— Welcome to my talk page — Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end. I'll respond here. 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. "They never be working' when they oughta should." "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." vn-at least 355 This user talk page has been vandalized at least 355 times. — Canard du jour — Higher beings from outer space may not want to tell us the secrets of life, because we're not ready. But maybe they'll change their tune after a little torture. — Jack Handey This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 9 months and 11 days. This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.

Archives downhere 2023  2022   2021    2020     2019      2018       2017        2016         2015          2014           2013            2012             2011              2010               2009                2008                 2007                  2006                   2005

Happy New Year!

DVdm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DVdm, I am trying to update the new development on the Wave-Particle duality. Is there a reason why the edit was removed?

Thanks, Hong Hongdusocal (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hongdusocal: yes, hi there. As I explained in the edit summary of my revert, I removed your edit per lack of notability. See wp:primary source and wp:recentism. When this publication is sufficiently mentioned in the relevant literature, and thus in wp:secondary sources, it might be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. See also wp:NOT. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do want to have some mention of the psychological sense on the time dilation page because people do use the phrase time dilation in that sense. Maybe the ((see also)) template wasnt the best choice, but I couldnt think of anything else. Would you be okay with some other type of hatnote, saying something like "for the term used in psychology, see time perception"? Thanks, —Soap— 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Soap: Hi there, something that suggests that the term should not be confused, would be okay, as it is done in the article Relativism:

For the physics theory, see Theory of relativity.

So, how about indeed:

For the term used in psychology, see Time perception.

or, even better:

This page is about a physical concept. For the term used in psychology, see Time perception.

And of course, the other way around in article Time perception, perhaps:

This page is about a term used in psychology. For the physical concept, see Time dilation.

Afaiac, go ahead. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literature does NOT decide how to write Dutch names, mister. Dutch language does!!! But yes, it's a fact that you English have NO TALENT at all for foreign languages. And it seems (looking at your own actions) you are too stubborn to learn anything in this respect. So poor. Weaky3 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Weaky3: As an encyplopedia, Wikipedia follows the literature, by design. And I'm not English: my primary language is Dutch. I'm also fluent in French, English and German, and, thanks to my classic education, I can fluently read Italian and modern Greek newspapers whithout a dictionary. By the way, always assume good faith from your fellow editors. Personal attacks are not tolerated here. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the source you asked: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether

As you can see in the first line,Or even in the title, the experiment was on finding the velocity of earth. They assumed the existence of aether to be a fact.

While the experiment have disproved the existence of aether, it was not their intention. In fact Michelson Morley was a failed experiment. They didn't get what they were looking for.

~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophile249 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with just the four tildes (~~~~), without actually typing the <nowiki> tags. When you type the tildes, your signature will be substituted, unless you type the tags. — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Sophile249: According to the literature, the primary aim was to prove the existence of the ether, by measuring the velocity of the earth through it. We must follow the literature.

Also, take a look at wp:BRD: when a Bold edit is Reverted, and you disagree, start a Discussion, preferably on the talk page of the page that your were editing. Reverting again as you did here is considered wp:edit warring and is not allowed. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. I thought that you may not see my comment, that is why I reverted again.

Sophile249 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there is an article on gravity in the antiquity section which describes In India, the mathematician-astronomer Aryabhata first identified gravity to explain why objects are not driven away from the Earth by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation but i can't find any sources depicting about his claim please remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ppppphgtygd: I have added a source, albeit a self-published one: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that source reliable I mean it is given as self published and secondly we need to see whether aryabhatta talk about gravity in his book Aryabhatiya.I didn't find any source about him talking about gravity in Aryabhatiya. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ppppphgtygd: I think the source looks reasonably reliable (—see [2]—), but, as you can see, I did tag the reference with a ((Self-published inline)) template anyway. This invites other contributors to find a better source. - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok Ppppphgtygd (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have rejected that content outright as disputed and not well supported, based on higher quality sources that contradict or cast doubt on it. Other strong claims of discovery/contribution in that section of the source are also easily rebutted (example: our Aryabhata article has multiple sources that heliocentrism is at best uncertain but more likely not true). For whatever reason, Indian educational materials tend to over-claim Indian contributions in history. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DMacks and Ppppphgtygd: Yep, probably a good call, thanks. I had a closer look at the book. On page 6 it says: It will become immediately obvious that the genius of ancient Bharata indeed forms the basis of world civilization, in contrast to the idea that 'miracles' in Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt etc. influenced India somehow and anyhow from somewhere and anywhere. No wonder I failed to find a proper secondary source in a non-self-published source. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

