User talk:DVdm/Archive 2009

Archives by year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

Best wishes

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)

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

Rayclipper

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)

I Had a look, reverted with edit summary comment, and warned for 3RR. ( [1], [2] and [3] ). Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

WP:DTTR

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

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)

January 2009

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)

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)

Speed of light - aether

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

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

Re: Creation

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Re: Thanks

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

Your comments would be appreciated

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)

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)

Triplets Paradox

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

${\frac {0.9-0.7}{1-0.9*0.7}}=0.540\neq 0.5$

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

${\frac {0.9+0.7}{1+0.9*0.7}}=0.982$

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)

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)

Spinoza as Religious Naturalist

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).

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

noah's ark

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)

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)

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)

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)

August 2009

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)

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

wasps and light

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)

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)

Abusive behavior

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Coordinate time

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)

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)

Arbitration Request:Speed of light

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)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

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)

Please stop mass reversion of careful edits

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)

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

Folluw-up: blocked for sockpuppetry. DVdm (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From discussion on tidal force

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)

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

Sushi

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

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)

Discuss this

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

Removing Valid External Links

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 5 November 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)

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 5 November 2024

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

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

suggestion

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

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

Please stop misleading claims and hostile behaviour

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)

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)

See incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#User Softvision on talk pages. DVdm (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, that you are afraid of my submissions, or something like that, what I really do not understand, because you are apparently tracking my submissions, and as soon as possible deleting them. About other submissions, containing contradictious, not logical, not scientifical content you apparently do not care. What are you afraid off ? Please answer this question. This is evident hostile behaviour, including your apparent effort to degrade me as user, by permanent stop warnings, without the real sustainable reason. This is serious violation not only of Wikipedia rules, but also violation of basic human decency. Moreover, blocking me to submit contradiction warning to editors in article discussion, you are working against the propagation of valid information, and improvement of Wikipedia quality. Take seriously, that my effort, addressed not only in Wikipedia, has serious reasons, that can be understood from my submissions. The way I have choosed has also specific reasons. Although you apparently do not understand this, you will understand it later, because the intension of my effort is truth. I know more than you can imagine. Please think about your behaviour and stop such behaviour. Undelete my last submissions and do not waste my time in the future. Softvision (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

See new warning and incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#User Softvision on talk pages. DVdm (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, these actions against my submissions are based on not understending the essence of my submissions and not understanding the importance of the content in these submissions. The only way to fight against not understanding is to explain, to teach, to learn and to extend knowledge. It is evident, that these actions against my submissions are subjective, and their intension is distinctly NOT to enable discussion and NOT to exhibit serious contradictions in informations published globally in specific Wikipedia articles. I consider this as a serious matter. If such state is actively supported, that represents degradation of specific Wikipedia content, controlled and censored by specific users. I do not think that this represents the Wikipedia comunity. This represents the user DVdm. Howgh. Softvision (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, for the 3rd time, see incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#User Softvision on talk pages. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Followup at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. DVdm (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

More at User talk:EdJohnston#User Softvision on talk pages and User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Subjective actions. DVdm (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Why did you revert my edit to Momentum and write a vandalism template to my talk page? I corrected the original statement, which was incorrect. You reverted the change, making it once again blatantly incorrect (afterwards, Timmo999 fixed it once again using a different wording). 81.36.153.27 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anonymo, for your edit you had given no edit summary, no talk page comment, the edit was not sourced, it was your first edit, and the Momentum article is a common Anonymous First Edit Vandalism Target. So I reverted on sight without even verifying what you had written. Timmo999 hadn't given an edit summary either, but I had noticed he had left a message on the talk page, so I checked his edit. I see that your edit was not vandalsim, so I removed my message on your talk page and replaced it with something smoother. Sorry and cheers, DVdm (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

momentum page

Thanks for sorting out the vandals! Just to be clear I'm talking about the ones who came after my edit, not 81.36.153.27 who you're talking to in the above conversation.Timmo999 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1902

Poincare's book "Science and Hypothesis", of 1902, states clearly that any convention would be obviously arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.178.16 (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC) The English version uses the word "only" of the convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.178.16 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide the exact quotation(s) that warrant the usage of the phrases "could only" and "obviously arbitrary", then please do so - Feel free to provide the French and/or the English version.

Please sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes? Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See the Talk page of the Poincare article for an exact reference. See the English translation of

1905, with the word "only" in it and the word "a", both implying that any convention would be arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put an on-line reference in the Poincare Talk page. See Poincare's page 90. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "a" is used twice, thus implying that any convention would be arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide the exact quotation(s) that warrant the usage of the phrases "could only" and "obviously arbitrary", then please do so - Feel free to provide the French and/or the English version.

Please sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes? Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Theory

(Referring to this and this. - DVdm (talk))

What if it is based on theory that hasn't been published yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlovecomputers (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it has no place in Wikipedia. See WP:source - DVdm (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Zappa rely is on my talk page

I really appreciate your interest in Zappa. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Regular Polygon Area

(Referring to this and this. DVdm (talk))

I proved that equation myself by running numerous tests. My college professor even said I was right. The equation on the page is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlovecomputers (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Your tests and a claim about your college professor are not sufficient.

Please sign your talk page messages. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I provide my own proof? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Afraid not. You have been pointed to this many times. Please click the link and read. Enjoy. - DVdm (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I just hate for it to be wrong, but I have no verifiable source to back it up. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Try applying the formulae to the unit square: n=4, s=1, a=1/2, r=sqrt(2)/2. You should get A=1. Your formula gives A=sqrt(2)/2. DVdm (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservation of kookery & Happy New Year

Hi DVdm! I happened to notice a brief dialog on talk:Einstein between you and this unregistered user. Other related pages are these – [4] [5] [6] – so this guy seems to have been around the wiki-block once or twice, if you know what I mean.

On a more serious note, all the best to your family and friends in the upcoming year!

Tim Shuba (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, thanks for these links. They might come handy some day. Very interesting.

I wish you a happy 2010! Cheers & all the best, DVdm (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought Experiment.

DVdm,

Thank you for pointing me to the guidelines. I will remove my posting from the discussion page.

Regards, Bennyhava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyhava (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You can leave it there if you like, but thanks for letting me know. Cheers and happy 2010! - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)