Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:52, 19 November 2015

— Welcome to my talk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I will respond on this page. If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond there. I'll try to keep an eye on it. If you think I forgot to check don't hesitate to remind me here. "Watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow." "Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over." "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." "Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself." This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 7 months and 30 days. — Canard du jour — I bet when they weren't fighting, Vikings with horn helmets had to stick potatoes on the ends of the horns, so as to avoid eye pokings to fellow Vikings and lady Vikings. — Jack Handey vn-259 This user talk page has been vandalized 259 times.

Archives downhere 2015 2014 2013 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 12 sections are present.

Speedy deletion declined: User:Aldren America

Hello DVdm. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Aldren America, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: deletion was not requested by the account holder. He may be the IP that blanked it; I'm happy to leave it blank, but not to delete. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

paraphrase

hi my friend could you plz paraphrase this ____ Potter publishing was never at her best when writing for a clearly defined audience._____

thank you Alborzagros (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Google translate can help. - DVdm (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Trigonometry

Hi this is Xtarification, responding on the subject of the change I made to the trigonometry page. (I hope this is where I'm meant to write this)

Just want to apologize about my mistake. I didn't notice how the steps taken to move the i to the top of the tan(x) function.

Xtarification (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Xtarification

No problem. Happy editing! - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dedekind source

Hi, I'm Georges Theodosiou. About Dedekind's axiom I have given link to http://faculty.uml.edu/jpropp/dedekind.pdf

With regards and friendship Georges Theodosiou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.188.110.51 (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Georges, yes, I had seen the source. Alas, it does not qualify as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages standards. See wp:Identifying reliable sources and wp:Verifiability. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

G4 speedying

Maybe it was a misclick, but in case you're misunderstanding speedy deletion policy - WP:G4 only applies to recreation of material that went through an AfD, and explicitly excludes prods and speedies. You flagged Multibit print technology as G4, when its previous incarnation had only been speedied. Obvious in this case you can just speedy it again under the same criteria, and I've gone ahead and done that (plus duplication of dots per inch for good measure). --McGeddon (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for letting me know. Meanwhile I already have reported this user for vandalims after final warning. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Witch hunt

You reverted back my changes on https://en.wikipedia.org/Witch-hunt , the numbers I provided in the table I calculated myself with a calculator. I divided the population at that time by a number of trials from the table. The info about imprisonment I drew from a lot of sources, mostly documentary films and scholar lections. Osupka (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Wiipedia needs reliable sources—see wp:verifiability. If you can list the sources, and they are reliable and notable, then the analysis can be taken on board. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Osupka: Actually you may want to take a look through WP:OR, where it says that is actually not allowed. We are not allowed to do the math ourselves or make connections through use of multiple sources.McMatter /_(contrib) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

On the Lorentz Factor page

I am not opposing your reversion on Lorentz factor, but what motivated the edit was the occurrence of the vector form on other pages. Most of the contributions I make to Misplaced Pages are motivated by improving consistency. I was thinking it might be better to include the vector form on that page and explain it a bit in case people were confused when reading about it. Aside from the fact that it may not be written verbatim in the source, are there other reasons why it shouldn't be included, or are there other conventions that should be followed when including it? I'd just appreciate your input so that I don't mess anything up. Ushakaron (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, consistency is a good thing. But I'm sure that verifiability is more important for Misplaced Pages. A referenced source that does not include the cited formula immediately following it, is definitely not done. So the missing of the vector form in the source was one reason, and as I said (), it wasn't really necessary in this particular article. But but but.... your edit in the Occurrence section used vectors x and x' whereas the surrounding text only used coordinates (x, y, z, t) and (x' , y' , z' , t' ), which was't very consistent either. So I decided to stick with the source and undo your edit. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that x was used to simply represent a position vector whereas (x, y, z, t) was used to represent the components of the coordinates. I may have confused myself a bit there.Ushakaron (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

message to user

About my edit of frank zappa page:

I did not find how to add source but there is a recording od this last two performances https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIOBSUSAikY there is a czechoslovakian state TV report on Zappas first visit February 1990, thousand people welcome him in countre where no single one record was released till moment he come https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXOUA9h1e2s I have been there as 17 years old, it was fascinating.

