Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

—wwoods 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DVdm. Don't say that you were not warned. --EMS | Talk 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the rfc was deleted due to lack of endorsement. DVdm 09:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm,

my apologies for the babylonian confusion on the Twin paradox talk page.

I copy and paste from the Twin paradox Talk page:

See This is a less technical introduction, not a non-technical introduction:

"Special relativity is a physical theory based on a particular extension of Pythagoras theorem and an elementary knowledge of the mathematics of squares and square roots is required to understand it."

... combined with Mixing Time Dilation and Length Contraction, where Geometer clearly demonstrates being able to manipulate equations with squares and square roots, yet having no idea about the physical meanings of the variables in the equations he uses.

My only point was - and still is - that Pythagoras' theorem and an elementary knowledge of the mathematics of squares and square roots is not nearly sufficient to understand special relativity. DVdm 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All along, my assumption was that Geometer was using the turn of phrase 'extension of pythagorean theorem' metaphorically.

I have a user subpage with an article about special relativity in which I present the aspects of special relativity that are in my view the essentials. I rely on animations that I have manufactured; the animations are doing the job of presenting the concepts. Please have a look, and tell me whether you think it approaches being sufficient for basic understanding of the physics of special relativity. --Cleonis | Talk 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen your page and the animations. I guess everyone has his preferences. Some, like myself, prefer lots of text with a few simple drawings, whereas some, like yourself, prefer an approach with attention capturing animations.

In my opinion the only webpages that manage to provide sufficient material for a basic understanding of special relativity are parts 1 and 2 of [Relativity And FTL Travel].

However, to really get started, I don't think that anything can replace or comes even close to Robert Geroch's "General Relativity from A to B" and Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics".

DVdm 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find any clear explanations in your critiques of my suggestions. However, I have found numerous high handed comments that are basically personal attacks such as: "where Geometer clearly demonstrates being able to manipulate equations with squares and square roots, yet having no idea about the physical meanings of the variables in the equations he uses". Please stop these. Geometer 13:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw that you removed a peer-reviewed and cited article from Twin paradox, contrary to WP:V. Probably you overlooked that fact. Also, you motivated it with marginal and erroneous article. Please take note that "erroneous" is only a valid argument if you can cite it as an overwhelmingly held opinion by others. See also my practical suggestion on its Talk page. Harald88 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning out harry's antirelavistic "reference" Moroder 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moroder. I removed it because it clearly is a marginal article, it is about another marginal (i.e. "unusual and rarely cited paper"), it is loaded with errors, and it is cited only by the usual handful of anti-relativity ether crackpots on Usenet. DVdm 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have raised the point in the talk page of the twins paradox article. If you can say one frame has zero absolute acceleration you must be able to provide a definition of absolute accelleration. Please do so, I am intrigued. AnnabelBuxton 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my voice to the apparent cacophany of voices calling you down. Please be more considerate and thorough when you revert articles, especially those edited by people who know more than you do. If you'd looked at the talk page for the GR article you would see that I sourced the changes I made, and was met with stony silence and non sequitur by the opponents of these sensible edits to the article. It doesn't matter if people disagree with me if they can't support their claims with reliable sources as I have done. Stop reverting the general relativity article or I will seek to have you banned. SteakNShake 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen this before :-)

It didn't take long before this resulted in this. - DVdm (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. - Tangotango (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the page. The talk page clearly had become inadequate as a means to work towards consensus among editors. DVdm 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reassure you I am definitely with the regular editors here, but there are several possibilities for what might be going on with this new user. Some probing is needed to find out, so I think we should try hard to follow WP:AGF and WP:DNFTT. This underlies my questioning approach. Geometry guy 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the WP:AGF approach will work in this case, but I wish you good luck :-) - Cheers, DVdm 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when you most doubt good faith that it can be most effective to assume it, but there is a pragmatic side here, which is to make SnS do the work, not the regular editors. So instead of making statements which SnS could develop into unproductive arguments, I have been asking short questions. Geometry guy 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go have a quick read over WP:CIVIL before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Thanks. Nick 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and whilst I'm at it, two other things. Please don't mark all of your edits as minor, only small corrections and reversion of blatant vandalism should be marked as minor. Blatant vandalism does not include reverting based on your interpretation of our non free image policy. The removal of non free images from articles is certainly not a minority viewpoint and it certainly shall not be treated as vandalism by you or anybody else. Nick 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you are right about that.Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Good point. DVdm 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage says 'see talk page'. Using the following code

