|
Hello, I'm
DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Mass–energy equivalence, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
DVdm (
talk)
07:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks already for
this source. Can please add the page too? Then I'll cast it into a templated
{{cite book}}. -
DVdm (
talk)
10:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Mass–energy equivalence. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Note that I have removed your addition again:
[2]. You analysis (
"Working out the math...") does not appear in my copy of Carrol, nor in my 1st edition of Rindler. We can only report what is explicitlly in the sources. We are not allowed to draw our conclusions, or make syntheses—see
wp:SYNTH. We have to stricly confine ourserlves to what is actually in the sources. Again, Wikipedia is
not a textbook. Please keep that in mind. Thanks. -
DVdm (
talk)
15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Your name came to my attention because I watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I looked at your edits on Four-gradient and have no idea whether they are appropriate on that article, and don't much care either. What I did notice was that they seemed scientifically correct and well written. You might find "improving" Wikipedia articles to be a frustrating experience. I once spent many hours arguing with an editor about my addition of one sentence to the Lede in Temperature, and finally with the help of a third editor, managed to achieve an acceptable compromise. About a year later, I looked at the article and discovered that the sentence was gone. The editor later got in trouble with some other editors and is now topic-banned on many Wikipedia articles. But the example I just gave occurs with lesser severity on about half the edits I make to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a wonderful project. It is healthy and keeps growing. But I think there is a natural limit to the quality of its articles, and many articles have already reached that limit.
I have decided to pursue a different track, although among many competent editors of physics articles on Wikipedia, I seem to be absolutely alone in taking this approach. I instead spend most of my time on Wikiversity. Here is an article on Bell's theorem that would never be allowed on Wikipedia (I am currently attempting to submit it to the European Journal of Physics). Here is a critique of two Wikipedia physics articles that I believe will never evolve into useful teaching resources. While I am alone as a physicist, I am not the only scientist who greatly respects Wikipedia but believes the next step is to go outside it. I am on the board of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, part of a greater effort to better evolve the vision that led to Wikipedia. If you are interested in Wikiversity, leave a note on my talk page at Wikiversity:User talk:Guy vandegrift.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi SciRealm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
Hello, I'm
DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Mass–energy equivalence, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
DVdm (
talk)
07:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks already for
this source. Can please add the page too? Then I'll cast it into a templated
{{cite book}}. -
DVdm (
talk)
10:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
Mass–energy equivalence. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Note that I have removed your addition again:
[2]. You analysis (
"Working out the math...") does not appear in my copy of Carrol, nor in my 1st edition of Rindler. We can only report what is explicitlly in the sources. We are not allowed to draw our conclusions, or make syntheses—see
wp:SYNTH. We have to stricly confine ourserlves to what is actually in the sources. Again, Wikipedia is
not a textbook. Please keep that in mind. Thanks. -
DVdm (
talk)
15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Your name came to my attention because I watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I looked at your edits on Four-gradient and have no idea whether they are appropriate on that article, and don't much care either. What I did notice was that they seemed scientifically correct and well written. You might find "improving" Wikipedia articles to be a frustrating experience. I once spent many hours arguing with an editor about my addition of one sentence to the Lede in Temperature, and finally with the help of a third editor, managed to achieve an acceptable compromise. About a year later, I looked at the article and discovered that the sentence was gone. The editor later got in trouble with some other editors and is now topic-banned on many Wikipedia articles. But the example I just gave occurs with lesser severity on about half the edits I make to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a wonderful project. It is healthy and keeps growing. But I think there is a natural limit to the quality of its articles, and many articles have already reached that limit.
I have decided to pursue a different track, although among many competent editors of physics articles on Wikipedia, I seem to be absolutely alone in taking this approach. I instead spend most of my time on Wikiversity. Here is an article on Bell's theorem that would never be allowed on Wikipedia (I am currently attempting to submit it to the European Journal of Physics). Here is a critique of two Wikipedia physics articles that I believe will never evolve into useful teaching resources. While I am alone as a physicist, I am not the only scientist who greatly respects Wikipedia but believes the next step is to go outside it. I am on the board of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, part of a greater effort to better evolve the vision that led to Wikipedia. If you are interested in Wikiversity, leave a note on my talk page at Wikiversity:User talk:Guy vandegrift.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi SciRealm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) |