policy— is that the thing is properly sourced in the article. If you are not convinced by my additional remarks, then that's okay. No problem and no worries. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, contrary to what you suggested now, we do not have to explicitly tell that the earth clock must be on the equator. The Ashby source doesn't say it either, because the clock can be anywhere. All clocks on the geoid are synchronised. As I have shown before, a clock on the pole is synchronous with a clock on the equator (remember that 1.498 above), and in fact with every clock in between, provided it rests on the ground and rotates with the earth. The one on the pole does not rotate but it is closer to the center. The two effects cancel everywhere. - DVdm (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A non-spinning earth has one unique average sea level at the equator and poles. Adding earth rotational velocity to get its time dilation impact is fine, but this change also must create an elliptical sea level. The caption specifies both an equatorial Re instead of an average Re, and 1.497 instead of 1.5. Both of these corrections are not just spinning earth effects but also equivalently elliptical earth effects. If only the equatorial and polor sea levels are given, the equatorial velocity can be determined. The intent is for the caption to incorporate an earth velocity time dilation correction, but given that an elliptical earth surface gravitational potential was not used, the referenced computation was not accurate enough to assert an earth velocity effect. Using 1.5*Re in the caption drops the pretense of reporting a computation as being more accurate than it may actually be.128.244.42.5 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If the source had said that "the effects cancel at a = 9567 km", then we could write 1.5, but the source says "the effects cancel at a ≈ 9545 km", so we must write 1.497 instead of 1.5. You suggest that we put wp:original research in the article, which is a no-no in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating 1.498*Re (=9544 km) and leaving out the equatorial earth radius (as you point out, anywhere is OK) which yields 1.497*Req (=9548 km) is closer to the source. Handing out 2 or 4 decimals of precision in a caption is partly a matter of discretion, where you look at the source and try to figure out how much precision was intended.128.244.42.5 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The source has 4 decimals of precision. Any deviation from that when using the source would amount to wp:original research. - DVdm (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets go for 5 digits precision. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=articlese3.html Above is a reference where the International Astronomical Union "Terrestrial Time" scale (between Eqns 18 & 19) is given as ds2/dt = 1-alpha, for alpha = 6.969290134*10^(-10). For break even equate this to ds1/dt = sqrt[1-3GM/(rc^2)]

r/Requator = (3/2)*(GM/c^2)/[alpha*(1-alpha/2)*Requator] = 1.4942

Sticking to 1.497 misses the earth rotational velocity + ellipsoidal surface gravity correction by 50%.128.244.42.5 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "For break even equate this to ds1/dt = sqrt(1-3GM/(rc^2))", see wp:NOR and wp:SYNT. - DVdm (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I concede that one should also properly give a satellite flying over the equator an elliptical earth (GM/r)*(1-J2*(Re/r)^2) correction for J2=1.08263*10^(-3), and this does get even more involved in original looking stuff. When I did this I got 1.493*Requator. The point is not to replace 1.497 with 1.494 or 1.493, but rather to question what value and motivation exists to assigning 4 digits of precision to the original source. The author may have filled in preceding digit places just to get to the "km" symbol, and did so consistent with terms that were ignored along the way, just so that ***a reader who followed through with the same approximations and repeated the computation would not be frustrasted by getting a different answer***. We cannot telepathically decipher the intent of the author as otherwise.128.244.42.5 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "The author may have filled in preceding digit places just to...": see wp:NOR and wp:SYNT. - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

TRH: Thanks for bearing with me. I think I resolved the mystery of why Ashby's 9545 km result is missing a quadrapole potential correction, which normally must come along with a rotating earth due to the rotation's impact on sea level. Clearly it has troubled me that I could not recover 9545 km when only low order polynomials are involved. Since my last writing,

• I extended all my constants to higher precision (using c=3*10^8 was the primary issue).
• Ashby's equation 85 has the right elliptical correction, but there is a 7 where I get a 5, so I just fudged over to the published 7. When the clock's agree, the frequency shift and time dilation discrepancies go away, so Eqn 85 is better for getting break-even.
• A circular orbit has no eccentricity. Flying over the equator I get 1.4948086*Requator=9534 km, still not recovering the 3rd decimal. So the thought occurs to me; Ashby is much more interested in GPS technology, not esoteric break-even. There is nothing in his orbital time dilation plot indicating a specific satellite inclination, and there is one data point for a GPS satellite. A unique curve needs a unique inclination. What if I plug in 55 degrees since that is correct for GPS satellites?

I got 1.496511429*Requator=9544.955 km. It just so happens that 55 degrees decimates the elliptical potential term. Whether it has a 7 or 5 factor doesnt matter, due to a leading factor of (1-(3/2)*(sin(2*pi*55/360))^2) = -0.006515107494252. So the current caption 3rd decimal is AOK for an orbit tilted at 55 degrees (where 90 orbits the poles and 0 orbits the equator). For an orbit going over the equator, Eqn 85 indicates the 3rd decimal is off (should be 1.495 and not 1.497).128.244.42.5 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. If we can find a good independent-Wikipedia-kinda-non-original-research-source that backs this, we can modify the caption and let it rest. In the meantime we'll have to settle for Ashby's decimal. Say hello from me when you send him an email ;-) — Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

## Atom

Hello, sorry, I could have sworn that I read in the same article the well known fact that while 99.9% of the atoms mass is in the nucleus 99.9% of its volume is empty space. I thought since this was well known and we are on a wiki someone would verify this for me. So you're saying that even if something is well known fact, unless I provide the source it doesn't get included? ThanksGeeBIGS (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. Thanks
Indeed, wp:verifiable sources is the way it works. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You specifically said in your message to reply on your page?GeeBIGS (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I did not really specifically say that. That message was just a template. Sorry for the confusion. - DVdm (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

## Point particle

I did put something on the talk page. But I have done that before and am still waiting for a response. So I figured I would actually get a response on te talk page if I also made a logical edit. Is there a reason that it is difficult to get a response on articles' talk pages?GeeBIGS (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually one gets response on talk pages, unless of course nobody is watching, or interested, or awake at the time you are awake :-)
Anyway, your addition about the spherical volume was wrong and unsourced, so I had to revert it. - DVdm (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
But the two do not act in the same way. The billiard ball would make contact with the billiard table, but the point with all the mass would by this assertion floating off the table at a distance equal to the radius of the ball. How can they be considered equal?GeeBIGS (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, there has been a relevant response on the article talk page - see Talk:Point particle#Spherical objects act like points. That's the place to discuss this. User talk pages are more suited for discussions about user conduct. Good luck over there. - DVdm (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

## Hi, could you help us reach a consensus?

In Talk:Sagnac effect#To remove: Sagnac effect in translational motion, User:Interferometrist and I are taking opposing stances on whether a section in Sagnac effect needs to be removed or not. User:D.H has adopted an in-between position, both pro and con.

I certainly understand Interferometrist's point of view, and would not be upset at all if you took his side of things. The important thing is that we do reach a consensus.