If you want to add the sources, it would be really nice. There are also few writen sources on the web, but mostly in Czech language. Is it possible to add link to google trasnlation of such pages? I do not know much about wikipedia rules and I do not want to break it.

But people over the world should know this interesting story, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.102.209 (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think these youtube sources are allowed here. We need a book or a newpaper article that supports the content. Do you have an online pointer to a web source? I'll use Google translate to check it out. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Few writen resources:

- CZECH Chapter from memory book of Magdalena Kratochvilova (manager of Zappas's 1991 Prague visit) regarding this concert http://www.labea.cz/book/kapitola_6.html

- CZECH Web page of Czech state television of this concert http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/135011-prazsky-vyber/29135616040/

- ENGLISH Some info and talk about vinyl recording of this concert http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/related/Adieu_CA.html

- ENGLISH Some info about later Budapest concert http://frankzappa.blog.hu/2005/07/03/zappa_in_hungary_1991

hope this is enough, check it. If you need more investigation in Czech language, you can mail me to 'lazna at volny dot cz' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.102.209 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the effort to find these sources. No problem with the Czech language, as Google Translate does a good job to help making it understandable. But alas, I'm afraid that none of these sources qualify as really reliable sources for Misplaced Pages—see wp:Identifying reliable sources. - DVdm (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for anwer. One of the sources is web of Czech republic state television, institution with almost 60 years of history. If this could not be considered as trusted resource, than what? Could it be something wrong with wikipedia rules or as you interpreter it? 78.108.102.209 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Trivial remark

This edit was obviously correct, but the edit summary is terrible! --JBL (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OOPS! You are absolutely right. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Jessie

You may want to re-look at the warning you gave when you reverted here. The edit was obviously vandalism, and given the content, it deserved a harsher warning; however, I didn't want to step on any boundaries, so I figured I'd contact you instead. Regards. Amaury (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. A closer look at the subject reveals that it was vandalism indeed. I changed the warning. Thanks! - DVdm (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Boldly requiring (rather unnecessary ) sources where no man has particularly bothered with them before...plus, seriously, all the real work was stringing together continuity because of language change in a disjointed, obscure article

Hi, May I ask if someone objected? I have time to contribute, but writing clearly and accurately while mussing as little of existing material as possible can be a big commitment, especially when the header gives no clear idea of its subject (I believe it mentioned that they fired at a lower angle than a trebuchet--which is half self-contradictory, since the article later treats its subject AS a trebuchet, and which article is also written very substantially without sources entirely, including the header. It says 1,2,3, at the very beginning, and then proceeds without support for, well, quite a while. It goes on, quite a while and without citation, also without giving an idea of the basic structure of mangonel, or, frankly, an understanding of the presumed basic nature of the engine--please check the talk page, on whether 'mangonel' should be merged with the onager based on the controversial but still-dominant, understanding that the two machines were each variations of the same torsion-powered engine. The idea has only been described as 'controversial' recently--a controversy I, but not the article previous, acknowledged. Though I did find one dismissive comment (also lacking in citation and source) on the traditional and still-usually-presumed-correct understanding of the machine (not that I dismissed the other idea).

So, well, why, when I write, largely to clean up definitions and link the first part of the article to the latter part, which spends great effort on diagrammed, nonstandard mixed-power experimental devices of little military importance is my modest contribution detailing the very basics of the structure of the device described in the header, do I meet with, well super-editorial objection? And, with all due respect, may I ask your areas of expertise, or why I am running into you again? Why you prefer to revert an obscure article on a medieval war-engine (wikipedia groups them under 'petrary', and I'm fine with accepting that terminology here--less confusing--but its primary usage is not, in fact, any such engine; rather it tends to be a middle english word for 'catapult' (a 'traction-powered' stone-throwing engine, in Roman times--any such machine these days, obviously).

