|
|
— Welcome to my talk page —
— Canard du jour —
|
|
|
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)
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)
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 . 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)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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»
17:54, July 15, 2023 - «Undid revision 1165517898 by DVdm talk)»
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
Zero is considered even, but in such circumstances resulting such contradictions.
Example:
Comments to this wrong article spread by Wikipedia /info/en/?search=Parity_of_zero 109.185.67.40 ( talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}}
Elvisisalive95 (
talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=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)
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)
What makes a source reliable, and another source unreliable, and given that I disproved your so called reliable sources which claim GR was experimentally verified, and shown all those experiments were completelly fucked up by idiots who have no clue about basic refraction physics, doesnt that show that they are completely unreliable ? Marvas85 ( talk) 00:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@ 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
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Vegan416 ( talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
About your message at User talk:2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:487D:6A2A:2128:BC24#April 2024.
On Spacetime, I read this after the paragraph where I made change:
So, why is not the squared spacetime interval?
On the French Wikipedia ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps), we read:
Moreover, on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps#Expression_en_relativit%C3%A9_restreinte, we read:
(Translation:) In spacetime geometry of special relativity, we write the squared spacetime interval, noted ...
You say: Note: check the cited source, where the interval is defined as a square.
Where is the cited source? If it's the ref 32 D'Inverno, Ray (1992). Introducing Einstein's Relativity. New York: Oxford University Press., I don't have access to it.
Moreover: still on Spacetime, we read:
So the spacetime interval is or ?
I can understand different convention on different article on Wikipedia on different language. But not different convention on the SAME article.
In short:
On French Wikipedia ( fr:Intervalle_d'espace-temps#Métrique), is named: le carré de l'intervalle infinitésimal d'espace-temps (translation: the square of the infinitesimal spacetime interval).
Thanks for your help. 2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:8561:9255:3884:112C ( talk) 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
References
|
|
— Welcome to my talk page —
— Canard du jour —
|
|
|
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)
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)
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 . 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)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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»
17:54, July 15, 2023 - «Undid revision 1165517898 by DVdm talk)»
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
Zero is considered even, but in such circumstances resulting such contradictions.
Example:
Comments to this wrong article spread by Wikipedia /info/en/?search=Parity_of_zero 109.185.67.40 ( talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}}
Elvisisalive95 (
talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=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)
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)
What makes a source reliable, and another source unreliable, and given that I disproved your so called reliable sources which claim GR was experimentally verified, and shown all those experiments were completelly fucked up by idiots who have no clue about basic refraction physics, doesnt that show that they are completely unreliable ? Marvas85 ( talk) 00:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@ 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
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Vegan416 ( talk) 09:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
About your message at User talk:2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:487D:6A2A:2128:BC24#April 2024.
On Spacetime, I read this after the paragraph where I made change:
So, why is not the squared spacetime interval?
On the French Wikipedia ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps), we read:
Moreover, on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervalle_d%27espace-temps#Expression_en_relativit%C3%A9_restreinte, we read:
(Translation:) In spacetime geometry of special relativity, we write the squared spacetime interval, noted ...
You say: Note: check the cited source, where the interval is defined as a square.
Where is the cited source? If it's the ref 32 D'Inverno, Ray (1992). Introducing Einstein's Relativity. New York: Oxford University Press., I don't have access to it.
Moreover: still on Spacetime, we read:
So the spacetime interval is or ?
I can understand different convention on different article on Wikipedia on different language. But not different convention on the SAME article.
In short:
On French Wikipedia ( fr:Intervalle_d'espace-temps#Métrique), is named: le carré de l'intervalle infinitésimal d'espace-temps (translation: the square of the infinitesimal spacetime interval).
Thanks for your help. 2A01:CB10:85B:9D00:8561:9255:3884:112C ( talk) 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
References