I'm sending an identical request to User:Srleffler

No matter which side you take, thanks a lot! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Done - See this, probably not entirely what you hoped for, I'm afraid... Sorry for that, and cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No, but that's the whole thing about consensus and democracy. Things don't always go your way. My argument with Interferometrist threatened to on indefinitely. Of course, the voting isn't over yet... I'm waiting for Srleffler. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

## February 2013

Hello, I'm Gabriël Wolmarans. User:Gabriel.wolmarans, was my previous profile, that I wanted to delete, but seeing that I could not do that I opted for creating a new user 加百利. I'm only doing my part cleaning up. Thank you for protecting pages. You're doing a great service.

Gabriël 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Gabriël Wolmarans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 加百利 (talkcontribs)

Ok, I have tagged the page for deletion. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Gabriël — Preceding unsigned comment added by 加百利 (talkcontribs)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Editor's Barnstar Thanks for making good edits. Apidium23 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar You have done Horrible job NOT great job defeating vandalism! Mr.23 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

## B Vitamins

This IP address is dynamically assigned, and recently was re-assigned to a different user (me). There's a high probability that the message you sent notifying the original editor of the content removal will not receive it and will most likely attempt to alter the page again. I apologize for the inconvenience.

18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.80 (talk)

No inconvenience for me. On the other hand, one of the many inconveniencies about editing anonymously is that one can easily get blocked for someone else's puberal behaviour. So you might consider signing up for a username — and at the same time protect your anonymity even more. - DVdm (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

## User Mmlov and edits to the Frank Zappa talk page

Hey. I've opened a sockpuppetry case over Mmlov (who I believe has been vandalizing Talk:Frank Zappa through different IP addresses here. If you have any input to give, it would certainly be appreciated. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So much was clear from his first attempt. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Commented here. - DVdm (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear DVdm

I thought my edit was perfectly suitable to be included in ‘Criticism of the theory of relativity’, because it is a criticism. And I included images and diagrams to fully explain the piece.

Please reinstate my edit and let the reader make up their mind on the validity of it.

Regards

Gryfin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Alas, your edit does not comply with our policy regarding secondary sources and wp:original research. If in the scientific literature you can find solid wp:reliable sources for this edit, it might we welcome. If you think you must insist, then —per wp:BRD— please use the article talk page Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity for further discussion. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

## Regarding my edits

Hi, There is no proof that Koliyas and Shakyas were noble blood who only married among themselves. Do you try to prove that Lord Buddha came from a racist background? That's ridiculous attempt 106.51.103.221 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You removed content without providing a reason in the edit summary, so I restored the content. - DVdm (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

## Re: Return of the son of Wisdomtenacityfocus

Good to know he's not causing any problems anymore, though. Though very few of the pages he was editing are on my watchlist, so I hadn't noticed him this time. Still, another name for my secret list of "Obnoxious Blocked People On Wikipedia To Be Paranoid About." Cheers. Friginator (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For your great contributions on dealing with vandalism. Keep up the great work! T4B (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a bit of crap cleaning ;-) Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not just a bit, it's quite much. Anyway, you deserved this award for the hard work you have done. T4B (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

## Johnmcvight

In this edit I declined to block the user. All of the edits you listed as vandalism were comments on deletion discussion while it looks like they did remove some content while trying to post the message, the user is still entitled to share his opinion in a discussion. And as they only edit a single page where the discussion is closed, no benefit in blocking the user.Jeepday (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. On the other hand the page was protected for persistent vandalism by JohnCD. Anyway, all seems quiet now. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

## Richard Dawkins talk page

On the talk page of the RD talk page, you stated, "Sure, he could be a philosopher..." But, he is not a philosopher (even though he dives into the "realm" of philosophy).--Mr.23 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I know that. But I actually said: "Sure, perhaps he is a philosopher, but putting the new term in the infobox, would require the article to prominently mention that he is a philosopher, and that it turn would need solid verifiable sources." Such sources would make Dawkins a philosopher. I said essentially the same thing as Raeky, but I said it differenly, not only trying to teach StylumCEO about sources, but also about what to put in infoboxes on BLP articles. - DVdm (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

## Regarding my edit

Thanks. I made the changes in spacetime. I have added the theory Of Matrix (2013) by Audrey E Randles published by NowOK Publishing NowOKID: 20130301 at http://www.nowok.co.uk/the-theory-of-matrix.php It is an interesting theory offering a theoretical development of exsisting spacetime models. Please check if it okay. Regards, Stacey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.109.190 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, http://www.nowok.co.uk/the-theory-of-matrix.php it is not a wp:reliable source. Please go to the article talk page if you think it is. - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I have found that the content "The theory of Matrix" is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License on the web http://www.coresynthesis.org.uk/the-theory-of-matrix.php and probably it may not be published in Wikipedia. It is nice working together. Regards, Stacey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.109.190 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

## Mass–energy equivalence

I do not believe you had any right to remove my addition to the Mass-Energy equivalent page. I am not Wiki-savvy and I know people like me are routinely abused by more tech-savvy usually establishment protected editors. Olinto De Pretto published E=MC2 before Albert Einstein. All of Europe knows Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/nov/11/rorycarroll 72.192.20.29 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The source that you used ([1]) with your edit, is not a reliable source for our scientific articles. The site's motto is "Your guide to Italy & Italian Culture on the Web. Enjoy as you learn more about the traditions, heritage and way of life that make Italians who they are." Regarding reliable sources, see wp:RS, and perhaps also wp:FRINGE.
The Guardian article you added here above ([2]) and which I moved in front of your signature, seems to contradict your thesis. Note its conclusion: "De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein." Also note that the author is a journalist, not a physicist, so this seems not to be a reliable source either.
If you feel that my revert of your addition was not warranted by our policies and guidelines, perhaps a better place to discuss it, would be the article talk page at Talk:Mass–energy equivalence. See wp:BRD. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, DVdm. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

## Replaced {{Uw-vandalism4}} with {{Uw-unsourced4}} on User talk:82.47.140.227

Just to let you know, I replaced your {{Uw-vandalism4}} message with {{Uw-unsourced4}} on User talk:82.47.140.227 because the edits were primarily an addition of unsourced material, rather than an intentional effort to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. —DragonLord(talk/contribs) 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

## DVdm, I don't know why

DVdm, I don't know why you think my Edit on Johannesburg requires discussion. It's an urban myth that JHB is the world's largest man-made forest (and there's no citation supporting the myth). It's easy to find out that China has a forest with 50 billion trees planted over 500,000 sq km, compared to Johannesburg's alleged 10 million planted over 500 sq km. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/23/china-great-green-wall-climate

Wikipedia is unfortunately treated as an authority in its own right, and results in perpetuating myths like this very quickly. (Many blogs now repeat the myth, having found the "fact" on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelandsandy (talkcontribs)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and use section headers. See wp:TPG. Thanks.
The removed section was sourced. Please go the article talk page if you don't agree with the sources. See wp:TPG and wp:BRD - DVdm (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

## 196.12.59.12

Hi DVdm, thanks for undoing the vandal's work. In case you didn't notice, 196 is a proxy server. The guy is using numerous IPs via proxy servers to evade a block and Materialscientist and Boing have been among the admins dealing with him. Most of his IPs have been blocked. See Material's and Boing's talk pages. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks like another sad case of loneliness. Must be hell in there. - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Haha, yep. These are the ones we know of so far: 99.104.185.17 (primary account), 200.233.70.48, 64.75.159.129, 196.12.59.12, 202.88.225.150. Check the block logs. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it is quite sad when you are right, so pathetic admins and other users try and take you on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.209.250.1 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