#REDIRECT [[User talk:DVdm]]

you could get the page to automatically redirect to this page. Just a thought :) ck lostsword•T•C 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. But... supposing the redirection is in place, how do I access my userpage if/when I change my mind? DVdm 07:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm! You can do so by adding &redirect=no to the end of the URL. Note the difference between this and this one with the expanded URL. You can also use the expanded URL to see the old history that gets hidden behind a redirect after it's created. Tim Shuba 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim... ok , I get it. However, I have merely put a link on the page. No redirection needed. Thanks guys :-) DVdm 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user on the twin paradox talk page obviously doesn't want to learn the answers to his questions, but just wants to tick people off. That being the case, may I humbly suggest that continuing to argue the point and sniping with him is precisely the worst response...? -- SCZenz 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I think I'm done with him. And with his other less anonymous identities ;-)

Cheers, DVdm 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you dropped by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to report the website? Tabercil 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to me that the 5 points in section Removal how-to have been exhausted. I can't do much more I guess. The last point refers to intervention against vandalism page which is what I did. Last time this was taken care of by admin Ed. Cheers, DVdm 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: History of caiuszip.com and the copy sciarthistory.com:

201.53.33.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 more entries after final warning, block, 1 more entry

189.13.60.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings

201.8.194.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Warnings.

201.37.236.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 blocks

201.8.194.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 attempts

201.53.33.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1 warning, 2 blocks

Profes001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 4 warnings, indefinite account creating block

201.53.0.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

201.53.42.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 3 warnings, 1 block

Refactored links, you don't want your talk page locked up when we blacklist. By the way, it's m:Talk:Spam blacklist for the blacklisting. Someone's squatting my account over at meta so don't look at me. MER-C 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a test. DVdm 09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another. DVdm 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another. DVdm 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am surprised you didn't bring this up at the pub. I think the issue it that the 'single bracket' notation for external links (also valid for a wikipedia full URL) is disabled in the edit summary field. This makes sense, as otherwise spammers would flood history pages with live links. For internal wikipedia pages, you can use the 'double bracket' notation, but you need to shorten the URL and (optionally) use a pipe. It appears that spaces and underscores are treated equivalently on the left side of the pipe. I am using [[User talk:DVdm#A suggestion|internal link]] in this edit summary. Tim Shuba 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another test along your suggestion, using [[Talk:Herbert_Dingle#A_friendly_reminder_about_the_three-revert_rule|This internal link]]. DVdm 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Tim, this works perfectly. Thanks!

See you later at the pub. DVdm 09:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it looks like the guy has a dynamic ip and too large a block of addresses he may come from, your best bet is blacklisting his site, like you mentioned. To do this, check out WM:SPAM. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help out. Shell ^babelfish 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I clicked on WM:SPAM but I get an non-existing page. What do I put there? I tried WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSPAM, but I don't really see a way to proceed from here. Can you advise? TIA DVdm 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being an encyclopedic tone killer killer! [1] Robert K S 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;-) DVdm 20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To DVdm-

I request you not to revert my post on discussion page. I do acknowledge that it is wrong to post unsourced material directly in article as per wikipedia policy. Please refrain from doing it again. viran 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the reason of my revert on your talk page. DVdm 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I do acknowledge that posting unsourced material, original research content is against wikipedia policy. But explaining sourced material is not against wikipedia policy. I request you not to revert my contribution to Theory of Relativity. If you have problem in understanding, please tell me first.

This is neo !!! 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted further explaination on discussion page of Theory of Relativity. If you have comment you can post it there.

This is neo !!! 20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at least for now ;-)

DVdm 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I choose I can give all these administrators nightmare they can't even imagine. All people in sci.physics.* have trained me except you and stephen speicher.

