Revision as of 01:18, 27 January 2015 editRHB100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,197 edits →Blatant editorializing← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:05, 27 January 2015 edit undoDVdm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,475 edits →Warning: reNext edit → | ||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
==Warning== | ==Warning== | ||
], this is a warning. You have engaged in vandalism and disruptive behavior. If you continue in this conduct you will be reported and there could be serious administrative action against you. You have accused me of blatant editorializing. I have denied this accusation and you have been unable to show me any instance of where I engaged in the behaviour of which I am accused. You have used this false accusation as an excuse for reverting my post. This false accusation you have made amounts to nothing less than a personal attack on me. You have been warned. ] (]) 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | ], this is a warning. You have engaged in vandalism and disruptive behavior. If you continue in this conduct you will be reported and there could be serious administrative action against you. You have accused me of blatant editorializing. I have denied this accusation and you have been unable to show me any instance of where I engaged in the behaviour of which I am accused. You have used this false accusation as an excuse for reverting my post. This false accusation you have made amounts to nothing less than a personal attack on me. You have been warned. ] (]) 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:See by user {{u|Kendall-K1}} on the article talk page. If, after having looked at the MOS-guideline (]) and your edit (), you still fail to understand that this is indeed a classic example of editorializing, then I'm afraid I can't help you. - ] (]) 10:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:05, 27 January 2015
|
— Welcome to my talk page —
— Canard du jour —
|
|
|
Frankly
Hello there.
Just wanted to mention that the Zappa edit (apart from simplifying the "On commenting on" to "Commenting on") was intended to give a balanced view to the Barry Miles and David Walley points, in which they reference Frank's own mythologising of his music, and fall into the realm of 'fandom'.
I'll try to dig up a reference next time I wade in.
JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Big Eichelhäher (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, digging up references is what Misplaced Pages is all about - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert of that random vandal on my page. I have a strong feeling that that user is a sock puppet. --Lpdte77 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps indeed. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Ottoman Empire
Hallo DVdm,
thanks for your revert on the Ottoman Empire page yesterday. In your comment you got the point: it is a problem of RS. In the article there are three sources which state the the Empire was born in 1453. I am not against reconsidering the birth date of the empire, but this should be supported by solid sources. A discussion thread was opened here, but unfortunately the edit war is continuing. If people don`t agree to discuss and look for sources, and don`t comply with WP:BRD, at the next revert I will be forced to open an incident. In this case, my I cite your revert? Thanks again, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro57 (talk • contribs) 22 November 2014 9:38 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem, but please note that I know absolutely nothing about the subject. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! As you know, an incident has nothing to do with a subject, but is a problem concerning an user`s behavior with respect to Misplaced Pages policies. Alex2006 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Threats
Can you stop threatening me please From Nabbit 2004Nabbit2004 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- I haven't made any threats. I gave you one warning about adding unsourced content and then kindly asked you not to change other people's comments on talk pages. Please follow the links in the warnings to learn about how Misplaced Pages works. Cheers and good luck! - DVdm (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok I am sorry for things I have done but I am english and loads of school children use this webpage Nabbit2004 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC) ,/big>
- No problem. As long as school children manage to follow the rules, they'll do fine here. - DVdm (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok I am sorry for things I have done but I am english and loads of school children use this webpage Nabbit2004 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC) ,/big>
Hooray
I now know how to make things big and smallNabbit2004 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Huggle 3
Hey, I noticed you're huggling a lot and I just wanted to ask if you know how to increase the font size in the main window of huggle 3.. It's tiny!
Thanks in advance! J Fox(Contribs) 18:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Alex. I still always use Huggle 2—H3 still somehow doesn't feel right. Indeed H3's diff font is rather tiny, and I don't know how to enlarge it. Try asking at Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Feedback. Good luck! DVdm (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Kinetic Energy
The two statements:
"However the total energy of an isolated system, i.e. one in which energy can neither enter nor leave, does not change in whatever reference frame it is measured..........But the total energy of the system, including kinetic energy, fuel chemical energy, heat, etc., is conserved over time, regardless of the choice of reference frame. Different observers moving with different reference frames disagree on the value of this conserved energy."
Appear contradictory. Perhaps I misunderstood something here? It is not clear what the meaning is. If the total energy of an isolated system does not change in whatever reference frame it is measured (1st sentence), how can different observers in different frames disagree on this conserved energy(last sentence)?
