Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:38, 26 March 2012

— Telcome to my walk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I will respond to your messages on this page. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check —which often happens when I am practicing the Fine Art of Real-life Living— don't hesitate to remind me here. "Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow." "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

Archives downhere 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 16 sections are present.

RfC: Ambiguity about the circularity wording.

DVdm: It appears to me that you have consensus on rewording the circularity statements. Maybe it is time to implement a change? I am sorry that my attempts to change the fifth condition to be satisfied in using primary sources has distracted from this accomplishment. Brews ohare (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that way. I'm going to wait a little while though. There's no hurry, and perhaps someone shows up with yet another take on the matter. Who knows? - DVdm (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. See update. Too bad it didn't really work out the way you would have preferred it. I notice that your wp-article got demoted to essay status now. I still think it could (and should) somehow be incorporated in the main space Misplaced Pages article, but the opposition turns out to be too strong. Win some, lose some, I guess. Take care. - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops.

Thanks for catching that. (!) Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It really did sound a bit weird, so I went to check ;-) It's good that you protected the article though. - Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright symbol

No per MOS:TM#General_rules Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha... that's a good thing to point to in such cases. Thanks a bunch! - DVdm (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP policy RfC

Hi DVdm:

Maybe you have an interest in |this RfC regarding policy on articles using primary sources? Brews ohare (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Query about finding images

D, I'd like a word of advice if I may. How does an editor determine whether an image may be used here? I'm dying to get a chart in the Birthstones article, and it looks as if I will have to do it myself. Not wishing to seem pushy or in violation of WP:OWN, I just need to know what guidelines Misplaced Pages provides us when we go hunting for an image. I've tried three editors, one admin, and no one is really responding. The article would look 100% better with a chart that people could consult.--Djathinkimacowboy 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter seems to be strictly ruled by U.S. law, and I'm not familiar with that. Once, for my talk page archive nav box, I added an image of one of my favourite albums here. It was promptly and automatically removed per Misplaced Pages:NFCC#9. The image seems to be allowed in article space but not in talk space. I had a quick look at the policy, decided not to bother, and put the books back in place. Perhaps you can do some reading of the policy, and/or put a {{help}} template on your talkpage. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Ta very much. Perhaps I can make out something from policy and see if one of the charts I already know would be suitable.--Djathinkimacowboy 07:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like bingo! - DVdm (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed...and when I gather my wits about me, I'll try sticking it in and hope no one objects to it.--Djathinkimacowboy 10:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Taniec z Gwiazdami BEST OF 1-12

Welcome! Please delete this page because it is something wymyśonego. This program has never been on television and never will be. That someone came up with ... Please visit Poland Dancing with the Stars ... Was foolish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.56.252.228 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I have no idea what the article is about. DVdm (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

English or Portuguese

I am sorry but in that case we were two Portuguese, talking about one Portuguese footballer and Portuguse sources. Since i think the Vasco's talk page has no interest at all to the Misplaced Pages users i am sure it was better to talk in Portuguese, so we understand better and do a better job.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.128.211 (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) Thanks.

I understand, but not everyone takes the trouble to go and verify whether some comment on someone's talk page could have been genuine, nonsense, vandalism, or even a personal attack. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for helping and advising me. I now see that the user likes to intercept messages, I think in that case the owner of the page should decide either it is genuine, nonsense, vandalism, or even personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.128.211 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) Thanks.

I'm sure this is not someone "liking to intercept messages", but rather someone who patrolls for vandalsim. In this case the patroller assumed that the edit added nonsense to the page, as he is entitled to, as this is the english Misplaced Pages, and the string of characters is indeed nonsense for someone who is not familiar with the language. In order not to waste more time with situations like this, please consider avoiding non-English on talk pages in the English Wiki. - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

79.168.128.211 , I'm sorry for reverting your edit as I can now see that it was indeed not vandalism. However, I reverted it for the reasons that DVdm mentioned above, and I agree with his point that one should perhaps avoid non-English talk on this wiki. DVdm, thanks for commenting on the situation in the time I was offline. Metricopolus (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

TiME

Hello. You wrote: "DAB-pages are for disambiguation of article names." The article is indeed called TiME, so its mention in the Time disambiguation page is not just granted, but necessary. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha... when I look at TiME, indeed I see that there is a DAB. It wasn't there when I looked at Titan Mare Explorer. So you were correct. I undid myself but made a little change. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, gentleman. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe in Hypothermic Needles