But I am not going to do that. Once all my usernames are blocked, I will move out as I did in sci.physics.*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived ANI thread 1 and Archived ANI thread 2 - DVdm 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel someone is gaming the system, I strongly urge you to file a request for checkuser or request for request for sockpuppet investigation.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DVdm 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I did see your comment at ANI about the consensus version. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to protect an article, then get involved in the content dispute by editing the content. You could always make a request at page protection requests to get it unprotected. I did tag the article factually disputed because I think that is a fair assessment as someone neutrally viewing this from the outside.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, I understand your position, better watch out for the wasps here ;-)

I'll leave the RFPP for someone else now - Cheers and thanks again. - DVdm 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm- Fie on you for your malicious censorship of my good faith addition of a Criticisms of RT section to four RT articles. You must be some kind of wretch, misfit or punk, or any combination thereof. You must be lower than excrement at the bottom of a municipal sewage system. You confuse science with censorship. You present theory and fantasy as fact and then censor my well-referenced material by qualified scientists calling it "crackpot." Were Nobel laureates Rutherford and Soddy crackpots? Was Bell Laboratories scientist Herbert Ives a crackpot? Inasmuch as your reversions were improper, I will reinstate this material. If you delete it again you will suffer the consequences. This is your last warning.RAmesbury (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, you wretch, I've got RAmesbury's contributions on my watchlist too. Alfred Centauri (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported RAmesbury for making changes for which payment was offered on Anti-Relativity.com: See noticeboard. I thought you might be interested. Antelan ^talk 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Antelan. Ain't the web great? Alfred Centauri (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Depends on the municipality. Tim Shuba 02:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dvdm. I am contacting you in reference to your recent actions against RAmesbury recently, over pages relating to relativity theory. I see that, that user may be not all that acquianted with policies, but even still I would appreciate if both of you could find some sort of agreement. I notice, in a page that RAmesbury had mentioned to me, that both of you seem to have quite large content disputes on pages. The user in question is probably unfamiliar with citing sources (the reason I presume you removed their edits) and may not have reliably sourced their information. Maybe you could contact that editor and find some solution to the problem, maybe explain some key policies or try to encourage consensus before posting of a large piece of material. All co-operation is appreciated. And please understand I'm just trying to stop this before it escalates into something uncontrollable. Thank you. Regards, — Rudget _{Contributions} 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...before it escalates into something uncontrollable". Perhaps I can reassure you if I tell you that I tend to avoid interacting (- both on a personal and technical level -) with people who have the reflex of calling someone "lower than excrement at the bottom of a municipal sewage system". So I don't think that there is much to escalate into something uncontrollable.

If you haven't done so already, do have a look at the preceeding section and at this. Finding some sort of agreement with someone like this is not on my agenda. DVdm (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. And I apologise, I can now understand your situation. All the best, — Rudget _{Contributions} 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) - Keep up the good work! DVdm (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your kind words on my recent Zappa edits. It was completely by accident that I deleted them. I have restored them now (even though modesty almost forbad me :-) ). Thanks again. Happy New Year!--HJensen, talk 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cite Wikipedia rules, but you violate them yourself. In your deleting an addition made in good faith and that was first given in the Discussion for all to comment on you unilaterally deleted it giving only insults and unsubstantiated general claims. If you have a specific technical issue, then state it and be very specific and detailed. ThanksTwPx (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. DVdm (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "the"/"of"/"en" and any other conjunction shouldn't be capitalized. It is grammaticaly wrong and in every reliable source I've found it is written without capital letters (AMG, for example). By capitalizing all the words you've also broken the link to Willie the Pimp article. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that what is actually brought out by the record company is the thing that counts, independently of grammar? If some links are broken, I'll gladly fix them. Just let me know? Cheers, DVdm (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on Hot Rats talk page. DVdm (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ([2]) edit was bang out of order. I am about to remove it from this page. That kind of incivility totally crosses the line. Come on... it's not necessary and all it does it upset people. I strongly suggest you apologise to the other party. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, I carefully avoided commenting on the other party's condition - I am insufficiently qualified for that. I merely accurately characterised its behaviour (see also [3], [4], [5], [6] etc...).

If I have upset you in some way, then I am sorry. The other party doesn't seem to mind however (see [7] and [8]), so apologies would be misplaced in this case. By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board. It might be capable of making valuable contributions to the project, but as the history shows, it behaves abominably - at least in my perception. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you tread on someone's toe, you apologise whether or not you actually hurt them. And that's accidental injury, never mind deliberate name-calling. Furthermore, I think that Amaltheus's subsequent messages have made it clear that he is, rightly, appalled by your edit. And please don't play semantic games about categorising the user or the behaviour.