## Edit war using..

Hello, I see you have discovered the edit war too? I think it would be best to block the user now, he/she shows no sign of stopping. I myself have tried to reason with them but they consistently demand on editing again. Thanks Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reported and notified. - DVdm (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
King regards! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Be careful not to engage in the war yourself, as you would likely get blocked as well. Better to discuss, report and wait... Good luck and happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The user's edits here were not vandalism, still you named them as "un-constructive", please learn to label edits correctly. Faizan (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I should probably have issued a ({{uw-joke}}) warning instead. Good point. - DVdm (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
To you! Faizan (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I stumbled in here because of the ANSI C vandal but thought I could help clarify:
Many Muslims consider it a religious obligation to say "peace be upon him" after every mention of a prophet's name, just like in the reverted edit. So it was almost certainly a well-intentioned edit that went against WP style guidelines. But I can see how it would look like a joke or vandalism to someone unfamiliar with the tradition. Cheers! Rizome (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so next time we can remove per WP:SAWW. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

## hope you don't mind

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

-I undid your deletion. After reading the explanation of why the translated material appears to be copyvio-(but is not), I am satisfied that the editor posted the material in good faith. Also, did you happen to notice the artist's awards section? More information about this artist does not appear to me to be "fluff" or overly promotional.
Is Wikipedia running out of bandwidth? Otherwise, this slashing & burning of content appears to me as vandalism as well. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do mind. This wp:BLP article has a prominent header: "This article needs additional citations for verification". Adding more unsourced material does not help, quite on the contrary. I have reverted your edit. - DVdm (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If the material was translated and donated wouldn't the untranslated information be the citation? I did not read the original article that was accused of being a translated copyvio since it seemed that there was enough evidence to support that.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a schoolbook issue of wp:RS and wp:BLP, not one of copyvio. If all of this is true, then sources should be easy to find and properly document. That is the only way to get rid of the {{refimprove}} template on Anton Goosen article. Consider it your mission. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
no thanks-I'll take-out the overtly promotional stuff. The source of the info. and citation, with permission has already been discussed on the talk page24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of the sources on the talk page is irrelevant. You need the sources in the article. - DVdm (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Note added at Talk:Anton Goosen. You can continue over there if you like. - DVdm (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

## Merge discussion for Décolletage

An article that you have been involved in editing, Décolletage , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

## Reply from someone just refreshing their algebra

Hi DVdm,

I am writing concerning your removal of my edit on the discriminant formula.

In the formula the imaginary number already accounts for the discriminate being negative as it is the square root of negative one and by the properties of multiplication under a square root it can be taken outside. I removed the secondary negative symbol before the delta symbol because before it read:

+ or - i[square root(-delta)]/2a

+ or - i[square root(delta)]/2a

because like I said the i already accounts for the negative value in the discriminant.

Please excuse my ignorance if I missing something totally obvious and also my sorry excuse for trying to write mathematical equations online (I probably used all the wrong separators).

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.80 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If Δ is negative, then -Δ is positive and the square root can be taken, such that √(Δ) = i √(-Δ). - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

## Trigonometric interpretation of a cubic with three real roots (JPEG -> PNG)

Thank you for your effort, but please read WP:PIFU#Do not save diagrams as JPEG ("do not simply save the JPEG as PNG"). ;-) And when you upload replacements, please make appropriate changes on the original file description page and provide useful description and source information for the new file (like I did now for the original and the new).

Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't really saved the jpg as png, but created a new png from a fresh screenschot op the jpg, which of course resulted in the the same pretty bad looks. I should have put more time in doing it right. Thanks for the advice and sorry for the extra effort.
By the way, I made another little change for colour consistency. Before: black dashed to A and B, red to C and θ-rotated points. After: Blue to A, B, C, red to θ-rotated points. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, now it looks more evident. :-) If you could redraw it in SVG (using an actual cubic curve instead of wry splines)...
BTW, as I understand, the vertical line going through the center of the circle should pass through the center of symmetry of the cubic curve. It would be good to show this relation also.
Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not the author of the original drawing, and I hate Inkscape, so be my guest casting it into svg ;-) - DVdm (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

## Vandalism claim incorrect and thus removed

I have removed your speedy deletion stuff because your claim of vandalism is not correct. Please AGF. Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall the content of these articles, but it looks like both the articles UNITED AIRLINES and Unite Airline destinations have indeed been deleted by administrator RHaworth. If my warning templates were inappropriate, please accept my apologies. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 reply sir iam new in wikipedia...and dont know much about it...g p pillai is the only malayali who mentioned in gandhijis autobiography...mentioned in 167th pageof autobiography...under the heading ....പൂനയും മദിരാശിയും ...... Stephen jose (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

## 141.13*

Another one: Special:Contributions/141.136.248.140 Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Duh. Thanks for the heads-up. - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

## Re: Rowenna Davis

My comments on the edit of the Rowenna Davis page reflects the original guidelines for personal profiles on Wiki. Writers, Artists etc who had published / exhibited major works, or published numerous referenced works, Recording artists, major Political figures, and celebreties, were deemed to warrant a page. I have not checked the recent wording for biographies, however I would contend that Rowenna Davis does not qualify.

Admittedly she has appeared as a Panelist of a Sunday Lunch Time Political programme, is a sitting Labour Cancilor, and contributes articles to the NewStatesman (a left-wing party-political journal), however there 1,861 London Councilors, of which a number appear regularly in print, on television, and on the radio. These include professional Journalists, accomplished Businessmen, and high profile individuals. Very few of these people have a Wiki page due to the guidelines, so why does Rowenna Davis?

I can understand that someone decided to create the page, and that without knowing much about the British Political System one might assume what is written about her inplies something of importance, however baring in mind there are 1,860 other London Councillor, with many more County (1,859), Unitary (3,123), Borough (2,445) and Disrict (8,903) Councillors, many of whom have held more senior local office, I think that the page should be removed - otherwise you will see a good deal of similar pages - which adds nothing to the richness of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.236.86 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think the page should be deleted or drastically trimmed, this or this clearly is not the way to accomplish that. I recommend you go to the article talk page (Talk:Rowenna Davis) and talk about it with the other editors. Don't forget to sign your messages. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Godzilla (1998 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Solved: [3]. - DVdm (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

i have made changes and i have reliable sources, explain to me how to add the reliable sources, iam new here, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.60.0 (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My message on your talk page (User talk:41.182.60.0) contains a pointer to the relevant article: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Take your time to read and understand this, and it's also a good idea to look at other articles to see how all this is done "in the field". Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

i'll have you know, that you removed links that did not violate any rules. the links were verifiable, and accurate, and absolutely within guidelines. who the hell are you the wikipedia police? stop messing with wikipedia. it's people like you that make the information on here not as reliable as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.63.147 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

no one was advertising.... and you're not the wikipedia police... it clearly is allowable BY ANYONE to add links and edit information on the website, as is mentioned HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.63.147 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, if you continue to try to add this link, you will probably get blocked. - DVdm (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are YOU going to block me? as i stated, and you will notice in the Wikipedia:Introduction anyone is allowed to edit anything on here... so we can keep going back and forth all day and night..

