User talk:DVdm: Difference between revisions

— Telcome to my walk 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 —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 15 sections are present.

You are involved in a content dispute. Details here. --WTF (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commented here and here. - DVdm (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those statements are personal attacks. Also, you falsely accused me of edit-warring. I merely stated what you actually did. --WTF (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly stated that I vandalised the pages:

• [1]: "You removed massive chunks of the discography...", "You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism"
• [2]: "... stop enabling DVdm's vandalism"

Now look at this very carefully:

The only edit I ever made to Template:Frank Zappa (edit history) is

• [3] 01-Apr-2012, minor fomatting

The only edits I ever made to Frank Zappa discography (edit history) are:

• [4] 24-feb-2010, undo anon unsourced change
• [5] 11-Jun-2010, revert anon vandalism
• [6] 14-Jan-2011, replacing minus signs with emdash
• [7] 09-Oct-2011, Restoring content and adding source
• [8] 12-Jan-2012, Proving translation for Polish phrase
• [9] 12-Jan-2012, Correcting a typo

Now, tell me, where have I "removed massive chunks of the discography"? Where have I "reverted an article based on [my] belief that [I] own the article"?

I would appreciate it if you would retract these blatantly false accusations. - DVdm (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the case has been closed now. - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wp:ANI case was opened, resulting in a formal warning about wp:NPA by Atama. Archived here. - DVdm (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, at a loss on what to put on the article. Is the Jester's own link to the information not reliable enough? People have been saying he's been bluffing about the QR attack since day one, I think the first evidence that he isn't is worth adding. Is there any way to add this information that will make you happy? --Applegeorge (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the reason for my revert on your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's merely the phrase "insinuated on his Twitter account" that you have a problem with? --Applegeorge (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The source does not say that it is insinuating something. That is your interpretation. See wp:NOR, wp:V, wp:NPOV. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK now? The "insinuated" part came from the Jester's comment (something to the effect of) "why don't I just start releasing Anonymous information now?" although that may have only meant that one text file. --Applegeorge (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source actually say that it "released a text file that was alleged to be a portion of the information gathered during the QR attack."? I don't see that on ¨this page. Please provide an exact quotation of the text, so we can verify the statement. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have reverted your edit for now. Please provide evidence for the statement you added by quoting the exact text. Then we can see what can be added. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say it word for word, but "the list" mentioned in that Tweet (and this Tweet) is almost certainly the so called "shit list" that the Jester has spoken of, i.e. the targets of the QR attack (members of Anonymous, Al-Qaeda propagandists, Wikileaks etc). Plus there's no other obvious way for this information to have been recovered. The second Tweet specifically references the "shit list" although doesn't say that the information was recovered from it. I think it's kind of unreasonable to withhold the link until the Jester uses a word-perfect Tweet that you're asking for. That's hardly his style after all. If you don't want the link publishing I understand. I won't start a flamewar; I understand that the Jester is prime flamewar material after all. --Applegeorge (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is clearly not inline with our policies. See wp:NOR, wp:V, wp:NPOV. For your information, I have put a welcome message on your talk page, where you find some pointers to learn about how Wikipedia actually works. I hope it will be of help for you. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Dja, dummy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.107.248 (talk • contribs)

Good grief, I'm speechless. What happened to the sit-back-and-wait-and-meanwhle-move-on-and-do-something-else thing, and your reply? Sigh. - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What can we do to help Anna? That IP wasn't very nice.512bits (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know why Anna would need help... - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she's always been very nice to me and that IP wasn't nice at all. She doesn't deserve to be treated like that.512bits (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that Anna. That's a kind idea, but no, I'm sure she doesn't need help from us :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) 76.195.87.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

For those familiar with George Orwell's novel 1984: you, on WP, you're all like Winston, in the torturous grasp of O'Brien. It is not enough for you to tell him what he wants to hear. He expects you to truly believe it. You know why Winston was being tortured: too many thoughtcrimes racked up, then they got him for a sexcrime.76.195.87.205 (talk)

Change that to 'battleground' or 'incivility', change the arrest to 'block', and O'Brien becomes WP. And guess who Big Brother is? What does it matter! He has you all to himself already! And if you threaten him, he won't threaten you - he'll indefblock you! It even sounds like Orwell's DoubleSpeak!76.195.87.205 (talk)