Who are you to tell me I can't believe in and share my belief of hypothermic needles, I am an accredited hypothermic needle porfessor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3chopl0x (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is good for you, but I have no idea what you are talking about. - DVdm (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The word is "hypodermic" Dr. Echo Plz. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Occ Safety Page

thanks for watching out on the Occ Safety page... not sure what that person was thinking with those edits... that pages needs an enormous amount of attention to bring it up to some sort of organized look... I've been chipping away at it recently but there is a manure load left to do... Kurt Dundy (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Inquisitor S.'s talk page

Stefan Oswald1 was me, and I just redacted my comment. It was wrong and immature of me to have made that account, and I will discontinue it and post a notice as such on it's user page. --Imperator Sascha (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for link

In a discussion I had with you on 10,May 2010, You called up Maxwell's article about "atom". Could you please send that link to my talk page so I can find it again easier? Thank you.WFPM (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC) PS I have a copy of the 9th edition EB if you're interested in anything more in it.

Hi. Is this what you are referring to? I found it here in the history of the talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes! but I'm a poor typist and lazy and I was trying to get the link transfered into my talk page where I could find it easier. You experts can't understand how hard it is for us old fuddydudies to manage to function in the ambience of the Misplaced Pages editor environment. And I'm still thinking about matter and wanted to have that article readily available. I like him mainly because he was ready to tackle anything and to bring forward any information that he had on the subject. Not like today's editorial policy.WFPM (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have put the link on your talk page—and fixed the indentation of your preceding message :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And you'll note that the section containing the link has now been archived, and so keeping up on current information in other talk pages than your own is a dubius proposition.WFPM (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I store scientific memory stuff in my talk section or sandbox for reference purposes?WFPM (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you don't store stuff to which anyone might object — contentwise or sizewise. - DVdm (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've opened a file (]). Now I can't get it into my sandbox. Do you want to look at it and see what you think? It's got a lot of information for your cognitive thinking process as to the stability interrelationship between the elements if you're interested. Uses Table of the isotopes data. Compares to JWB and just granpa's contributions as well as Chart of the Nuclides.WFPM (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the image from your message. It is too large. I also must decline your request to look at it. Sorry and cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! don't know why it's magnified? It isn't in my "Contribution" listing. But thanks anyway.WFPM (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion Jumping

QUIT JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. iMac G3 reverted. 206.180.101.2 (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What does PAIC stand for?

Here's one opinion. Art LaPella (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah... that makes perfect sense. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of my additions to GNSS pages

I happen to disagree with your initiative to remove the links I added. The information I referred to on 10 or 11 GNSS related pages are of high quality and add value to the wikipedia pages. The European Space Agency had top experts write those articles based to the latest available knowledge. Are you a GNSS expert? What is your argumentation for the removal? Best regards, Timo Kouwenhoven User_talk:Timo_Kouwenhoven —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Replied on your talk page. Please reply there as well. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Relativistic Doppler Effect

Sorry, I just read your request above to reply on my own talk page. I'll do that from now on. Krea (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, although I've been on wikipedia for about 6 years now apparently. (I just don't bother with all of that frivolity that people seem to like to put on their user main page, and neither do I get too involved in editing unless it's some bit of knowledge that I think is lacking.)

Concerning the citing of sources, quite frankly, I think what I added is trivial: it is very basic first-year Special Relativity material. I think every undergrad uses the relativistic Doppler effect example to learn how to use the Lorentz equations, and all it is is plugging values into the equations. The only conceptual difficulty lies in visualizing what it is that you are doing. Of course, that's the only real difficulty in doing SR at all: making sure you know what it is that you are doing since it can be very easy to loose track of what is what in what frame of reference if you are being sloppy.

Still, maybe it would be better if there were some generally relevent source: I've put a source to Feynman in the references list now. Feynman uses the wave frequency and wave vector equations to derive the answer, put he is still plugging in values to Lorentz's equations. I could put a Young and Freedman reference in too, I guess, but I think they do it as it is done in the section above the one I added. All these methods are still equivalent, though: they just move the physics of the problem from the perspective of the moving source to the moving observer. If you want to be pedantic, you could argue that what I added is redundant because this is exactly the difference between what I added and what is already there in the article. Still, I think it's useful to demonstrate how the answer is the same doing it from the stationary observer's perspective.