Read the links in the messages on your talk page. There is more to Wikipedia than the introduction. This is a clear case of an inappropriate link. Please stop. Thank You. - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate link in YOUR opinion.... what makes you get to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate? did you go to the university of wikipedia or something? the page linked was CLEARLY information solely about the word that was linked... making it credible, valuable, and appropriate. maybe YOU SHOULD BE THE ONE doing more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.63.147 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI.... by you continuously removing edits... you are guilty of Wikipedia:Vandalism and can also have your account blocked and removed... just thought i would let you know that. maybe if you want to play the wikipedia police someone should play police with you as well.71.42.63.147 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a contributor with quite some experience in spam- and vandalism removal. Please do take some time looking at the various pointers in the messages on your talk page. Thanks for abiding, cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

## Re. Edit

Sorry about that, I messed up w/ Twinkle.-- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was a bit swift myself :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

## Sorry

Silly edit by me, I posted it due to the absolute cobblers above it which seems to have been taken as fact... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.150.187 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

## Carl Andrew Spaatz edit.

My recent edit to that article was not unsourced; it was stated at least twice earlier in the article. Soda Drinker (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) However, the nickname itself is also unsourced, so its other entries in the article should be removed. GSK 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
True! I will remove them now if they have not already been. Soda Drinker (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I just tagged it for a citation needed, but by all means go ahead removing them. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

## Quartics

We need to improve the article on quartic functions. As it currently stands, the general formula for quartic roots obviously fails to cover the special cases when either t or Delta or u + v are 0. — 79.113.242.231 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. What we really need first, is a good proper Wikipedia-policy-kinda-compatible source like the one we found at Cubic function.[1]
1. ^ Press, William H.; Vetterling, William T. (1992). Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press. p. 179. ISBN 0-521-43064-X., Extract of page 179
Without such a source, trying to improve on what is there looks like a nightmare in which I'm not inclined to wander around :-) - DVdm (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
So the Planet Math article linked in the section (below the picture containing the expanded formulas which I simplified) is not such a Wikipedia complying source ? — 79.113.240.179 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure, PlanetMath could be reliable. It is used all over the place: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from PlanetMath - DVdm (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

## EastEnders

Hello. I am inviting you to a discussion at Talk:EastEnders#Infobox edit warring. –anemoneprojectors– 08:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. See my 1.5 cents. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir, are you in anyway affiliated with this school? If not, may I please ask you to stop deleting information from this page? You continue writing about needing a citation or source for the information. Well the source if from this school’s documentation records. The data that is listed is to stay. It has been like this for years now; even before I signed up to Wikipedia! Now you sir have the urge to remove it all as I add more information? I will report you if you continue onwards with this pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schooliscool135 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The information is not cited. It is also unencyclopedic. This information could be useful in a flyer or an advertisment, but not in Wikipedia. Please have a look at our policies. See some useful links on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, how do I contact an administrator about problems with another editor? thanks Booklaunch (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You can put a message on an admin's talk page. But perhaps I can help. What kind of problem, with whom, over which kind of edits, and on which article? - DVdm (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

## Edit Summaries??

Thanks for leaving me a message, but i still dont get it with your statement about edit summaries, could you please repeat and make more clear that statement, it will be more helpful for me. thanks Politsi (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

When you make an edit, there is a box at the bottom to provide an edit summary, to "Briefly describe the changes you have made". It is explaned in Help:Edit summary. - DVdm (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

## Omega (King James Version)

Thanks you for erasing what I put. How can I do what you want? How are you doing what we're suppose to be doing by erasing everything that I said and not keeping something? How is that doing what we're suppose to be doing? I thank you that others, you and I spend a lot of time doing stuff here and feel bad when someone erases it all and doesn't explain why. What can I do to help. Thank you. How can we stop people who wrote stuff from losing it when we erase it? Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you need reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for erasing the 666 one too. How do I add the reliable source when Im knew and someone erases what Ive done before I've put the references on it? Is that what you mean? Are you saying that what Im saying is wrong or I need to include the referrences? Thank you. I see youve been doing this for a long time. I want to encourage you for everyone to find away we can save what is right and sourced without erasing it all. Wasn't there some stuff right I wrote? Someone else said there's already a page talking about what I said. What should I do? Thanks. I'm going to try to put up the referrences, but I'm not trying to undo what you're doing. Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What you wrote has no source and is original research, based on sources - see our policy WP:Original research. If you continue adding this, you will be blocked. - DVdm (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks

I apologize. I'm not trying to do wrong. Thanks for helping me. Why do you want to block me if I haven't done wrong on purpose? I did include 3 sources. If you mean that that's sources an already existing source, then I don't understand. Please don't block me. Im seriously want to do what you want. I sourced The King James Bible. Do you mean source what the King James writers sourced. I don't think that exists. How is what Im saying different from the other stuff on the articles that says it came from the Bible, and what they said? Didn't I include the Bible verses and chapters? Do you mean you want me to source the other verses that I don't mention the exact verse and chapter it came from? Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) David, I believe you're being disingenuous with us. If you have read the Wikipedia guideline on original research, you should know that sourcing your analysis of the Bible to the Bible itself is not helping. You need to provide a reference to a reputable writer (one who might be expected to know about such things, such as a recognized scholar in the field) who has read the Bible and come to the interpretation that you are trying to insert. And the reference to http://www.scopes.com (a provider of electronic oscilloscopes) is just pointless, and more proof that you are being disingenuous. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Disingenuous and Thanks again

Thanks to both of you helping me. No. I apologize for sounding disingenuous. I'm not very smart. I thought the rules said that Wikipedia was a way for everyone to give their input on what things meant to give a better meaning of it, and that like others, you and myself have changed them are showing that eventually the best meaning will be there and continue to develop over time. I thought that's what I read the founder of Wiki say on Wiki once. I apologize if I got it wrong. I wrongly thought sourcing Scopes was a good way for what I said. I understand. I'm not going to change it anymore like I told WikiDan61. Please don't block me. If I can learn anymore today let me know. As I told WikiDan61, for the rest of the pages on the mark of the beast and the number of the beast being problamatic according to how I was, yes, a lot of the pages would need to be erased then. But again, personally, I'm happy it says what it says either way. Again, thanks for everything. I'll take both your advises. Thanks again.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I Just saw the Qoph change to what I'd wrote. It wont happen again. Sorry.

