Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DVdm (talk | contribs) at 07:31, 4 April 2012 (→Content dispute: reply to yet another false accusation.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Archives downhere 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.

Request for link

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

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

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

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

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 And you'll note that the section containing the link has now been archived, and so keeping up on current information in other talk pages than your own is a dubius proposition.WFPM (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion Jumping

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

What does PAIC stand for?

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

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

Your removal of my additions to GNSS pages

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

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

Relativistic Doppler Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment at ANI

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

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

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

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

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

Your expertise and advice needed (private for now)

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

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

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

WOW. WP:RATSASS! I certainly will look at it, but I cannot imagine where all these WP articles come from. It is very funny, that there seems to be a page for every human condition WP-style. Of course I agree with you. It occurred to me that I'd have to wait anyway, because really, who knows what this is I'm looking at right now. Only my gut and tiny evidences say it's sockpuppetry; I feel I am right but I don't think anyone will want that. So cheers very much because you have guided me again. As far as the ANI, my sense is no one's interested now. I withdrew, made a final statement in order to reply to something there. Sad but true. As you said: let someone else get tired of him first.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul venter

I would appreciate your not editing my talk page........Paul venter (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User The Border Patrol (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked now for vandalism and personal attacks. You were one of his first targets. See item 3 of wp:TALKO. At your service. - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Still no justification for your trespassing on my talk page. cheers Paul venter (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit on your talk page was made in the context of a vandalism patrolling session ( with a.o. , , , .). You can check the explicit justification for my action in item 3 of our behaviorial guideline wp:TALKO. - DVdm (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments if you have their permission"....... The guideline you refer to says it all. ciao Paul venter (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think you need to lay off, dude. He was doing you a favor. Calabe1992 15:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From the all saying guideline wp:TALKO:

• "if you have their permission" is the first example.
• "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" is the third example, aka "item 3 of wp:TALKO"

DVdm (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also: and , and of course, How to respond to vandalism - For beginners. - DVdm (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for the revert on my userpage. RA0808 contribs 16:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All in the line of duty :-) Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Zappa Template

Just a heads-up. I was hoping that my recent reversion of the template had made everyone happy (I certainly didn't see any complaints), yet earlier today, without any discussion (or consensus, as usual), that version was completely reorganized yet again. If possible, could you add any thoughts you have to the discussion, and if needed, help intervene? I try to avoid edit wars as much as possible, and I would appreciate your help doing so. Friginator (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put a warning at User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus#Slow edit warring at template Frank Zappa. - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hate to come crying back to you like this, but Wisdomtenacityfocus is reverting the template again (and the discography, which apparently had been changed back a while ago), and apparently angry now, blanking his talk page and calling it "bullshit", and so on and so forth. I've changed the info back again, but this really, really is not a good use of anyone's time. Is there a noticeboard that the issue should be taken to? Are there any other users who could help in this situation? There don't seem to be many options left. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) is reported for edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not edit warring. This is a content dispute. Handle these things the way they're supposed to be handled by trying to seek opinions from outside of the small circle of editors that usually care about the content. All my edits were justified by style guidelines. Yours weren't. Also, I have every right to say what I want in edit summaries on my own talk page edits. Why are you giving me shit for something that I have a right to do? When I improve articles, you should respond by thanking me, not harassing me because someone else besides you edits an article you're engaged in. YOU don't own articles. Let someone else contribute to the process. --WTF (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page references

The talk page is advertised to provide space for general page comments that may be removed without response in as little as two weeks. It is used also for more extensive discussions. I use it to introduce my potential edits for prepost comment. This gives the page editor time to evaluate the edit and a source signature. My references are directed at content, not author or journal. My paper is analogous to a Misplaced Pages page. I use it as a reference to provide interested readers with added background for my edits. Since the possible talk page life is short, I don't believe its use should be considered promotion. (HCPotter (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC))

Copied your comment to your talk page and replied there (). See User_talk:HCPotter#Purpose_of_article_talk_pages. - DVdm (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April 1, 2012

Thanks for templating me! Now go do the same to everyone else on today's AfD log. Happy april fools day, genius. - filelakeshoe 16:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Very original joke. Subtle touch. Congratulations. - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute

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

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

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)

You explicitly stated that I vandalised the pages:

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

Now look at this very carefully:

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

• 01-Apr-2012, minor fomatting

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

• 24-feb-2010, undo anon unsourced change
• 11-Jun-2010, revert anon vandalism
• 14-Jan-2011, replacing minus signs with emdash
• 09-Oct-2011, Restoring content and adding source
• 12-Jan-2012, Proving translation for Polish phrase
• 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 belief that own the article"?

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

Reliability?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages actually works. I hope it will be of help for you. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)