The only points that maybe still need a ref is the contention that the classical results are formally reproduced in the limit ${\displaystyle c\rightarrow \infty }$, but I think the SR article should have that information recorded, if worded less mathematically (it is essentially the correspondence principle); Landau and Lifshitz state this explicitly, so I could add this ref if you think it's required. You could also argue that the line, "Note that this complication is not relativistic in nature: this is the ultimate cause of the Doppler effect and is also present in the classical treatment." also needs as source. But again, I think this is trivial for, otherwise, there is no Doppler effect: the whole point of the Doppler correction is that the source moves by the time it has emitted its second wave pulse. The classical Doppler effect article should make this point clear, but maybe I should put a source for it here. The only problem is that it is so fairly obvious that I think any physics text would not bother pointing it out. It's implied when they write down the relative velocity of the wave to the source/observer. Maybe it just needs a better explanation? Krea (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I'll just make a few little remarks:

• Re "Concerning the citing of sources, quite frankly, I think what I added is trivial...". Yes, absolutely trivial for you and for me, but that's not how Misplaced Pages works: see wp:V and wp:RS, and specially wp:BURDEN. We can't expect the average reader to find it trivial, so we need to provide that source. Thanks for having done so.
• I will not comment on the remainder of your message, as it is about the article. These comments really belong on the article talk page where other contributors can contribute as well. Our user talk pages are more suited for discussing user conduct related issues.

Again, as I said on your talk page, good job! Keep up the good —sourced— work! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try! Thanks for the critical eye. Krea (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Your help is appreciated, it really is, but that was really inappropriate for you to post at the ANI like that, D. Post on my talk, it'll be read and appreciated. Do you think your post is helping the cause there at ANI? Some admins are interested in this editor as a possible troll, I'm trying to do something good. It isn't about me and my lessons! Forgive me, my PC's or WP is haywire, everything is so slow. Let us resume this, if we do resume it, at my talk. Please, DVdm, unless it is apropos do not post stuff like that at the ANI.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I already replied there. I prefer to keep things in one place. - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, except this was a personal message as I'm sure you appreciate. It belonged here, not on the ANI. Which was my original point. Well, I've come here to just say, I withdrew at the ANI. You did nothing to help except make me look like a troublemaking fool, DVdm. Is that what you consider helpful? I was getting somewhere, and that editor in question is bad news. Sometimes you give an unfortunate impression of being ... I don't know what to say because it'll come out sounding badly. Think about it: what did you really do to help the ANI issue? Nothing.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, sorry, but except for that piece of advice of a few months ago, I really cannot think of anything to say. Remember what you replied to it. I'll keep out of it. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I should not have jumped so violently at you. Truly, I see what you mean there. I know the spirit in which you meant that, and I recall the lesson. Also, I appreciate that you see a little bit from my viewpoint. Well, this is over for me and I'm taking a break from the Columbo conundrum. I actually had neglected to re-read your advice from back then - obviously! It is a blessing you jumped in there. It's like you stopped an angry mastodon or something.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your expertise and advice needed (private for now)

OK, am here to ask something. How can I open a SPI without looking like a vengeful baby?--

1. User:142.58.187.134 (see)
2. User:B3430715 see)
3. User:Detectiveboy (see) are clearly socks of an editor I have not yet discovered. Perhaps they are socks of User:B3430715, who has aroused some admins' suspicions, recently disrupted a related MedCab in progress and who responded to the resulting ANI about him on his user talk page. I really think these 3 editors are sockpuppets. User:Detectiveboy looks like a single-purpose account (puppet for B3430715 in issues regarding Columbo) but I can't tell yet. So far all he's done is support B3 in the Columbo issues and uses the exact same reasoning and goofy English. Is this a 'save WP complex'? Or do I sit back and wait ... for no one else to do it? Advise me. And recall, my friend, that once again this is not about me. Frankly I think all those users are hilarious, this doesn't really personally anger me! What angers me is what is being perpetrated and how everyone is allowing it. Sockpuppetry, absolutely imho. Tell, me, what do I do?—Djathinkimacowboy 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you have opened a specific ANI-report concerning this very matter and B3430715, and since some admins already have looked into that, your best shot would be to ask for advice there. If it turns out that nobody seems to care, or if you really don't want to ask there, then you could indeed —making sure you carefully follow the SPI-reporting rules— file an SPI and see how it goes. If that turns out negative, or if you decide not to go for SPI, then indeed this would be —de facto— one of those sit-back-and-wait-and-meanwhle-move-on-and-do-something-else situations. That's precisely how this community works. Again my advice is, do read the essay wp:RATSASS. Also, take some time reading the essays pointed to in its See also section. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)