I never liked Orwell's poorly veiled but extreme paranoia. He must have been a very unhappy person. - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! It's me again. Basically I was wondering if you could help weigh in on whether or not "Greasy Love Songs" should have its own article and entry on the Zappa template/discography. Since it's on Zappa's website as an official; album, I believe we should list it as such and give it its own article. User:‎Wisdomtenacityfocus disagrees. By which I mean ‎Wisdomtenacityfocus has redirected the entire article and removed the listing from the discography and template multiple times. And now I've apparently been reported for edit warring by the user. If you'd like to weigh in on that I'd appreciate it. But mainly, I was thinking that if this is really a major issue, one of us should bring up the Greasy Love Songs album on a talk page. Would you put it on the main Zappa talk page, or on the talk page for the album itself? Anyway, just wanted to give you a heads-up. Friginator (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment here. - DVdm (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire section on physical possibility, in the article about modal logic, since it also didn't cite any source. 187.113.192.25 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. - DVdm (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already placed a ban request for that IP address. I was trying to revert Laredo, Texas at the same time you were. - Denimadept (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lollipop (Param Pam Pam) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! I was 100% convinced that this was vandalism. My sincere apologies if I was mistaken about this. - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's a tricky edge. Thanks for the positive response. Toddst1 (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that you just blocked ip 79.97.153.17 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and they did have a 4th level warning for vandalism, followed by much more of the same. Tricky edge indeed :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, as an admin, sometimes it's better to do the right thing rather than split hairs. You were clearly acting in good faith and have been here forever. No need to spoil a clean block log if we can address the problem. However, the IP was likely also acting in good faith but clearly did not respond to talk page notices. S/he wasn't blocked for vandalism, but EW and disruption. At the end of the day, the edit war has stopped and the IP will be able to resume constructive editing shortly. We don't have a judicial system here, but we do manage to keep the peace. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Point taken. I see that indeed I should have been a good tad more careful. Thanks for the clarification — and the peace keeping work. - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if 79.97.153.17 (talk · contribs) is genuinely editing in good faith - most of their edits appear to be repeated addition of errors into to the same pet articles - activity which they have already been blocked for on other IP addresses belonging to the same ISP (Chello/NTL/UPC Ireland) - e.g. 188.141.24.232 (talk · contribs) which is currently blocked for a year, also 89.100.30.5 (talk · contribs), 89.101.46.212 (talk · contribs), 79.97.111.90 (talk · contribs), etc. This activity dates back at least three years if not more and seems to focus particularly on articles like Nickelodeon UK Kids' Choice Awards 2007, Nickelodeon UK Kids' Choice Awards 2008, Ellie Goulding and various other pop music related articles, usually while making unflattering comments about the worth or stature of the artists in question. In each case it seems to descend into repeated reverting of other's attempts to undo the vandalism, while at the same time claiming that they are the anti-vandal agent. Bonusballs (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice piece of investigation. That's the kind of work I should have done before carelessly assuming bad faith from the IP. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just luck that they keep hitting the same old articles with the same old edits. I notice that they've resumed the exact same behaviour now that the 24-hour block on their current IP address has run out. :( Bonusballs (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. Have you notified Toddst1? - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bother you with this, but User:Wisdomtenacityfocus has opened another case against me here. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commented here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm - i am a novice here. I edited the No absolute framework in special relativity. You responded very quickly. I think you want me to insert or cite a verification reference? Sorry how do i do that? The only reference i can make is by virtue of the book recently published by amazon. It provides a new outlook, and meaning and mechanism for the expansion of the universe and how it determines the speed of light. As yet not thought of by any scientist! Please advise kind regards ewjEwjohnsonjohnson (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied your message to your talk page and replied there. Let's have it all in one place. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been cleaning up these Trivia-related vandalisms. Jwend392 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx & cheers! - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my user talk page. Oxfordwang (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Goes with that beer :-) DVdm (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something's wrong with one of your userboxes:

The value 59.75 could not be parsed.

Please change the value to an integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjkasi (talk • contribs) 12:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have no problem with the non-integer value. - DVdm (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelson and Morley (1887) and other early experimentalists using interferometric techniques in an attempt to measure the properties of the luminiferous aether, used monochromatic light only for initially setting up their equipment, always switching to white light for the actual measurements. The reason is that measurements were recorded visually. Monochromatic light would result in a uniform fringe pattern, and since the fringes would frequently disappear due to vibrations by passing horse traffic, distant thunderstorms and the like, it would be easy to "get lost" when the fringes returned to visibility. The advantages of white light, which produced a distinctive colored fringe pattern, far outweighed the difficulties of aligning the apparatus due to its low coherence length. This was an early example of the use of white light to resolve what is known as the "2 pi ambiguity". Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miller (1933) page 210 wrote: "White-light fringes were chosen for the observations because they consist of a small group of fringes having a central, sharply defined black fringe which forms a permanent zero reference mark for all readings." Will I also need to explain why the central fringe is black? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to explain. Excellent source additoin. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might need some help here. Talk:Michelson–Morley experiment#White or yellow light?

Suggestions?

All these young kids, all they know about are lasers and CCD imaging of interference patterns. Why, back in MY DAY, we had to mine our own salt to sprinkle on the tribal campfire if we wanted to get sodium D line fringes for a spirit summoning.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had noticed the thread and had started reading the first handful of lines, but unfortunately it is, well..., wp:TL;DR. I have no technical suggestions and I'm not really interested in the details. I do however recommend trying to get some agreement on the talk page before continuing to edit the article, and, otherwise perhaps, dropping a little note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics to draw some attention. Remember that Wikipedia is about wp:consensus and avoiding wp:NOR and wp:SYNTH, more than about anything else. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Illustrated Man's section "Plot Summary" contains spoilers including the ending for every single story. I simply added "Spoiler Alert" to make it read "Plot Summary - Spoiler Alert". I think readers deserve to be made aware of the fact that they are about the have the entire book ruined for them. I read pages here to get a general feel for what a book is about, not to get the entire story ruined in a paragraph or two. Please add "Spoiler Alert" back until the author of the page decides to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put spoiler warnings. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the section on "Spoilers". So it's acceptable to use "Plot" and/or "Ending" in a section title. So "Plot Summary" should be "Plot Summary with Ending" to warn others. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You mean like this, yes that could work, although other contributors might object. Good luck :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you consider my edit to British English a "joke edit"? The flag depicted is upside-down. I know relatively few U.K. residents have the faintest idea which way up the Union flag should be flown, but that one is upside-down. the article would benefit from a flag that is at least the right way up. It would be even better if the illustration showed the front of the flag, not the back. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you and Pinethicket are the same user. Funny how you provide input at exactly the same time and support each other in the same incorrect allegation on a perfectly valid edit. And that neither of you have any idea which way up the flag should be. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]