Sorry. Please don't feel like you have to monitor me anymore. I'm glad you were though so what I'd done is now gone. Sorry I put you thru that guys. It wont happen again. Thanks.DavidWayneJohnson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I will continue to monitor your edits. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

## Revert Error

Okay. It looks like you accidentally blanked a page in reverting vandalism, and the anonymous editor is now blocked. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

## Kid president

Hello, it seems you reverted one of the edits to Kid President article. That edit did not represent vandalism; it had a source and was a normal part of the article, but was removed in one of previous edits without further explanations. This is why it was restored. 89.164.132.13 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The source does NOT say that Robby Novak is from that region. Please stop adding that content, or you will be blocked (again). - DVdm (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The source does say it, please do not be rude and note that Google Translator often does things really bad. 89.164.132.13 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The source does NOT say it. Look here. - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2013

## Rose Tyler

Rose Tyler is not a living person. I felt a more balanced look at her reception was needed. I gave an example of negative review from a prominent Internet reviewer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.85.169 (talkcontribs)

Yes, I know. I already reverted my actions. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

## what are you doing you

what are you doing you It toke me ages to do that what did you put???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsmith670 (talkcontribs) 09:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. The two edits you made until now, are this and this. Both edits are inappropriate for the reasons given on your talk page here. - DVdm (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

## Just interested

...in why you reverted the previous message on my talk. It wasn't offensive afaik. I'm not complaining, just wondering, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hah. I misread. I thought the message was signed as "George Walker(faggot)". I now notice that it was not signed, but it pointed to an article. Sorry about that. Will undo in a second. - DVdm (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

## Beauty and the Beast (2012 TV series)

Hello DVdm, basically my sources are the opening credits from both series, so that's the only source I could state. I thought it might be too obvious so I omitted it. :) KiwiTee (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I've just recognized that my comment on the openings would probably be against the "no original research" aspect. >_< So thanks for helping out and sorry for causing any trouble, I'll pay more attention to that next time. :) KiwiTee (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you got it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

## HELLO, SORRY I DON'T KNOW HOW

HELLO, SORRY I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE I COULD TALK TO YOU. EXCUSE ME FOR THIS WAY. BUT I JUST WANNA HELP MAKING WIKIPEDIA SOCCER PAGES BETTER, I REALLY DON'T WANNA VANDALIZE. WHAT ARE THE ERRORS I MADE ACCORDING TO YOU? KIND REGARDS, YOU CAN MAIL ME TO staafros1@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.120.114 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits all come without an edit summary, are unsourced, and some of them even look like vandalism. It might be a good idea to have a look at how things go around here before you make 60 edits per hour. I have put a little welcome message on your talk page with some pointers. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

## Talkback

Hello, DVdm. You have new messages at 89.243.227.8's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can we please discuss this in a mature manner instead of blanking my messages out? I was out of order yes but come on can we please discuss this like adults? --89.243.227.8 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. See my reply. - DVdm (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. - Amaury (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I notice you have reverted vandalism on my user page also. Thank you. VanguardScot 04:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

## As a member of ...

As a member of the Prescott Visitor Bureau I would simply ask that you stop deleting this entry. Dave was born here and is a well known resident. Come see us some time, I'll introduce you to him. Thanks, Sam Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.8.80 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but as a Wikipedia contributor, you need wp:reliable sources for your edits. Continuing to insert unsourced challenged —see wp:BURDEN— content will get you blocked. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)\

After reading the long list of entries above from others trying to add useful information I now see that a little power really goes a long way around here. Perhaps some fresh air would be in order for a person such as yourself. You appear to be heavy handed in your duties. I could see your point if I were adding something incendiary but I simply added a note about a local resident who just set a new speed climbing record and was featured in our local paper today. He is also a regular in our local community performing for elderly residents and those in our hospital. I just don't see how you can dismiss him so easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.8.80 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's easy. Get yourself a wp:reliable source that establishes this person's wp:notability, make sure there's an article about him in Wikipedia, and you're in business. - DVdm (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

## The edits of Mrm7171

Thank you DVdm. I would like to discuss edits with Mrm7171 but it is strange that he/she declines to discuss.Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite indeed. You did your utter best trying to discuss, but this seems not to work. A different approach is clearly called for here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Are you an administrator? What power apart from an editor, like me, do you have may i ask? Did you receive my warning regarding your undoing of my genuine, good faith changes and you clearly engaing in an edit war, by deleting, blanking vanalising my new entries? Hoping you might reply. Up to you, if you have any thing to add? Mrm7171 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please ask me for my permission or discuss before deleting my good faith additions. Mrm7171 (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Take this as your final warning before I put a formal complaint in. I;m sorry, but you keep deleting, undoing without discussing. Thanks. "Talk constructively with me, showing me some respect though if you would like." Thanks. Seriously, I have posed some interesting questions here. Are you a Psychologist yourself DVDm Mrm7171 (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Please stop duplicating your messages all over the place. - DVdm (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just contacting you here relating to your deletion of my good faith work. I noticed you also used some sosftware to this undoing of my good faith work.

Rollback is available to all administrators and can be given to other users on request, subject to the approval of an administrator. A user who has been assigned this right explicitly is called a rollbacker. There are currently 1,448 administrators and 4,850 rollbackers (6,298 total), not including global rollbackers who have been assigned the right across all Wikimedia projects.

Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges to remove those tools.

Do you have permission DvDm ? Are you acting in bad faith here? Mrm7171 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about my permissions. If one is warned multiple times not to make unsourced edits, but to find sources and discuss them with others, yet still persists adding similar content, then one is considered to either act in wp:bad faith and to refuse to take a point, and/or to have wp:NOCLUE about our policies. In both circumstances one usually ends up blocked. Trust me. Go to that article talk page and discuss, and you'll be fine. - DVdm (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

hmm...i am very worried about you using this software dvdm i ask again..."(for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges to remove those tools." Please respond..rather than avvoid..not sure if you understanbd the proper use of this software rollback i do not believ e you are authorised to use it?> breaking rulesMrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also please note, any additions i have made are in good faith and you are personally bordering on breaking the three deletions rule in 24 hours. I have already warned you.

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this undo edit to Occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't make empty threats. Your edits may or may not be in good faith, but you have repeatedly been asked to discuss and to provide sources. You accuse others of having an agenda and engaging in edit warring, but fail to recognize that you have an agenda as well, and your pugnacious attitude has been turning people off. I'm glad that you have finally realized that you need to consolidate the discussions in the article talk page rather than spreading them out across multiple user talk pages. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stigmatella aurantiaca, for your comments. I'm only a new user. Have listened to suggestions from other editors and made changes according to community rules.

Have asked Itszippy what to do about an editor, ISS246, or in fact any Editor for that matter, who blatantly refuses to accept a large and solid group consensus against posting something signiicant, particularly in an article relating to a profession like medicine, engineering or psychology etc etc. Everyone, way before me, (in fact for 4 years now) has disagreed with him strongly, often very strongly, much more strongly than I have. However it just went ahead and did it anyway, thinking he ius right and all other community members are wrong, as if Wikipedia is his private website! Have you any practical advcice, on top of Itszippy's suggestions, instead of judging me please?