So, why not insert a few (citation needed) bits, may I ask? Especially since most of this family of articles is so little cited, and besides trying to clarify the confusion of all the different uses of 'mangonel'--and leave the article somewhat more...internally fluent, rather than separates pieced together, is this raised with me? There is the addition of mangonel-as-torsion engine, at least explicitly, but that's not much of an addition. Much more is said elsewhere, again: no citation required? Plus, hell, scholarly books and journals on medieval warfare are expensive when you no longer have free access. If you'd like a source with a good deal of description of the medieval torsion mangonel, a source which acknowledges no other type of mangonel, there's 'Sieges of the Middle Ages', by Warner, Philip, but I'm afraid I don't have a page number on hand (it's on kindle). I'm sure it's covered in, oh, 'Medieval Warfare', too. Or Sir Charles Oman, but I wouldn't use that text at this point.

Yeah, So, anyway, would a revision of the article that continued to leave out the concept of torsion be acceptable? I'm not sure that's possible to do in a significant way--I'm obviously interested in correct information, and lack the time at this point in my life to....cite basic details where others are not required to (I'm looking over these other articles and...oh, hell--of course you're asking a double stardard. Or, if not, go ahead, how am I wrong on that? I listen.)--but I suppose I could still do the continuity and cleaning up, terminology, etc, which would still make the article better on a basic level, if missing fundamentals. Would that be a sort of thing you would find acceptable not to revert? Be well, and warm if you're in the northern hemisphere, RA Randall Adhemar (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Re "So, why not insert a few (citation needed) bits": because the article was in bad shape already before you made it somewhat worse by adding even more unsourced information and original research—see wp:NOR. Also, phrases like "This article tends to proceed, in lower sections, to discuss..." are entirely unencyclopedic, and in fact orthogonal to an encyclopedia, so to speak. So I undid the edits and added a few tags to unsourced sections. The idea is not to add more unsourced content, but to find sources for what is already there, all the spirit of wp:verifiability. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

_____ I made this article "Even worse"!! Did original research? I did that, did I? Wha-wha--how did you know! You...how could you have known--did you miss the earlier tipoff on my actual research from the three books I mentioned? Yes, well--I'm used to you not actually paying attention to what I write, actually, so no surprise there. But, what, you saw me somehow at The British Library with the gloves on and a nervous curator not letting me turn the pages or touch the decaying mangonel remnants, while CCTV beamed it into your magic satellite? Or...did you think I was at a dig site! Indiana Jones I am, that's true!--well, no, and the IP or something probably should've given that up. But, hold on, hold on--beyond that, you're certain I'm definitely not speaking the common consensus of historians and medievalists, those Sorbonne-folk and Cornellians and people at Kalamazoo, or from 'De Re Militari' on the issues at hand? You're sure you...definitely have no idea what I'm talking about. Do you? So this 'original research' accusation, this would be based on your own personal expertise in, no, no, forgive me, but obviously, no, that didn't happen. And 'De Re Militari'...that's the scholarly fellowship with all the military officers...not the flawed treatise on the Roman army by Vegetius...they give papers? Publish? Anything. Yeah, I didn't think so. So question is, what am I doing, seeing you up HERE, far from previous locations this site, at me AGAIN, the one time I happen to remember my login name and use it, so I can do 'minor edits' instead of making the edit-list huge? You, with accusations of "original research" (shock!...also, again, no, not really), you wouldn't make if you knew anything about this field at all? And by the way, copper, you got me on primary research and secondary, just don't drag me in, please.

Granted, the 'original research' thing is a tough call given you delete anything I write while logged in in a median of about seven hours, and quite obviously without reading much or most of it obviously you can't be, can you? Granted, it's a tough call given you typically give me about six hours before you erase everything I've written whether you know anything about it or no, based on utterly spurious and I suppose impressive sounding, if misspelled, criticisms like: your edits are —"--Orthogonal to encyclopidia."

Oh. Right, then. I'll just step away from the contested, and avoid any slightly non-standard voice in an article, rather than either rewrite the entire thing or be "Orthogonol". And to encyclopidia (sic...but what about "orthogonal"? What's that? 'Opposes' didn't work for you? Or 'perpendicular'? That closer?). More to the point, what about THIS one of yours:

"The idea is to...find sources for what is already there."