Amaltheus's editing has indeed been problematic. He has been warned and I am watching. I am certainly not bending over to do anything at all, if that comment was aimed at me. Once one has graduated from kindergarten keeping up with, or exceeding bad behaviour by other parties with whom one is in dispute is not justifiable by pointing at 'the other side'.

Admins take NPA extremely seriously and I have to tell you that I carefully considered blocking your account for this breach of NPA. I can see you've had problems with NPA and CIVIL in the past. I urge you to tread carefully.

--Dweller (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will tread carefully. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"By the way, I am astonished by the bending over going on here to keep this party on board." Maybe you would not be so surprised if you looked at the quality of his edits? David D. (Talk) 03:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also agree with Dweller in regard to this edit. It takes two to tango. David D. (Talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said, "...capable of making valuable contributions to the project...", but i.m.o. that is no excuse for abominable behaviour.

P.S. Yes, it takes two to tango - plus a combo to make the music. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad someone else also understands that the 2nd postulate is redundant. Your input at Talk:Special_relativity#Postulates_revisited was dismissed by people who really should have known better. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Feel free to have a go at the section Postulates of special relativity#Alternate Derivations of Special Relativity. For background, see Talk:Postulates of special relativity#Bogus Section on Alternate Derivations. Good luck :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given up. Unless a group of us co-ordinate on this matter, it hopeless -- too many entrenched POVs. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. Unfortunately, I don't have the energy to revive WWI either - not even in a coordinated manner ;-)

Nice attempt. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had figured that light was not a matter; I would have called it a radiation, but that didn't seem fitting. I think that, somehow, it needs to be noted that "light is the fastest travelling <insert word here> in the known universe." -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "light is the fastest travelling <insert word here> in the known universe"?

Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) - DVdm (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_WakaJawaka.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zappa_PeachesEnRegalia.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 02:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have uploaded shorter versions of both samples. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was on holidays :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1961-1962 Gibson Les Paul was a thin bodied solid electric guitar with 2 sharp horns. After 1963 they began to refer to the model as an SG. But when you say 1961 Les Paul... it looks like an SG... but it's officially a 1961 Les Paul. Les Paul didn't like the design and requested his name be removed from it. But Gibson had a stockpile the the Les Paul nameplates that sat between the neck pickup and the fingerboard. So the Les Paul name stuck with it until it was officialy named the SG in 1963. I own a 1961 Les Paul, a 1968 SG and a fairly new SG "61 Reissue". All three look almost identical. But only 2 are "SGs". The ol' girl is a Les Paul. A simlar naming gaff pops up in Gibson related article when editors add the word "Standard" to describe the 1958-1960 sunburst LPs. We've come to know the replicas and reissues by that name. But when referring to an actual model made during those 3 years, the word Standard is incorrect in the naming formatand should not be used. Hope that helps. Frank Marino being added to the Gibson players list along with a ref is long overdue. Thanks for getting him in there. Thye Gibson Player list has a very strict set of rules and a consistent style format which has been ongoing for quite some time. The intent is to get it to "Featured Article" status as has been achieved with the List of Telecaster players. The List of Stratocaster players is also close to 'good article' status with a featured article push in the near future.

Since you are interested in Guitar related articles perhaps you would be interested in joining the WikiProject:Guitarists. We are always looking for editors who are dedicated to improving any/all guitar/guitarist related articles. Fee free to drop by the project page to learn more. And, again, thanks for adding Frank. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications and for the invitation. I still think there should be a ref to the name "SG" (perhaps "pre-SG") in the entry text, but I'll leave it up to you. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No where near as funny as The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... don't know, I have never seen the page, and since it has been deleted now, I can't verify... - DVdm (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... but it says it best. Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! لennavecia 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, looking at his most recent "contribution" and the history on his talk page, you used a template that says:

• "... may not have engaged in vandalism",
• "... not sufficiently or appropriately warned",
• "... unhelpful or misguided edits",
• "... good faith",