Drnoone (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Conservation means that it does not change in time. That means that in any reference frame the total energy of the system remains constant. But that contant differs from frame to frame. Consider the total energy E_obj_before of a flying canon shell in its own frame, versus its enery E_gnd_before in the frame of the ground. At a moment in time the shell explodes. Consider the total enery E_obj_after of all the fragments after the explosion in the original shell frame, versus the total energy E_gnd_after in the frame of the ground. Then by conservation of energy we have
- E_obj_before = E_obj_after and E_gnd_before = E_gnd_after,
- but clearly
- E_obj_before # E_gnd_before and E_obj_after # E_gnd_after.
- In words, the total energy does not change in whatever reference frame it is measured, but the reference frames disagree on the value of this conserved energy. - DVdm (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, that makes it crystal clear. But I feel the way it is put in the article is rather ambiguous and could be improved. Perhaps it could be made a little better thus:
- "However the total energy of an isolated system, i.e. one in which energy can neither enter nor leave, does not change over time in a (particular|given) reference frame it is measured..........But the total energy of the system, including kinetic energy, fuel chemical energy, heat, etc., is conserved over time, regardless of the choice of reference frame. Different observers moving with different reference frames would however disagree on the value of this conserved energy."Drnoone (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Go ahead! - DVdm (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank once again, just did that! Drnoone (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Reverting Notice
Thanks for the notice. I was unaware. Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHatch64 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Special Relativity
Thank you for reverting my edit and sorry to put you to the trouble. I was discussing with my physics class that the common impression that "Misplaced Pages is unreliable" underestimates the reliability of Misplaced Pages (certainly in the well-trodden areas) and overestimates the reliability of everything else. I said, offhand, that if you try changing the laws of physics for example, they will be reverted extremely quickly. They challenged me to prove this to them and, as it's Christmas, I indulged them. You were the unfortunate person whose time we've taken up, but thank you for helping me teach my class a lesson. paddler (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Note that Pokemon related articles probably are even more quickly restored to accuracy than physics related articles - Cheers and MC! - DVdm (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Shawn Drover uses triggers
You may not like it or agree with it but the fact is Shawn Drover used triggers and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and hush this information up even if you are a fan of Shawn's it is no shame for a drummer to use triggers in fact almost all of them trigger their drums nowadays it's a sad fact of modern music but there's no reason to try and hide it. As it happens I am a big fan of Shawn Drover too in spite of it. 77.98.189.103 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what or whom you are talking about. Note that Misplaced Pages is about wp:reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you have no idea who or what I am talking about then I suggest you do not take it upon yourself to revert edits regarding them and proclaim them vandalism! 77.98.189.103 (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you make unsourced edits, I will revert them, no matter what or whom they are about. See our policy about wp:verifiability. Note that edits like this, this and this are considered vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can do what you like; it will make you look all the more foolish to keep proclaiming authority on a subject which you admitted to know not a jot about! 77.98.189.103 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't proclaim authority on any subject. I do have some experience on Misplaced Pages policies, so I clean up some mess and issue some warnings. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Heads of State of South America template
Just a quick question about the revision of my edit to Template:Heads of State of South America. I added the content because it seemed strange to leave out dependent territories, especially given they are included in many other similar template (such as Template:Foreign relations in South America, Template:Legislatures of the Americas, Template:SouthAmerican legislatures).
