→Sir Chris Hoy declares himself British: User British did not make this edit. User Erzan did |
|||
Line 282: | Line 282: | ||
== Sir Chris Hoy declares himself British == |
== Sir Chris Hoy declares himself British == |
||
You deleted my contribution to Chris Hoy. You claim it was non-constructive. I argue the most decorated British Olympian should be recognised and viewed within the context of the informal title. The British people who have competed in the Olympic games. This would be like some one from California, not being written as the most successful USA Olympian. It's factually incorrect and if this was not enough. Because I know Wikipedia has some sympathetic leaning to the separatist British users. I provided evidence proving he views himself British. Wikipedia should strive to be objective and factual, yet it appears to be appealing to separatist users, who are in the minority in Britain, hell bent on having famous person reduced to their lowest denominator. Can I remind you he actually said ''I am British'' on Channel 4 (British TV) today. So unless Wikipedia is ignoring the 'horses mouth' as well. Is it possible if we can have Chris Hoy as British? thank you. |
You deleted my contribution to Chris Hoy. You claim it was non-constructive. I argue the most decorated British Olympian should be recognised and viewed within the context of the informal title. The British people who have competed in the Olympic games. This would be like some one from California, not being written as the most successful USA Olympian. It's factually incorrect and if this was not enough. Because I know Wikipedia has some sympathetic leaning to the separatist British users. I provided evidence proving he views himself British. Wikipedia should strive to be objective and factual, yet it appears to be appealing to separatist users, who are in the minority in Britain, hell bent on having famous person reduced to their lowest denominator. Can I remind you he actually said ''I am British'' on Channel 4 (British TV) today. So unless Wikipedia is ignoring the 'horses mouth' as well. Is it possible if we can have Chris Hoy as British? thank you. {{unsigned|Erzan|18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
:I restored your contribution when I noticed that it was made on a talk page. I also removed the warning that I had put on your talk page. Apologies - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm#top|talk]]) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
:I restored your contribution when I noticed that it was made on a talk page. I also removed the warning that I had put on your talk page. Apologies - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm#top|talk]]) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:40, 8 August 2012
|
— Telcome to my walk page —
|
|
The User:UBX/vandalized parameter must be an integer.
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- No need to explain. Excellent source additoin. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
User:D.H's latest additions have impressed me a lot, and make me think that the article is nearing GA quality. Could you look the article over and suggest what still needs to be done before nomination? Dieter's scholarship vastly exceeds mine; I'm glad that I've been able to help with article organization, improving the English, and some contributions of my own. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- It surely looks good to me, but as I have not kept an eye on the recent changes, I also have no idea what needs to be done for an official GA label. If you nominate it, you'll find out soon enough and in great detail, I suppose. Go ahead and try :-) - DVdm (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The Illustrated Man
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)
- We don't put spoiler warnings. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
British English
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)
- 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)
- I was writing an apology re your previous message. Perhaps if you had specified how exactly you had noticed that the flag is upside down (like DieSwartzPunkt did), then neither Pinethicket or I would have thought that you were joking. Rest assured, we are not the same user. - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I spotted it the same way DieSwartzPunkt did. I'm a UK resident and wnow which way up my own country's flag should be flown (though a surprisingly large number of people don't). The sockpuppetry suspicion arose because you both adopted the same vitriolic tone and made more or less identical allegations. Now maybe we can get the flag fixed. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, perhaps you spotted it the same way, but DSP explained and you didn't. That seems to make a difference. I thought you were joking. Sorry about that.
