Jump to content

User talk:DVdm/Archive 2024

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives by year: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

scare quotes

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
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)
Yes, you are right. See my next stab. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
Thumbs up icon . - DVdm (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

{{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}}


Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding Draft Physics

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)

@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)

Division by zero

Hi DVdm, I took your advice to move the discussion of the "Calculus" paragraph to the talk page. Thank you, Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ebony Jackson: Thumbs up icon - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

An edit I wish to make

@DVdm

This is a paragraph I wish to make to add to the Daboia Paelestinae page:

"The LD50 of this viper's venom is 0.34mg/kg.[1] The mortality rate of people who were bitten is 0.5% to 2%.[2] The venom includes at least four families of pharmacologically active compounds: (i) neurotoxins; (ii) hemorrhagins; (iii) angioneurin growth factors; and (iv) different types of integrin inhibitors.[2]"

I'm informing you ahead of time to make sure you don't jump the gun and try to block me without warning based on a mistaken assumption that this is original research. The issues that might confuse you are (a) that the LD50 is not mentioned in abstract of the first paper. However it appears in the body of the article in a graph. (b) The name of the snake used in the second article is not Daboia but one of the other scientific names of this snake (which appears in the synonyms tab of the Daboia Paelestinae page). While you might think that concluding that the paper talks about the same snake as the wikipedia entry is synthesis and therefore original research, in fact it isn't.

Please respond if you agree or not.

References

  1. ^ Senji Laxme, R. R.; Khochare, Suyog; Attarde, Saurabh; Kaur, Navneet; Jaikumar, Priyanka; Shaikh, Naeem Yusuf; Aharoni, Reuven; Primor, Naftali; Hawlena, Dror; Moran, Yehu; Sunagar, Kartik (2022). "The Middle Eastern Cousin: Comparative Venomics of Daboia palaestinae and Daboia russelii". Toxins. 14 (11): 725. doi:10.3390/toxins14110725. ISSN 2072-6651.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ a b Momic, Tatjana; Arlinghaus, Franziska T.; Arien-Zakay, Hadar; Katzhendler, Jeoshua; Eble, Johannes A.; Marcinkiewicz, Cezary; Lazarovici, Philip (2011-11-14). "Pharmacological Aspects of Vipera xantina palestinae Venom". Toxins. 3 (11): 1420–1432. ISSN 2072-6651. PMC 3237004. PMID 22174978.

Vegan416 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:SYNTHESIS and draw your own conclusion. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@DVdm
  1. I read the relevant policy pages many times. I know well that NONE of what I did here is original research according to the policy pages. As regarding this particular case let me quote the following from "These are not original research" page: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources."
  2. But I still feel I need to get your approval because the combined effect of the following facts: a. You seem to have an extreme interpretation of what is original research, much more strict than the policy pages. b. You have threatened to block me without warning if I'll make again what YOU think is original research. c. The incident of the Brooklyn papyrus show that you are not beyond jumping the gun.
  3. Of course I don't know if you really have the power to block me without warning. I see that you have been editor for many years and have made an impressive number of edits, but I don't know if you have any administrative powers in wikipedia. Still, because it is better to be safe than sorry I'm afraid I'll have to continue to check edits with you beforehand, at least until you walkback on your threat.
Vegan416 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman

My removal of content was repeatedly explained, and therefore I consider your revert with the assertion that it was not to be in bad faith. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:56C:3F16:53EF:5265 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

After the first time that your edit was reverted ([1]), you should have gone to the talk page — see wp:BRD, wp:CONSENSUS and wp:NOCONSENSUS. Re-reverting it amounts to edit warring. It's good that you went there after the second revert ([2]). There you should find the explanation why the content belongs ([3]). - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DVdm/Archive_2024&oldid=1298450658"