Duh. Excuse my skepticism, but this template is a bit off the mark here ;-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The derivation you deleted is much better than the existent one. I omitted some obvious steps, if you think they are necessary, I can put them in. Or, you can do that on your own DS1000 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you first ask me to put it back and then you put it back without notice. I have reverted your edits and left a message on the talk page. Please keep it there. Thanks, DVdm (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved DS1000's subsequent comment to article's talk page and replied there - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You twice reverted my creationism edits. The comments added balance to the article, by noting that there are in fact scientists who dissent from Evolution and also those who believe in Creationism (albeit a minority but regardless). The added references/links simply show that these scientists do exist and show what their views are -- there is no indication that these scientists or views are 'right' or 'wrong', just that they exist. The article was unbalanced is it presents creationism as if there are no scientists who believe in it and no scientists who dissent from evolution (including non-creationists). Why are you reverting the edits? Do I need to proceed with page protection, as the article, as is without my additions, is in fact unbalanced. Hassandoodle (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to creationism was reverted by someone else first, with an edit symmary "Reverted good faith edits by Hassandoodle; Let's stick to a WP:NPOV". You undid this without providing an edit summary. Since you seem to be new (assuming you are not a single purpose account), I figured it would be a good idea to encourage you use the talk page before undoing reverts to controversial articles. I notice that you left a message on the talk page in question. This is good - you are learning fast. Thanks and cheers, DVdm (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes I am a 'new' editor here on Wiki. Since you seem to be an expert, can you tell me what is the process as all the 'debate' on the "creationism" talk page goes, for the article to be edited to have any such changes implemented? What if no one ever agrees (which, in such a controversial topic, is likely to happen)? And I completely agreed with your comment on the creationism talk page. Hassandoodle (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not an expert. I just have some experience with controversial topics. What ultimately happens when no one ever agrees, is hard to predict, but generally it means that the talk pages are much longer and more interesting than the articles :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per your most recent revert, "Reverted POV-push of creationists-list. There was no consensus on the talk page." No one contested my latest comments on the talk page (yet), which included the added wording. As is, I don't see how the specific wording (added as you reverted) is in any way not neutral, it's simply pointing out the fact that creationists maintain such a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassandoodle (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the statement about parallel component was indeed nonsense. I had omitted the word force as I hadn't read the book properly. Can we now agree that the modified statement is a consequence of the Lorentz factor, and therefore put the statement into the article. The statement should now read: "Acceleration requires a force not only in the direction of the acceleration but a force which also has a component parallel to the existing velocity." Delaszk (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use talk page of the article. I will not comment here. DVdm (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Impressive how much a little word can do! If you like, you may want to add it here as well (and perhaps add a comment). Thanks!--HJensen, talk 09:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and done with same comment in edit summary. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you following me around and undoing my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.24.106 (talk • contribs)

Huh? All I know about you (76.249.24.106) is your IP-address, registered to "SE2 PPPOX POOL, Richardson, Texas" and this one edit on November 30. Who are you and what makes you think I might be following you? Would there be any reason for someone to follow you? Perhaps you might consider registering with a username and signing your messages on user's talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. i am working on it. the next one will be better. (I hope). 76.249.24.106 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it was almost a month ago, your patience and thoroughness shined through in your interaction with User:Quartus81 over the use of the word myth at the Creation page and color me impressed. Good work and thanks for your contributions.D-rew (talk)

Thanks for the thanks :-) - DVdm (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Speed of light. Thanks!! --Steve (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I replied here. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wishes, I wish you the same for 2009. I do occasionally have a look at s.p.r but the quality of crackpot seems to have declined to a level where most of the post are pure nonsense. We do not even seem get the likes of Brian Jones (and aliases) there any more. We also seem to have completely lost the two 'visiting professors' Steve Carlip and John Baez, who could always be relied upon to give sound scientific help and advice.

I gather that some of the more sensible discussion may have moved to other groups but I have not investigated these. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BJ is very active again - under his real name this time :-) DVdm (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, having just mentioned our old friend Brian Jones, I have just noticed, and reverted, additions to two articles Special relativity and Inertial frame of reference which seem to be pushing a version of LET rather like Brian's. Have a look and let me know what you think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Had a look, reverted with edit summary comment, and warned for 3RR. ( [9], [10] and [11] ). Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, "faulty" "nonsense-in-disguise"? Please .. details. And see my user page. Rayclipper (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There really arent many details to be provided. The reference book (anno 2008) you gave, and of which you seem eager to provide your personal synthesis, is more like an amateur's photo album project for kids. For example, quoting from the book:

• "It is commonly assumed by people on both sides of this issue that if there were a universal reference frame producing actual clock slowing and length contraction, it would preclude the mutual effects, and therefore the validity, of special relativity (SR) as it is normally understood.".