You'll understand, of course, I hope--me giving that a miss, that is. Yeah?--and no, any other reader, what's dropped in the ellipsis doesn't make the statement much less damning or condescending, but you can look just up-page to make sure. DMdV: my job is not to 'find sources' for dubious and/or incorrect material. Rather, mine, and yours obviously, are closer to being about finding and writing down the truth for the public, best as you can, if you're in a position to do so. Case being, here, I can see you're not. Whereas, well, yes, actually. Of course, in past experience I've noticed you don't even bother to read my text--critiquing me for things supposedly lacking that WERE right in front of your eyes...literally, actually). You'll even strike my material on occasion if it stands by scholarly consensus, barring your involvement. So far, perhaps everything written with this name has comes down with a rapid case of premature removal by precisely you, DVDm--who I can't remember having had anything to say on the god knows how many edits I've done without logging in. Nor, frankly, upon rechecking them, having any major issues with rewrites and alterations.

I will be clear this is a formal, direct request for you to please cease harassment of any work by me on this site, done under this name, or IP, I suppose. First time in, I suppose, ten years, I've EVER had to say that about a scholarly matter--meaning I've never said something like that. Here, or in the stacks and classrooms or conferences. And IF am indeed doing the damage you obviously assume (the 'original research' bit gives away...both your incompetence to comment on an article in this field without, at least, much more effort, and a rather crude assumption of my incompetence). You're the only one who does it, only one who's ever done it, and if you're somehow a serious student of medieval warfare and their engines...well, that's just it. You're clearly not--little knowledge. And the only connection between this material where I've done previously under this name (my only name) is YOU--in this case trying to shut me down without knowing what you're about. So please, fin. If I'm 'making things worse'--I rather think someone else will step in reasonably quickly and set it right. No more repeated sendings of the wikipedia welcome page, and no more misspelled orthogonol criticisms without adequate knowledge. Whatever you think you're doing, it's to excess. Please stop. You lack adequate knowledge on this subject, and you're being oppositional. I'll restore what's appropriate with all the beautiful sourcing your heart could possibly desire--some is already on the page. You, off of me. I'll write the truth within the limits and flaws of my expertise, perfectly adequately sourced. Since my going assumption is obviously that you're not competent to judge that--the difficult study of medieval mechanized war engines and our historiography and reconstruction of them, and since, more importantly, that presumption seems to be...quite correct (seriously), kindly send a DIFFERENT self-appointed overseer, should you feel the need. But you, you're really just harassing. Me. It's irritating and unproductive; please, stop. Don't like to be antagonistic.

Am I wrong? D'you know your medieval warfare? Oakeshott sword typology, not the whole typology--but, for example, you'd know why they switched, in the West, from Oakeshott XIIs to XIIas, and when they moved to the XIII and XIIIa, maybe not even the typology, but any understanding of that development, back to 'Norman' at least?

What's the difference between Springalds, ballistae, and the espringal? Do you consider Legnano to have hindered or helped the dominance of heavy cavalry in Europe--in the long run, of course? Is any of this just nonsense--me messing with you--or do you even know enough to tell that? Yet YOU'RE the one out there "cleaning up" that article. Hm....

   WAIT, though. Here's a key one: do you consider ancient torsion-based catapults to have existed in some form in the medieval world? Not sure? Here's something I picked up a few light-nano-seconds-away, in the general page for catapults, well, the medieval subsection actually. Direct quote:

"Mangonels are also sometimes referred to as Onagers." And this matters because Onagers are torsion catapults (tension/traction powered catapults were called by the Romans just 'catapults'.) So the main page on catapults HERE had a major conflict with THAT page you so rudely 'reverted' me off of. How are you feeling about your editing work? Please don't actually answer. All right. And, seriously, don't say "cheers" to someone when you're being a dick. I mean, seriously. Yeah, cheers, sure.

BOILERPLATE FINISH: This is a formal request to stop harassing me immediately. I'm sure if I'm doing so much terrible damage to wikipedia, someone else can be there to oversee that matters are conducted with propriety.69.200.228.170 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)