- Watch out, you have all your letters "o" upside down, and, to me, your letters "s" look like they are inside out. Anyway, good luck with the flag. - DVdm (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tee Hee! 109.145.22.224 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :-)
Thanks for reverting the personal attack on my user page! Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong button press
Hi, just a heads up: this revert was worth doing, but the edit summary makes absolutely no sense because the previous edit didn't remove any text at all. Graham87 15:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, silly indeed. I had hit revert and aimed for "Advanced...", planning to type "Unhelpful", but I accidentally hit the choice immediately above that. When I noticed, I decided not to bother since this was a no-user-warning revert. Thanks for having notified me. - DVdm (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just some more hair-splitting, though: the next edit that you made was a dummy edit, not a null edit. I don't think there's any need to make another edit to correct that, however. :-) Graham87 01:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Content copied to article talk page Talk:Quadratic_equation#Inappropriate_external_link |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The link that you keep removing from the 'External Links' section on the Quadratic Equation page does not violate any of the guidelines that Wikipedia uses for External Links (Shown here: external links). I will address each one individually: 1. This site provides a quadratic formula calculator that displays imaginary roots (a unique resource) 2. This site has no inaccurate or misleading information 3. It does not contain malicious scripts, malware, or illegal content. 4. It is not an online petition. Furthermore, there are no advertisements or AdSense accounts associated with this site, so there is no chance to profit from linking. 5. See number 4 6. No payment or registration for use is required. 7. Anybody with internet access can view the site. 8. There are no documents linked on this site that require additional plugins to view/download. 9. No links to any search results pages exist on this site. In fact, no external links at all exist on this site. 10. See number 9 11. See number 9 12. See number 9 13. This link is clearly directly related to the subject matter on Wikipedia to which it is linked. It is a quadratic formula calculator and it was linked to the quadratic equation page on Wikipedia. 14. No links at all appear on this site (See number 9) 15. See number 9 16. See number 9 17. See number 9 18. N/A 19. See number 9 20. N/A It is clear that you didn't even look at the link that was posted and you should not edit pages or reference guidelines without reviewing yourself. Please undo your last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.153.144 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Try this site again, it works on all browsers, and as of yet there is no link available to a calculator like this one128.104.153.144 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I did read it and I'm failing to see how it applies. You should really stop trying to clean up edits that are clearly adding to pages.128.104.153.144 (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
|
I have copied this thread to where it belongs. Further discussion over there please. Thanks and cheers to all. - DVdm (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
GPS Edit - "Bancroft's Method"
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Global Positioning System. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism."
So removing incorrect info. isn't allowed on Wikipedia?
I have a Masters in GPS. I wrote programs consisting of 000s of lines of code to solve the equations required to provide a fix in a handset. If I edit the GPS page, it isn't vandalism I can assure you. What are YOUR qualifications re GPS? What gives YOU the authority to decide what's accurate or not regarding Wikipedia contributions. Who appointed you as surveyor-in-chief?
Editing not allowed on Wikipedia pages? Can you see what's happened here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.220.47 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have replied on your talk page, in section User talk:78.149.220.47#On Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
Thanks for removing that nasty little comment from my page (here) - happy editing, see you around! :) Theopolisme TALK 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
What would count as 0.25 vandal attempts?
I was considering performing a minor vandalization that would tweak your non-integral vandalization count to a whole number. What would count as 0.25 of a vandalization? Adding an unnecessary comma? Changing a word from American English spelling to British English, or vice-versa? Adding an extra space between words?
I would naturally perform this heinous act under an anonymous IP... :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Took a while for me to figure out something that might work. As 155.203.40.78, I added a space and then reverted my addition on 16 July 2012 at 17:07 and 17:08. Simply the fact that the page is a user page not my own made my edit a vandalism, even though I reverted it immediately. Well, did that bump the count by a fraction? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Star Wars Won't Work ;-) DVdm (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Durn it! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. I've just made my second attempt at a fractional vandalism, this time not immediately reverting it. I'll revert tomorrow, if somebody else doesn't do it first. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, I didn't really mind your grafiti. It looks like Steve Quinn removed it — for witch, thanks, although by no means necessary. At this stage I guess I should slightly decrement the counter to accommodate for negative vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- (groan) That wasn't the direction I wanted to go! Unfortunately, you're holding all of the cards here. :-( Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is very humorous. No, I did not realize it was a tounge-in-cheek experiment. I saw "I'll revert tomorrow, if somebody else doesn't do it first" in the edit histroy. I was confused that a regular editor's name was involved with graffitti so I thought maybe it was the IP of the previous edit, and so on. Then I thought --Oh the regular editor is going to come back and do the revert -- which was really confusing because the graffiti was sitting there in the article space with the regualr editor's name on top of the edit history window... As you can see I was really baffled. So after all that I say "carry on!". Perhaps you should post a warning to editors wishing to proceed into this section of your talk page (:>)) (See edit history). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- (groan) That wasn't the direction I wanted to go! Unfortunately, you're holding all of the cards here. :-( Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
In view of the misunderstanding that arose, I will describe my planned third and final mini-vandalization attempt rather than actually doing it. This would have been an "unwelcome helpful edit" under anonymous IP that would have actually changed the appearance of the User page. It would not be a vandalization if performed on an article page, but User pages are different. (I remember that the one time a editor made a "helpful" correction to my User page, I felt a bit violated.)