You, like many others here seem to have a lot of experience and know all the rules and regulations. So what do you think? If we could all just go against the broad consensus, and post what 'we' want, what would Wikipedia become? Mrm7171 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

## Mrm7171

I have a complaint about Mrm7171. He plays a double game. I try to discuss edits with him on his talk page. Then he goes ahead and makes edits without discussing them. And finally writes:

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:54 . . (+57)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (Just made a couple of very minor additions. Did not delete or undo anyone elses edits. Please discuss with me on my talk page to come to consensus.Thanks)

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:51 . . (+9)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (One word added. No deletion of any other editors work made out of respect. We need to discuss. Please use my talk page. Please don't just remove. Thanks)

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:50 . . (+25)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (Please discuss on my talk page iss246 rather than undo my minor edit or engage in edit war. Please don't iss246. It's better to discuss than you delete. thanks)

Meanwhile, he includes text that occupational health psychology is a subfield of i/o psychology when I have labored on his talk page to explain that OHP is not a subfield of i/o psychology just as i/o psychology is not a subfield of social psychology and psychometrics or that health psychology is not a subfield of clinical psychology. I view what he has done as bad faith. This includes his groveling, with purposeful bad grammar, about how he has been picked on on May 26, 2013:

Extended content

[[Category:{{unblock| Thats cool. I'm still very unclear abvout talk page and feel administrator may have acted a liottle demeaning. Not sure if new users have difficulty that experienced users should act sartcastically or bullying toieard new experienced userts like myself? I gfeel pretty bullied. Sorry but just a new inexperioenced user. ]]

[[Category:[[Category:{{unblock| Thats okay will cop it. and wait fdor the 48 hourts. Feel pretty bullied and didn't need sarcasm or demeaning me by experienced wikipedia user. Could hjabe treated he with more respect. I'm just not sure how it all works yet. Wonderion g why kuru was so demeaning, demoralising of new user inexperien ced like myself. Didnbt need to be put down or fdinger in my chest so much kuyru, just a new user. inexperienced could have been a little more cool about it all though kuriu, instead of tryting tgo put me down so basdly and disreszpect me so badly.....]]

I've been patient with him. I find him full of bad faith. This sing-song of "let's discuss" and then he goes ahead and makes a bold move without sources that OHP is a subfield of i/o psychology. I think he should be barred from Wikipedia for his double-talk.Iss246 (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:Iss246, Hello, and I am sure User:DVdm won't mind me jumping in here. Take a look at WP:DE and read through WP:AGF. Also, sorry to say, that although I empathize with your efforts, and even though Wikipedia does not "require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary", it is best to remain civil and not explicitly say another editor is acting in bad faith. An administrator may say that when meting out punitive action, but editors are strongly encouraged to not accuse each other of acting in bad faith. Yes, I understand your frustration. Those of us who edit for accuracy, and according to guidelines and policies have encountered other editors that are not easy to deal with. Just hang in there and stay the course, and you will do well. It is best to let the Administrators handle the tough stuff. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• I reverted the last edits asking the user to join the article talk page discussion (I made two typos in my edit summary, sorry). I also left a little note on the blocking admin's talk page. Assuming bad faith might not be called for yet, but I think we can safely assume wp:NOCLUE here. - DVdm (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• I was just trying to help out with a difficult editing situation. Now, all I can say is, "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." WP:DUCK (as it relates to WP:DE ). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Dvdm. I strongly request you take the comments I made soon after joining Wikipidia, and you have for some reason directly pasted on your talk page below? I ask you to delete the entire paste you made please. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(I moved this comment to the bottom of the thread - see talk page guidelines.)
I haven't pasted anything on my talk page. The above comments that you made, were quoted here by someone else. Everything here will soon be archived automatically. - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me please what the Wiki policy is regarding the placement of other's comments on editor's own talk page when done so in possible bad faith or a means of personal attack?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Also Dvdm, my opinion is that all articles require accuracy, currency, knowledge, and be factual and free from bias and be edited for the benefit of the greater Wikipedia community and readers. This is particularly true, in my opinion, with articles, relating to international professions, like psychology, medicine, etc etc..where accuracy, standards and broad-based acceptance of standards and protocols, within each profession apply. I note you have possibly been working in unison with another editor, to delete 'any' much needed revisions of a couple of articles I have ever attempted. In my still limited experience of Wikipedia, it is the communities resource, and articles needs accuracy and currency and not in any way, be misleading to the community. Also deleting other people's important changes sometimes, and without discussing with them your intention, does no good for the wikipedia community and can lead to unneccessary conflict, when prior discussion about edits could avoid any such unneeded conflict. Based on a quick look at comments from many other editors on your talk page here, you seem to delete a lot of other editors work, in a lot of different areas So, please, for the last time, I ask you to discuss with me, before you for some reason, 'blindly' delete my edits, in future. Thanks. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(I moved this comment to the bottom of this thread - see talk page guidelines.)
• As far as I can see, the comments were not made in bad faith or as a personal attack. Quite on the contrary, I think they were made in despair. If you think they were made in bad faith, you need to go to wp:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) and/or to wp:DR (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). This was explained to you before here, here and here.
• When you mess up an article talk page (as you did with this edit), I will repair it (as I did with this edit). ItsZippy already explained that with this message on ItsZippy' talk page. After this warning, again (with this edit) you added off-topic content, which I removed here. If you disrupt a talk page again, I will not discuss it. I will repair it, and then I will report you for continued talk page disruption after multiple warnings.
• If you have a problem with my conduct, you can go to wp:ANI and report me.
Please do read and try to abide the comments given by ItsZippy, and you will be fine. While at it, have a look at Wikipedia:Etiquette as well. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

## Talk-back for your edit on Discrete Cosine Transform page

Hi, You delete my external link on discrete cosine transform page. It is just a tutorial explaining the DCT. You do not delete other external links but just mine. Why? This discrimination is based on what? There is another external link, for example, http://www.reznik.org/software.html#IDCT You do not delete this but just mine? Why? I contacted the user Ktr101 and you can talk to him if you need to do so. He looked at my tutorials and could not see why you make discrimination specifically for my tutorials. It is based on race, religion or ethnicity or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.244.3 (talkcontribs) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

See wp:ELNO item 11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." You are not a recognized authority, and Wikipedia is not a place to promote our own work: see wp:NOR and wp:COI. So, to answer your question, it is based on Wikipedia policies. - DVdm (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Also note that, if you think that other links might be inappropriate, the best thing to do would be to open a little section at the bottom of the talk page Talk:Discrete cosine transform, and propose to delete. These links have been there for a while, so it's best to discuss their removal with the other contributors. Don't forget to sign your messages with the four tildes (~~~~). - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I read your message. You are making discrimination. Are you recognized authority about DCT? What do you know about Discrete Cosine Transform at all? Did you read my tutorial? It is just a resource that explains a topic. It is not an advertisement or a product. You do not provide any scientific reasoning but your personal opinion. I will complain about you to everywhere that is possible because you think something and you decide without any objective reasoning. What you do here is discrimination and this is illegal in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.244.3 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
We put talk page messages at the bottom and we sign our talk page messages — see wp:talk page guidelines. Please read them and try to follow them.
We don't have to read anything, specially not some contributors' private work. It is your work and you want to add it as an external link. That is a no-no here: see —again— wp:NOR, wp:COI, wp:ELNO item 11, and as far as I know, you are not a recognized authority (yet).
I do not have to provide any scientific reasoning, and I do not provide my personal opinion here. What I provide is pointers to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just read them. If you like to change them, go ahead, try to edit the policies and see what happens.
Seriously, do some reading before you accuse people of discrimination or bias based on race, religion or ethnicity. That can be taken as a wp:personal attack and there's another policy about that. Click the link to read it. - DVdm (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
He isn't discriminating against you here. I merely said I couldn't see why he removed the link, but that doesn't mean that I know everything and it keeps open the fact that he may have removed the link with a rationale that I do not know about. If you continue to attack him, you will be blocked (not by him, but by another administrator), as he is not discriminating against you at all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, he is going by a guideline that says that no personal websites can be used, which is designed to prevent information that could potentially be incorrect. Since you do appear to be very knowledgeable about this issue, I would encourage you to see if you can find a substitute on another site or move your material onto your school's page, because our hands are really tied on inclusion if it doesn't follow the guidelines. If you need help with this, I will help to lend a hand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Kevin, May God Bless you. Thank you for your suggestion. I will move all the tutorials to my university page. I prepare those tutorials to share my knowledge with the world, and the wikipedia is a great place for this purpose. And, I hope the other editor starts to do research before s/he deletes anything, or at least he proposes a solution instead of dictating his/her idea without providing any scientific reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.244.3 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that moving the pages to your university website and then continue spamming them as external links, will not help. Again (for the 4th time), see wp:NOR, wp:COI, wp:ELNO item 11. Nothing will change that. DVdm (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