In the edit you put 'unsourced content'. How do I source that type of content? Many thanks for your help, also apologies for my dynamic IP. 86.190.74.114 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is a bit tricky. It somewhat depends on whether South America refers to politics or to geography. It could go both ways so perhaps your edits were appropriate after all. My choice of "unsourced content" was off the mark. Sorry for that. Feel free to redo. I will not interfere. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- No worried. Thanks. Philip Stevens (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Latitude
I have reinstated the link that was recently added to Latitude. The site is actually quite useful. It is an academic page and not a commercial page. Nor is it a dabbler's page. Nor does it violate any policy; after all it is in the External Links section. On the other hand that section of Latitude does include a fair amount of junk which I will prune. I have been meaning to do this since I finished the major edit of that page (some time ago). Peter Mercator (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I had removed the links on the basis of wp:ELNO, item #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Do we have a recognized authority here? - DVdm (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The website is under the auspices of a faculty of Dresden Technical University. It's certainly not in the blog/personal/fansite category. 'Authority' is a difficult word in mathematics: all that matters is that it is correct. I was a university lecturer in mathematics and I find the content acceptable. Peter Mercator (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Assistance with inappropriate use of talk page
May I ask you a favor about checking out the proper use of a talk page, specifically on the Robert Palmer article. Binksternet, an often problematic and recently blocked editor, has posted a malicious manifesto against a woman named Geraldine Edwards whom he's developed an unhealthy obsession about, on the talk pages of Robert Palmer. I am admittedly a neophyte in the area of Misplaced Pages, but it is my understanding that the talk pages exist to improve the quality and veracity of an article, not as a forum to attack a third party. He has entitled his paranoid diatribe the San Diego Hoaxer problem, in which he's all over the map accusing an individual that he believes exists of numerous acts, propounding dubious and far-fetched theories. Apparently, Binksternet is a bona fide conspiracy theorist. In addition the attack references multiple articles, however, he has posted all his delusional allegations under the Robert Palmer talk page. In addition, he has posted multiple attacks against an editor named Zabadu, insisting that he is from San Diego, regarding his comments to the Robert Palmer talk page. For whatever reason he has developed a fixation that a conspiracy has been formatted in San Diego, which is a bit alarming. Zabadu clearly stated to Binksternet during one of his multiple attacks against him that he is from Sacramento, and indeed he is. Finally, when this was revealed, Binksternet removed his malicious comments and warnings from his talk page. With all due respect, and in no way am I trying to create a problem here, Binksternets' mental hygene appears to be in question in this regard. That being said, I wonder if Binksternet's long winded diatribe on the Robert Palmer talk page should be modified or even removed. When you have a moment, can you check this out? If you're wondering why I came to you on this, well, I always trust a Frank Zappa fan. Thanks for listening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.220.178 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from my recollection of a few pretty catchy pop songs and ditto girls in some of his video clips, I know virtually nothing about Robert Palmer, so I'm not really able to have a close—and relevant—look at the rationale behind this and the impressive body of evidence presented here and here. Removing that valuable and relevant content, which for me does not at all read like a "malicious manifesto", from the article talk page would be i.m.o. highly inappropriate.
Having met user Binksternet on a few occasions here, I must say that I was highly impressed by the broad and scholar nature of his research. As I cannot possibly match that, I'm afraid I am not able to help you. Please note that remarks about another user being "a bona fide conspiracy theorist" and about his "mental hygene" will not help either. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Disagree with you, but everybody's entitled to their opinion. Thanks for the input. Have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.220.178 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Any further edits by this incorrigible hoaxer should be removed immediately. See Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Geraldine Edwards hoax from San Diego for details. You can refer to that page when deleting posts. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Time
Tnx for yr diligent AGFing re the Time "suite". Got an alligator situation here, but i hope our discussion can soon work twd the longer-term solutions that i think we both hope for.
--Jerzy•t 22:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jerzy. Sorry, hadn't seen this message yet. No problem. By the way, I have removed the spaces (
) at the beginning of your message here and on some article talk pages—see wp:talk page formatting. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Albert Einstein, early life
Even so, what's the point or relevance? His parents were apostate Jewish, in other words, not Jewish. He went to Catholic School, stongly implying being a catholic. His parents would have been shunned then and that is the only time it was important. You might as well write: His parents were consdiered freaks by the Jewish community, at least to anyone who understands what the statement means. I find it defaming. GESICC (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please take it to the article talk page, where other contributors can provide input. This is not the place for that. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Blatant editorializing
DVdm, what specific statement have I made that you consider blatant editorializing? I really have no idea what I did that could be considered blatant editorializing. I said, "The reader should note the equations to be solved are not the equations for a hyperboloid discussed above:". Do you consider this statement to be blatant editorializing? Now the reason I said this is because the discussion of hyperbolas and hyperboloids could easily mislead the reader. RHB100 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please take it to the article talk page, where other contributors can provide input. This is not the place for that. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Warning
DVdm, this is a warning. You have engaged in vandalism and disruptive behavior. If you continue in this conduct you will be reported and there could be serious administrative action against you. You have accused me of blatant editorializing. I have denied this accusation and you have been unable to show me any instance of where I engaged in the behaviour of which I am accused. You have used this false accusation as an excuse for reverting my post. This false accusation you have made amounts to nothing less than a personal attack on me. You have been warned. RHB100 (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- See this reply by user Kendall-K1 on the article talk page. If, after having looked at the MOS-guideline (wp:EDITORIALIZING) and your edit (), you still fail to understand that this is indeed a classic example of editorializing, then I'm afraid I can't help you. - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)