good, nowadays a lot of articles are been vandalised by a lot of people in Wiki thanks for removing it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a new wikipedian I am struggling to understand where and where not to use <math> within articles. Is changing an inline equation into TeX generally frowned upon if it doesn't otherwise improve the quality of a given article? DekuNut64 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DekuNut64: See MOS:FORMULA and the second section of Help:Displaying a formula, and, in general, MOS:MATH. One of the basic style related rules here is MOS:STYLERET and MOS:RETAIN, which says that when different styles are possible, changing one style into another is not a good idea. Also note that consistency within an article is important, so it can be a good idea to make style related changes to improve consistency — within a single article, not within the entire Wikipedia.

There's a lot to learn here. Best is to read parts of some of the guideline articles, and to have a look at the edit histories of math related articles. Then gradually go ahead, making changes. Don't worry if someone reverts your changes. When that happens, inquire, ask or discuss, don't re-revert — see wp:BRD. It's all part of a learning process . Enjoy! - DVdm (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, there are, unfortunately, many books that attribute the concept of "irrational number" to the Pythagoreans, as I have known only too well since the 1960s, and such is Wikipedia's concept of a "reliable source" that you can use those to justify your change to the article. So be it. However, nobody who has actually studied and understood the relevant literature can believe that "number" is a reasonable description of the concept which they introduced. On the contrary: it was the cause of their moving away from using number as the defining concept in mathematics, and shifting to a view which considered geometrical magnitudes themselves as fundamental, rather than numerical measures of those magnitudes. JBW (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JBW: Yes indeed, but note that the artlce says: "The discovery of irrational numbers, including the particular case of the square root of 2, is widely associated with the Pythagorean school". I mirrored that in my edit summary, "The Greeks found a number that cannot be written as a ratio of integers, which we call an irrational number." I could have been (but had decided not to be) even more precise and careful, saying "The Greeks found something..."

But I decided to check the literature and get some some sources either way, and it looked like a great majority in the literature agrees that indeed they discovered the rational numbers.

And indeed I think we can easily argue that they did discover them, without actually calling them numbers. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the guidelines. I was not aware of wp:CALC, and you are absolutely right that I cannot include the derivation. It has never been my intention to break or bend the rules. The Wikipedia guidelines wp:OR state that the information should be from ”reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic”. Therefore, I would argue that the references are not limited to textbook examples only. Would it help if I provide an additional credible article? Aside from Einstein’s article I can provide other peer reviewed papers that confirms that the amplitude transforms as ${\displaystyle A'_{E}=\gamma \left(1-\beta cos\theta \right)A_{E))$. I personally think the information is relevant to the article, and that it should at least be mentioned, if the guidelines allow it. What is your opinion? MadsVS (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MadsVS: Hi, if the peer reviewed papers are not just wp:primary sources, and thus are referred to elsewhere in wp:secondary sources, the latter can be used as a valid reference. You see, the idea is that the secondary sources demonstrate that the content is actually notable. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your guidance is very helpfull. I will give it another shot, so let me know if you see any problems. Thank you. MadsVS (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please explain why the edits I made to several Frank Zappa album pages were reverted? I know you have given info regarding wiki rules on the use of long type, but the reason I made these particular edits were that two albums (Bongo Fury and Sheik Yerbouti) were already using this "Studio album with live elements" or "Live album with studio elements" categorisation (not put there by me, they have been there since before I even had a wiki account) and I simply wanted to make this consistent across the discography, esp given that some of FZ's albums can't be neatly categorized as studio or live albums. Aaw1989 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aaw1989: yes... just make sure that everything is solidly backed by sources. For example, if the most important source of all ([3]) says that Jazz from Hell is the 47'th album, let's make sure Wikipedia doesn't say that it is the final (or last or whatever) studio album with live elements. You might go ahead doing what you intended, but keep the "official" discography in mind. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the reply, i'll take more care in the wording of info moving forward. Aaw1989 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15, 2023, 17:52 - «Undid revision 1165507037 by Alexander Davronov talk) there are no "imprecise integer-value" numbers.»