This is nonsense, and not even in disguise. This book cannot possibly be considered as a reliable source. It is also never mentioned in another book or article, as you can see from this, comparing with, for instance this.

As an aside, if by any chance you would happen to be the author of the book, please be aware that there would be a clear conflict of interest, and that your attempts to advertise it would be treated as spam. See also the policies about single purpose accounts.

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How telling it is, that you couldn't find anything in what I had written to justify your original comments. It's also telling that you selected a sentence from the book with such an indefinite term such as "commonly". That sentence tells me that "it is common" to find people who think an absolute frame of reference would preclude the mutual effects of relativity. My own reading indicates that the author is not out of line there. What a crazy thing to pick a fight over. At any rate, I don't think you have anything else to add that will interest me. Do note, however the civility policy:

Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles give firm standards as to the content of articles, the civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment. This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

I see from your user page, that you have a history of such violations.

-Ray (not the author) Rayclipper (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, civility is something between one person and another. What you have seen from me here is something between a person and a book. I can only repeat that the book is an amateur's photo album project for kids. As a reference for an encyclopedia, it - sorry - just stinks. I did not mean to imply that you are a kid, or that you stink. Apparently I gave you that impression. I should have been more careful in my wording. I'm sorry for that. DVdm (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR. I think you're a bit hazy on what is meant by "protagonist". Badger Drink (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I had checked your history. In this case I decided to go blatantly upstraim against WP:DTTR. Being a regular, you should understand why. DVdm (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Badger Drink (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, you give me "from the same sheet a trousers", as we say. I deserve no less.

And thanks for the reference I asked for. I read the book twice, but it has been a while now. I should read it "one more gain" sometime ;-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could do with your input on the subject of aether on this page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so tiring. Hope this helps a bit. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it, though that is a big range of IP addresses. I've got the page on my watchlist so I'll revert on sight, but do you think it's worth taking it further? Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Let's wait and see :-). Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is 216.40.67.218 and I just want to say I am sorry. I just feel that a better word could be used rather than myth. However I will stop changing it.

Heads up on Creation according to Genesis. It seems odd that after a string of IPs and new accounts making the same edit that an established account would conveniently appear after semi-protection. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a reliable ref in case he/she wants to start throwing around policy. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Ben (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only comment there is to make. Everything beyond that a waste of time :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have engaged in deletion of new article "Triplets Paradox". I agree it was unsourced, incomplete, partially original research. If it is possible, please create this interesting article. I think Triplets Paradox is more interesting than Twins paradox. Thank you. Softvision (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you might have guessed, since this is an encyclopedia, articles can only be created provided a significant body of existing, well established literature about the subject is available. Otherwise articles have no chance of surviving. When you manage to publish a paper about the subject in a major scientific journal, and when that paper is referenced by a sufficient number of other notable authors in journals, papers and textbooks, only then that subject will be able to survive as an article here. That is how this encyclodedia works. So I'd say you've got some work ahead of you :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I am satisfied, that Wikipedia has rigorous rules. This is not provocation, just logical question : How many papers about Special relativity have you published in major scientific journals, and how much that papers were referenced by a sufficient number of other notable authors in journals, papers and textbooks ? Softvision (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have engaged in deletion of the "Triplets Paradox" article. One of your reasons was it is wrong. The Triplets Paradox thought experiment is valid special relativistic thought experiment. I have reconsidered your arguments, and I do not understand, how you got the value vAB1 = 0,54c ? The setup of experiment is that vAB = 0,5c, when both of the ships move from Earth or to Earth. But this is not most important. Another speed vAB just changes the values, not relations. More important is your argument, that the ship A will turn sooner, than the ship B (according to the ship B). I do not see any reason for this argument. Please explain this. Because I do not see your arguments as valid, and I did not found satisfatory solution for this paradox in other sources, I am considering to publish this paradox as unsolved problems in physics. If you know the valid causal, logical and quantitative explanation of this paradox, please send me a link or text - softvision@softvision.sk. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softvision (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "The setup of experiment is that vAB = 0,5c" => That setup is impossible. If vA = 0.9c and vB = 0.7c, and the ships go in the same direction, then the Velocity-addition formula tells you that vAB = 0.54c. Take a calculator and verify that the relative speed of the ships is

