|
— Welcome to my talk page —
— Canard du jour —
|
|
|
Hans Jonatan
Hi DVdm, thanks for getting in touch. I would like to make changes, correcting errors and adding important material. I am the author of the biography that you kindly mentioned (with a slight error in the subtitle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gislipalssson (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- @Gislipalssson: Ok. But please don't change every occurence of Jonatan to Jonathan in the article. The article is Hans Jonatan, not Hans Jonathan. - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Yes, there's lot's to learn. I have to leave this now, but I will be back, adding images and text, if you don't mind. I appreciate your contribution and your help. Gislipalssson (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Koide edit
I had or have no intention of mischief of vandalism
It seem impossible for you to have taken the necessary time to evaluate my content addition for merit or accuracy. I truly ask you to go back over my attempted edit as the "auto edit bot" unduly labeled me a vandal.
(((3e+8 * ((0.9 / ((0.5^0.5) / (pi / 4)))^2)) / c) / 3) * 2 = 0.666659496558 s / m
(0.9*π/(sqrt(0.5)*4))^2*2/2.99792458 = 0.666659496558
Koide Formula
David.fuller@live.com
http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg
If it could even be added a listed possible Numerology for now , I would be satisfied with that
Currently there is no explanation of the Reason for the Koide Ratio, so the whole page is really Numerology No offense or antagonism meant or implied
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+(0.9*%CF%80%2F(sqrt(0.5)*4))%5E2*2%2F2.99792458
No. I meant exactly what I posted, not by mistake, not experimenting - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:b107:beaa:b551:5289:8096:3c49 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to publish our numerology exercises. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Bird
Zack Bird was taken in the Rule 5 draft by the Rangers. I just moved him to their respective minor league page. It just came as section blanking probably cuz I'm a IP. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I overlooked your edit summary. My apologies! - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
HI,you made the mistake,see other language in wiki.
Maradona club stats is wrong.Argentinos juniors 166 apps.totall apps 588.thank you. see this website.Argentinos juniors 1978-79 apps 26 http://www.football-history.net/who-is-who/m/diego-maradona.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maradona fans (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Hi, Maradona fans, this unexplained removal was rightly reverted by user Prayer for the wild at heart, and this unexplained removal was rightly reverted by me. If you don't use edit summaries, your edits will very likely continue to be mistaken for vandalism, and you could end up blocked. So, in your own interest, please provide an edit summary for all your edits. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Adding Pictures...
I need help to add a picture on my bio on Wikipedia... Any help? Heru101 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Heru101: you can put a help template message on your user talk page. See {{help}}. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Four-dimensional space
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_dimension&oldid=prev&diff=752858285
Four-dimensional space - is about four spatial dimensions, right?
Spacetime - is about 3 spatial , 1 temporal, right?
let me know if I'm missing something.
skakEL 12:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, yes, you are right. I have undone my revert: [1]. My apologies, and cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Bender Edit
Hi. I never made an edit to the Bender page. A work colleague was playing a joke on me and he made the edit. Are you saying he did it from my computer (I.P address)? 207.164.26.34 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, over there at WorldLinx Telecommunications where a lot of users share the same IP to connect to the outside world, if indeed a work colleague (or your wp:LITTLEBROTHER
) did it, then as the message on your talk page says: If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. - DVdm (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Richard Feynman
Would you be interested in co-nominating this article at FAC? Unfortunately, it will be ineligible for TFA, as it was featured on December 2, 2004. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: I just had my first look at wp:FAC. As for the modifications since GA (August 2016), I removed a few obvious inappropriate see-also-entries and, yesterday, that one TED-section. I haven't really scrutinized the remainder of the changes, so I'm not sure whether I will be able to properly react to possible reviewer objections. If you don't think that this is a problem, I'd be glad to co-nominate, even if I couldn't find how to technically do that in the documentation. - DVdm (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'll handle all the details. The problem is that I am allowed to have only one FAC nomination open at a time, and I have a long queue. However, I am allowed a second nomination if it is a co-nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Scientific method
Hi DVdm. I am writing in response to your revert in Scientific Method. The article clearly states about Feynmann:
He takes the Baconian approach to be an example of where philosophers have sought a methodological description of science and failed. But he says this failure equally applies to deductive models utilizing Popper’s ‘principle of falsification’. From all this Feynman says: “And so what science is, is not what the philosophers have said it is, and certainly not what the teacher editions [science textbooks] say it is.”
I find your edit summary inadequate. It's not about philosophy of science in its entirety but about scientific method. Are you sure you are correct? --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed it's not about philosophy of science in its entirety—sorry for that edit summary. But I checked the cited source, and it does not say that Feynman has "argued that there is no scientific method", as you claim with your edit. Further discussion belongs of course on the article talk page Talk:Scientific method, but I wouldn't count on making that edit with that source. - DVdm (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Revert
Hello, I'm KoshVorlon. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
I just reverted your shortcut. Since PBUH isn't allowed to be used in articles after showing the name of the prophet , it stands to reason that a shortcut, rather a second shortcut set up as PBUH would seem to be against the spirit of that rule. Yes, it's not in an article, but, if Christians were adding (PBTG ( Praise be to God) after the name of Jesus ) and that was dis-allowed in articles, if someone attempted to add that same acronym to a guideline about Christian articles, I'd remove it as well, as it would look like gaming the system. I'm not saying you are, but realize that it could look that way. This wasn't personal.KoshVorlon 16:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @KoshVorlon: Ah, I hadn't noticed that it was second. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Replied
Hello bro, I've replied to your question and revert. Pls check and respond
regards, Hdaackda (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks
That was definitely a WTF... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
List of wars involving Russia
Galicia-Volyn, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Turov-Pinsk, Polotsk Principality, as well as being Rus earlier than 882 is not part of Russian history. The wars their participation can not be written in this section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.172.114 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Perhaps. Best to take this to the article talk page. Good luck there. - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed they are a part of Russian history. This is the consesus everywhere, also in Wikipedia. Please stop pushing Ukrainian bias.HunajaOtso (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- @HunajaOtso: Thanks for the comment. In Wikipedia, wp:CONSENSUS is established on article talk pages, rather than on user talk pages. So perhaps indeed 178.94.172.114 could better try there at Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Russia, as I am not even interested in the subject, let alone discuss it here. Cheers and good luck to all. - DVdm (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed they are a part of Russian history. This is the consesus everywhere, also in Wikipedia. Please stop pushing Ukrainian bias.HunajaOtso (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)