15, 2023, 17:53 - «Undid revision 1165506901 by Alexander Davronov talk) was nonsense indeed»

@DVdm: This may amount to WP:HOUND. You were warned.

17:54, July 15, 2023 - «Undid revision 1165517898 by DVdm talk)»

@DVdm: Ridiculous. Keep these kinds of "warnings" away, cause you indeed may end up banned or temporarily restricted in editing for this kind of spamming. Nobody is going to get banned for simply adding unsourced information . In such cases you use WP:TAGGING or article-related talk page and only then you may remove such text (see WP:DETAG).

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two days ago you made this edit a news article came out today stating this and you got on Wikipedia and shot mine down that should have been my story I should have been credited Tony Ratliff (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't really parse this....

1. Can you specify which edit I made?
2. Which news paper came out stating what?
3. How did I get on Wikipedia and shot what down?
4. What should have been your story?

Can you please use some punctuation in your answer ? - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DVdm I appreciate your concern and I know that my edit on minkowski space was not valid but can you explain me about the magic number, I think that was correct as it was only edited with different words but with same meaning as I have verified with many LLM.

Thank you Kuvam Bhanot (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Kuvam Bhanot (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kuvam Bhanot: it is not clear whether the magic number is referring to nucleons as in "neutrons and protons" or to nucleons as in "neutrons or protons" or to nucleons as in "neutrons and/or protons". So I assume that a change from the long standting current version of the article is likely to contain factual errors. You might go to the article talk page and ask a little clarification question about that. - DVdm (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero is considered even, but in such circumstances resulting such contradictions.

Example:

• If I traveled zero times to New-York, does that means I traveled an even number of times?
• Parents having zero children means they have an even number of children?
• A person with zero hats on his head means having an even number of hats on his head?
• If a mannequin lost its head, does that means that mannequin has now an even number of heads?
• An invalid person with no legs will means to have an even number of legs?

Comments to this wrong article spread by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Parity of zero is there to report and explain things, based on the literature. Even if you don't like it, the article talk page is not the place to vent our personal views. - DVdm (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal views of dead persons. Wait until dies to be published to wiki. 109.185.67.40 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When we deviate from interpreting numbers solely as quantities of things, and rather look at them more abstractly —and that is what living mathematicians do and dead ones did—, I think the definition is good for practical reasons, just like 0!, the factorial of zero, is defined as 1. After all, how can a product of no numbers possibly produce 1, right? . - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E (mathematical constant) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear DVdm, I am not so naïve as to try to meddle with as edit by such an authority as yourself, but I am still able to say to you that I think the single quotes were appropriate. They helped the reader to deal with the fact that the singular was being used for a plural.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chjoaygame: yes, that's true, but o.t.o.h. the reader could also think that Wikipedia distances itself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression, as is suggested in MOS:SCAREQUOTES. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I was just using the inverted commas to warn of the non-literal meaning of 'an observer', because there isn't prior mention of an actually single observer to whom the phrase 'such an observer' refers. I wasn't using the inverted commas to indicate scare or scepticism, but I defer to your knowledge of the rules. Now that you bring my closer attention to it, I see that the syntax of 'such an observer' is objectionable. I now think that it would be better with another construction. I won't right now try it, but perhaps I may think about it.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chjoaygame: I was just thinking about this and had this edit ready, when I went back here to have a look at your comment again. Perhaps this is a solution? - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your care. I don't like that because it seems to attribute, to the special theory of relativity, a concept of an interrupted observer, which I don't see as properly belonging to that that theory. I would prefer a deeper reconstruction of the sentence. Chjoaygame (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are right. See my next stab. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your care in this. I find your edit to be good. I suggest a little anaphora, replacing "The situation at the turnaround point can be thought of as ..." with 'This can be thought of as ...', if you like.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

. - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((subst:Happy New Year fireworks))

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Draft_Physics, is @Draft Physics's accusation that other Wikipedia editors (who are defending Newtonian mechanics and standard kinematics) are promoting their own personal theories well-founded? If not, is it not a form of libel? I'd like to know an answer and your thoughts on this matter. Thanks. Selbram (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Selbram: See my reply on your talk page. There's no need to do this in two places. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]