Dingle was not exactly a good English stylist. Actually, his writing was wretched at times. The following sentence only makes sense if you follow Dirk's link and puzzle out Dingle's original statements in context:
Thus, between events E0 and E1, A advances by t1 and B by t'1 = a t1 by (1).
Dirk very deliberately paralleled Dingle's language, warts and all, when he wrote:
Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, which is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, which is present at both events, by t'1 = a t1 by (1).
155.203.40.78's unappreciated partial correction (leaving the third confusing "by" untouched) would have been the following:
Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, which is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, which is present at both events, advances by t'1 = a t1 by (1).
A full correction of Dingle/Dirk's language, destroying the parallelism, might have been considered a true vandalization, and I didn't want to get anywhere near doing that. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have sound judgement.
When I was honing that correction, I made several previews, all of which included your suggestions. I made several combinations of
Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, which is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, which is present at both events, advances by t'1 = a t1 by (1).
Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, who is not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, who is present at both events, by t'1 = a t1 by (1).
Thus, between events E0 and E1, A, not present at both events, advances by t1 and B, present at both events, by t'1 = a t1 by (1).
Thus, between events E0 and E1, A —not present at the events— advances by t1 and B —present at the events— by t'1 = a t1 by (1).
(et multa cetera...)
- In the spirit of the context I finally settled on the current wording. - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine-structure constant
It appears that I made an error at Fine-structure constant. I mistakenly thought the Anon IP was being sarcastic and I didn't closely check the content. All's well that ends well. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sgt. Pepper straw poll
There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Elastic collisions
As you know, I hate to disagree with you; but when you agree that a 2mv momentum can have it's direction reversed by impact with an equal (Opposite direction) velocity 1mv particle, I'm forced to object The article must have not have been about a case of linear motion.WFPM (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
hi
please i need explanation how to edit a summary.
thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdrg22 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- In the edit window, immediately above the Save page, Show preview and Show changes buttons, there is field called "Edit summary" where you can "briefly describe the changes you have made". See the help page Help:Edit summary.
Also, when editing talk pages (article or user), don't forget to sign your messages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the message. That way your username and a timestamp are automatically inserted.
i edited a summary explaining why i deleted the unecessary image
it was occupying a lot of space and causing an impression that only the phycisists listed contribuited with quantum physics
thx for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdrg22 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I restored the image. If you don't like it, please go to the article talk page. Please also have a look at wp:BRD. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
User 93.139.27.77
I think this IP should be blocked. What do you think? Thank you for your advice. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- They have a 4th level warning now, so the next time they remove something without a very good reason, they will probably be blocked. See 93.139.27.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Template on User talk:Timchya?
Hey, DVdm, I saw that you posted a level 2 warning on Timchya's talk page; which template did you use for it? I ask because it mentions using Template:hangon, which, if the documentation is to be believed, is deprecated (and indeed, I've never seen it used myself). EDIT: I just now realized that you issued him a warning for the same edit that I did, so I'm gonna go ahead and remove the extra warning. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I issued the warning through the Huggle interface. It looks like Huggle used a standard {{subst:uw-hugglespeedy2}} template. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Sir Chris Hoy declares himself British
You deleted my contribution to Chris Hoy. You claim it was non-constructive. I argue the most decorated British Olympian should be recognised and viewed within the context of the informal title. The British people who have competed in the Olympic games. This would be like some one from California, not being written as the most successful USA Olympian. It's factually incorrect and if this was not enough. Because I know Wikipedia has some sympathetic leaning to the separatist British users. I provided evidence proving he views himself British. Wikipedia should strive to be objective and factual, yet it appears to be appealing to separatist users, who are in the minority in Britain, hell bent on having famous person reduced to their lowest denominator. Can I remind you he actually said I am British on Channel 4 (British TV) today. So unless Wikipedia is ignoring the 'horses mouth' as well. Is it possible if we can have Chris Hoy as British? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erzan (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)