2. "I do not see any reason for this argument" => This is called Relativity of simultaneity. If the turnaround events for A and B are simultaneous according to Earth, then they are not simultaneous in the ship's frames, so for each ship, there is small interval where the speeds are in opposite direction, and there you can calculate the relative speed of the ships as

3. As I already (strongly) suggested, a more appropriate place for you to get help with these elementary aspects of special relativity is for instance sci.physics.relativity - that is, if you can stand the heat. Final piece of advice: don't go there announcing that you "have shown Einstein wrong". :-)

DVdm (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have prevented me to publish invalid information and I appreciate that. You helped me to find relevant information. Thank you. I have placed new setup of the experiment on my talk page and I will be pleased if you add your opinion or criticism under the new experiment setup. I don't want to make or participate in any confusion. I hope experiment setup published on my talk page does not violate Wikipedia rules. I consider triplets experiment still as very interesting and I think the article on this thought experiment could be helpfull. I don't think I can disprove Einstein's theory. If you do not have a time or dislike this case, thank you one more time. I will continue discussion about Triplets experiment only on my talk page. Softvision (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to object to your revert on the Spinoza article. Spinoza can be described as a religious naturalist since he fits the definition found on the Religious naturalist page. Please discuss this on the talk page for the Spinoza article if you feel strongly. For the time being I have included him in the religious naturalist category. Please look at other articles in that category. 613kpiggy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I won't use an article's talk page to adress nonsense. If you want the category, then you provide the proper refs and sources. DVdm (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought: this. DVdm (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you be more tolerant of other users and don't call other people's contributions nonsense. 613kpiggy (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, but nonsense is nonsense. You tried to pull the same thing with Einstein. Einstein was not a naturalist. He was a physicist. If you can provide reliable sources for this nonsense, it can stay. That is how it works. DVdm (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you think the "religious naturalist" stuff doesn't belong in this article suggests to me that you're knowledgeable about philosophy and Spinoza. I am an independent thinker, author, whose favorite philosopher is Spinoza, and who likes philosophy, but I'm not an expert by any means. But I'm thinking the Spinoza article is lackluster, confusing, not well ordered, and I would like to help improve it. I left a suggestion at the bottom of the Spinoza talk page about shortening the opening paragraph. Further, I am in touch with a Spinoza expert by e-mail (a philosophy professor) and can possibly elicit his help. But I'm wondering what your thoughts are about the Spinoza article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Hi, rather than on the Spinoza article, my thoughts were focussed against the Religious naturalist article. I'm sure that you and your e-mail pal are seriously more knowledgeable about philosophy and Spinoza than I am, so be my guest, be bold and go ahead with the article. Cheers & good luck! - B.t.w. I like the looks of your favorite actress :-) DVdm (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't read my edit on noah's ark that you just reverted did you... you just changed a sentence back to what it was before -- grammatically incorrect -- and you called it POV. lol. please LOOK before you change. i can't fix it because i've already reverted three time, but please go back and un-revert your revert. at least look at it. 76.249.22.141 (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and please apologize for your statement that it was a POV edit. I don't like being slandered for correcting grammar. the others, I can understand -- they have strong opinion according to their belief system. But your labelling me POV is wrong and needs to be taken back. 76.249.22.141 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to CharmingPeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the single purpose sock puppet you (User:76.249.22.141) created in order to break the rules. I think that's a pretty dishonest thing to do for a religious person, so I don't really feel like apologizing. DVdm (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New sock instance: 76.249.19.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - DVdm (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce correct information into articles, as you did to Speed of light. Your edit has been reverted. If you believe the average wikipedia reader can understand that a numerical value slightly over 2.9 is roughly 3.0 without the help of advanced editing techniques, please reconsider, or discuss the changes on the talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Tim Shuba (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good joke :-) Sorry I hadn't recognized it as such at first. Removed and restored! Cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. The paragraph I added was deleted. I've readded it with some new wording. Do you have any concerns about the new wording? Charvest (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay with me. Just be prepared to meet the wasps. I'm not one of them :-) DVdm (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you have decided to be abusive on speed of light? Brews ohare (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help . To no avail, it seems. Sorry. DVdm (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to interpret your actions as "trying to help" by identifying my "personal problem" understanding the English language. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice you find it hard, but I can't help you with that either. DVdm (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing that you can persist in believing in your ability to converse when all you understand is sarcasm. Brews ohare (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing that you can persist in believing in your ability to converse when all you understand is repetition. DVdm (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the edit you made to coordinate time. I agree that it is possible to use non-inertial coordinates in SR, so a slight rewording could have made that clearer. But I don't think anything you deleted explicitly contradicted that. The phrase used was "In special relativity, the coordinate time (relative to an inertial observer)..." followed by a description that is correct in that special case. I feel it's helpful to begin with a special case that more readers will understand before progressing to a more general definition that fewer will understand. The article as it now stands will be less comprehensible to someone learning SR who has no knowledge of GR. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to reword, but perhaps it's best to make sure there is no restriction to inertial observers. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: You have been added as an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed of light. —Finell (Talk) 17:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & cheers. DVdm (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Annus Mirabilis papers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Flegelpuss (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not really - DVdm (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for getting confused about who posted what. Thanks for your constructive discussion. I'll get around (if it's not already done by you or someone else) to fixing the similar point in 'Tide' and the equations in 'Tidal force' that embody confusion about which body and which mass they relate to, but maybe not immediately. Best wishes Terry0051 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Cheers! DVdm (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your query, deleted by Finell, I found unacceptable Jehochman's suggestion that the appropriate place for me to edit WP was in non-technical arenas like sushi and Connecticut. As it seems that is how what Finell calls my mild "concession" to very drastically restrict my activities is to be interpreted, I withdrew the offer. Brews ohare (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some have a fine, subtle sense of humour. Some don't have a sense of humour and some are just not informed turn the lack of it into a fine art. No big deal. DVdm (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
• David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
• Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
• Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Sushi and Connecticut. DVdm (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing external links regarding formula-database.com. The site is a not-for-profit, university supported research project, which provides neutral and accurate information making it a valid external link see Wikipedia:El. Its current content can also be verified through the CollegeBoard official AP Physics description. Its mission is to find and organize the fundamental laws of the universe through its unique hierarchical structure, making it extremely relevant to physics and related pages. Containing only basic equations does not make it irrelevant since this is often extremely useful in high school or AP physics courses. I can understand your concern regarding external link spamming, which I agree is a major problem with the Wikipedia editing structure. But, regarding this site, it is no more "spam" than HyperPhysics or any other basic physics tutorial. --Calccrazy1dx 9 June 2024