## A bowl of strawberries for you!

 Thank you for wiping the vandalism off my talk page. They're definitely cooking up a storm, that's for sure. Here's some strawberries for you! Cheers, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Yum! Thanks :-)

I was about to nominate your talk page for semiprotection, but it looks like things have cooled down now. I'll keep an eye open. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

## AN notice in regards to User:Thenightchicagodied

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You may wish to use this link directly to the relevant section Technical 13 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - see comment. - DVdm (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

## Sambora!!!!

Dear Mr. DVdm Please accept my apologise, maybe I was not clear enough. I just want to reconfirm that information given, here below copied, is genuine and reliable. " On October 9, 2012, before his solo concert in Amsterdam, he was delivered by the Italian Fan Club a Paoletti Custom guitar model "Wine Stratospheric" especially designed for him by the famous Italian luthier Fabrizio Paoletti owner of the homonymous Paoletti ® instruments" You can check it personally on this YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1CC1-pBR4 Also, if was the link to Paoletti Guitars website that caused problems, we can remove it, no issue. Please let me know if and how to proceed. Once again, we apologise for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.223.250 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but first, Youtube is not considered to be a very wp:reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense), and I also think that this particular information is not relevant to the article. In the spirit of wp:BRD I suggest you open a little section on the Sambora article talk page and propose to add the content. I don't think it will be accepted, as some might see it as a Paoletti Guitars advertisement, but good luck anyway. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

## Quartic equation

Hi,

1/ I have sourced the general formula as derived by a simple calculation from another formula in the page. It remains to properly sourcing this section (and the other ones), which is not difficult. I have verified that this derivation is correct, but this verification would be much easier if the notation would be uniformed through all the page. But it is better to wait on more stability before doing that. IMO, it is not a good idea to use the formula in the French-Chinese thesis, because the latter is intended for a purely real computation, which complicates the formula and could be confusing for the readers. By the way, I was not aware of the content of this thesis although it was defended in my lab and I was the supervisor of the French supervisor of this thesis, and also reviewer of the habilitation thesis of the other supervisor.

2/ Nature of the roots. I have expanded this section partly because of a recurrent wrong edit by some editor, partly because it could be frustrating for the reader to have an incomplete classification. The classification provided in the above thesis, is directly derived from the general methods working for every degree and do not take into account the fact that the degree four may be (and is) simpler. Therefore, I am against to use it there. On the other hand, I am able to source the classification I have provided only for the case of 4 complex roots. However it is a rather simple exercise to deduce the complete classification from this old paper of myself. Thus this classification is essentially WP:OR. But we have to choose between this and an incomplete or unnecessarily complicated classification. IMO, this is a case where WP:IAR applies.

D.Lazard (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi D., thanks for that answer. Phew, it's good to know that the article is in the hands of at least one one-and-a-half knowledgeable editor. I completely agree we can IAR here. Thanks again and keep up the good work. Have a beer on me! - DVdm (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

DVdm, In the name of all mathematicians everywhere, please allow me to offer my deepest and sincerest apologies for shattering to pieces the noble and sublime pedestal upon which you have so idealistically and enthusiastically elevated our pristine profession. :-) In the wake of such unspeakable loss and tragedy, as you lie there in the ashes of what was once your childlike innocence, going through the dark, scattered remains of the pure and unadulterated image you formed in the temple of your mind back in the good old happy days, when you still didn't know the whole truth about us, we humbly and penitently offer you this little video, in the hope that you might one day find it in your heart to forgive us, and love us just the way we are... :-) Honestly, we're just a bunch of guys who happen to like numbers, that' all... :-) And sorry for not being able to find any sources: God knows I've tried! It's just that maths isn't exactly Shakespeare: it's not really meant to be quoted... (If this last paragraph upsets you, replay video). — 79.113.238.141 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Get yourself a username and you'll be forgiven — I'll even make it two. Enjoy some real art,(use head phones!) for a change ;-) - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've thought about it, but unfortunately all my usual (nick)names are taken... :-( I usually go by Lvka/Luka or Lucian. — 79.113.238.141 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, off topic: is the "Telcome to my walk page" up there intentional, or the work of vandalism ? — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not the vork of wandalism, just a willy sord game :-) - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Uhm... also off topic, but I'm kinda in a dilemma here, and you seem to possess considerable knowledge on Wiki standards: On one hand you can't hotlink to images, on the other hand you can't upload images unless they're to be used in an actual article... So how on earth does one insert an image to one's personal user page ? :-\ — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
First you need to sign up for a username —hehe, not kidding... no username, no upload... bummer!— and then you can upload the image and point to it on your user page. Simple. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Uhm... Yeah... theoretically... It's just that I honestly doubt that any article on Wiki is in need of the images I have in mind... :-) — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah... so nice. Both of them. - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... not so sure the Wiki admins will be just as impressed by such a "reason", though.. :-) But if you like them so much, here are a few more.. :-) — 79.113.216.15 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you can't even post a small thumbnail of a fair use image used elsewhere on Wikipedia itself on your user page. They can be only used inside an article. — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I once put a Zappa album sleeve as an image for my archive box. It was promptly removed. Copyright laws are pretty stringent in the US.
I'm sure you can upload a (self-made) picture of yourself and your cat, and put that on your user page. But that's not likely the kind of image you have in mind, right? ;-) - DVdm (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I am deeply insulted by your insinuating allegations about me being a cat person! I don't own any pets! :-| — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Call it projection. Anyway, please accept my even deeper apologies :-( - DVdm (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Relax, LOL, I was kidding. :-) — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, Relax is one of my middle names :-) - DVdm (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

## I am very sorry for my mistake in the Indian crested porcupine article. It was accidental, not intentional.

I am very sorry for my mistake in the Indian crested porcupine article. It was accidental, not intentional. I was pasting very fast.