Refs:

• www.formula-database.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• 66.188.115.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Calccrazy1dx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alas, www.formula-database.com is someone's personal project, and per wp:EL there is no room for that in Wikipedia. Please read the policy at wp:EL. Also note, that if you would happen to be in any way involved with this site, there would also be a wp:COI. - DVdm (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:EL does not forbid personal website, which formula-database.com no longer is. It says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." I believe this should qualify this site on relevant pages. formula-database.com has been generally excepted for many months by other editors and utilized in the list of elementary physics formulas. Removing it is destructive to the advancement of science and of no benefit to you or the goals of Wikipedia. --Calccrazy1dx 9 June 2024

Follow-up here. DVdm (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here. DVdm (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm,

Can wikipedia construct attachement facility in discussion/edit page?

Because I want to show you some diagrams regarding time dilation but neither there is attachment facility in discution/edit page nor I do have your email address. Thanks 68.147.38.24 (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC) khattak[reply]

Please use the reference desk. DVdm (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop to violate Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Focus on content, Stay cool, Discuss with the other party ....

Please stop to violate Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines - Communicate, Keep on topic, Be positive, ....

Softvision (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this ??? in the Michelson–Morley experiment article discussion : Different interpretation : There should be mentioned that the MM experiment also implies another result. Michelson thought that the movement of the earth leads to a light-interfernce mesurable within the interferometer, but he didn´t recognized interferences. The reversal conclusion is that our planet is not moving (relatively too an absolute reference system). Maybe we are nevertheless the center of the universe, or at least a fixpoint within... Someone should think about this. Ansur

It is hard to understand your behaviour. If you do not care about such submissions, I am again asking you : What do you care about ? What are you serving to ? Try to be true for yourself in your own interest. Do you really think, that apparent contradiction is own research ? Hm. It is hard to understand what is your intension. Your behaviour itself is contradictious.

Softvision (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]