I added the Category:Mammals of Azerbaijan for mammals which actually live in Azerbaijan, based on sources and also taking the article List of mammals of Azerbaijan into account. If that is not in violation with any rules, I would like to continue to add this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.24.19 (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, please be careful. Don't go fast. There is no rush. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

## Nobots

Dear DVdm, please never write me again with any kind of bot or automated script. Thanks.Stenen Bijl (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Warned. - DVdm (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated personal attacks after warnings-"Wikipediots" and "morons". Heiro 11:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of: [4] - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

## A Suggestion

Could you change the green text to dark green on your user page ? The contrast simply isn't good. — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Using the {{tx}} templates, I can't influence the text colours, but I lightened up the backgrounds a bit. Better? - DVdm (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Now also darkened the math text colours. Even better? - DVdm (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
And now slightly less dark and corrected some typos. Even better still? - DVdm (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. :-) — 79.113.238.214 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

## ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mattel. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - Commented here. Will keep an eye on the article. - DVdm (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

## Persia, Iran, Iraq

With respect to this edit, you just may be interested to know that Persia is part of Iran, and never was Iraq. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes of course, I overlooked that — how silly of me. The edits might have been vandalism then. Will keep an eye open. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
See: Achaemenid Empire. DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a BIG read. I put it on the stack. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

## A cup of tea for you!

 Always looking to help out. Thanks for the report to WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A nice cuppa, just what I needed. By the way, I replied to your query here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

## Watch article

Yesterday, somebody edited out part of a sentence, for no apparent reason, leaving something that was ungrammatical and senseless. I put it back, almost but not quite to the way it was. Now I see that you have deleted my wording, restoring the lack of good grammar and sense, on the grounds that it was "unsourced".

Hmmm....

Just take a look at the images of watches on that page. Most of those with analog displays are set to the times of 10:10 or 1:50. Everyone knows that watches are usually sold with their hands at those two times. That's all I said.

If you refuse to include this piece of common knowledge, then at least fix the grammar.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I should have looked closer. I have undone the evil now ([5]), but I have left out the 1:50 remark, as it is not mentioned in the sources. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Apology gladly accepted. However, I have put the 1:50 back in, and taken the 10:09 out. In reality, the times to which watches (and clocks) are set vary by several minutes either way, so there's no point in our trying to be accurate. However, settings around 1:50 are just about as common as those about 10:10. I guess whoever wrote the sources didn't think about it much.
(The image close to the text we are discussing shows a watch set to about 1:54.)
I'm a well-known sceptic about sources. See my user page (not the talk page).
Cheers.
DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Who cares anyway? Apart from us, that is :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably, nobody cares.

What do you think?

DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If nobody challenges the content, there is no problem. Otherwise, see wp:BURDEN specially for wp:BLP.

Sources, sources, and more sources. Sceptics about sources tend to get in trouble here, specially the well-known ones, so be careful. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you've got a couple of quotations of Frank Zappa above. So maybe you'd like to know that the woman I used to know, and mentioned above, was Suzy Creamcheese. DOwenWilliams (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that's interesting! What's also pretty interesting, is that she has an article in here. I hadn't seen it before. In order to improve it, I have put a few tags on it ([6]). Looks like you have some work ahead. Happy source hunting and thanks for letting me know. - DVdm (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Sorry. I have a life to lead. I'm not going to waste it chasing sources for an article that almost nobody reads. I fixed it up to make it factually accurate, relying on my own memories of events long ago. (I was sitting next to Suzy in the Albert Hall when she had that exchange with Zappa.) But, if you want to try to find sources, good luck! DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something. Otherwise I'll give it a few weeks for others (and/or for you) to find some sources. After that I'll probably remove it. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Be cautious about what you accept. I did mention that there is a citation of someone who was not being entirely truthful. I gather that Suzy and Zappa were not on good terms when she left the group, and Zappa "spun" the history of the Mothers to make it appear that there never had been a real Suzy. The citation is of a radio interview in which he said as much. You may well find similar distortions. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

On further thought, maybe you should just add a tag that says that the factual accuracy of the article is in doubt. I think there's a tag for that. I think it's highly unlikely that you will find really reliable sources to cite. On the other hand, simply deleting the article would be, I think, a shame. This little piece of history deserves to be documented somewhere.

Check the Talk page. Several people have referred to other people with the same nickname.

I still know three or four people, besides Suzy herself, who remember those events. But we can't cite their memories.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion. I'll just remove your recent unsourced additions, perhaps. We'll see what turns up. Cheers, and say hello to Suzie :-) - DVdm (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you put the article back to the way it was before my recent edits, you will restore its total falsity. It never had any worthwhile sources. I'm not sure what the original author used, but it certainly wasn't what Wikipedia would regard as a citeable source.

My e-mail address is on my user page. Send me an e-mail, and I'll tell you some stuff that I don't want to post publicly.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you write in an email to me is entirely irrelevant for Wikipedia, so don't bother. But thanks for the offer anyway. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks, DVdm, for catching the bogus ref before I did. I was trying to tack down the BBC doc about the vortex but failed. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Beeb reporting a black hole? No way ;-) - DVdm (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

## Quotations from songs

Quotations from songs are keyed to the song titles, therefore cannot be called unsourced. Learn the rules for references before deleting someone else's contributions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MackyBeth (talkcontribs) 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Already replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

## Electronic Arts - Electronic Arts Limited the original NAMED company in the UK

Thanks for asking for Citation re: Electronic Arts

The info I posted regarding electronic arts is matter a fact I worked there from 1984-86, it was one of the first full 3d Computer animation studios in the UK. The company was originally founded by the ex director of BBC Dr Who as a effects company, which pioneered 3D animation in the UK.

The company worked from premises in Chalk Farm, Primrose Hill, before moving to the City of London, where in 1987 it changed its name to Amazing Array Productions, as EA brought the name/ registered it in the UK.

I am trying to collaborate dates, but think it would be GREAT to get the facts right:::

I can cross reference, key individuals -

Phil Mitchell ;; Animator and Founder of MAINFRAME Animation in Canada, Creator of ReBoot http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3786597&authType=name&authToken=FZCS&goback= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBoot http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0593661/?ref_=fn_al_nm_3

You will NOTE that Phil uses the pun = we where not the GAMES Company!!!! and thats what we have had to say for the past 28 years as the name was brought up by EA

hope this helps, I am trying to construct a timeline and will forward this on to you, as we where Pinoneers in the UK.

speak soonest

Clive / seymor54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seymor54 (talkcontribs) 06:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that you don't have to forward anything to me. If you make changes to the aricle, make sure that the changes are properly sourced — see wp:reliable sources. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

## Musical Survey

Do you think that it's possible for serious Frank Zappa fans to enjoy some famous Andy Williams hits like Love Story ? — 79.113.242.174 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course that is possible, by all relevant definitions of serious. - DVdm (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
...even the user-made videos, like the one linked above, which accompany said music pieces ? :-) — 79.113.224.23 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Alas, "Fişierul nu este disponibil pentru vizionare în ţara dumneavoastră", but I'm pretty sure that I would enjoy it. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Dam'! :-( Well, if you want to risk it, you can leave a comment on my blog with your e-mail (it won't get published, since all comments are moderated), and I'll e-mail you the original .avi file. If no, YouTube is full of femslash anyway... :-) — 79.113.228.149 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)