User talk:Nathaniel Dektor: Difference between revisions
imported>Nathaniel Dektor (→Special relativity article: response) |
imported>Harald van Lintel |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
[[User:Harald van Lintel|Harald van Lintel]] 08:34, 27 April 2008 (CDT) | [[User:Harald van Lintel|Harald van Lintel]] 08:34, 27 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:If you feel you have something to contribute to the article then please do! [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 17:41, 28 April 2008 (CDT) | :If you feel you have something to contribute to the article then please do! [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 17:41, 28 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:: I'm slow (as you can see), busy life... but OK I will make some changes later with some clarifications on its Talk page. Regards, [[User:Harald van Lintel|Harald van Lintel]] 10:21, 10 May 2008 (CDT) |
Latest revision as of 09:21, 10 May 2008
Archive 2
Nathaniel, this was strange too. It should automatically update itself when you make the new User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 2 page, but it didn't. I had to change the auto=long function to auto=yes then back to auto=long. We have issues with the cache occasionally, so it probably had something do with not refreshing. Aren't computers fun ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:08, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
You have to add more than just the Archive 3. You have to create this: User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 3 ([[User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 3]]). Go ahead and click on it and type something in the page and save it and lets see if it works. Don't worry, I can delete it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:28, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
Good job! I deleted them for you. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:40, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
Special relativity article
Hi I saw that you made a start with an artice on special relativity. How do you propose to continue from here? Some time ago I gave criticism about the historical contents on its Talk page and I later noted that you were responsible for the first version - but I saw no feedback from you. Could you say what your sources were for the historical claims? Have you looked at issues about accuracy and opinion that have already been addressed, discussed and corrected in Wikipedia? Note that physics textbooks are not always reliable about history. I know almost everything about the early history of the development of that theory and have most original papers (which I read) so I will gladly help with this.
Best regards, Harald van Lintel 08:34, 27 April 2008 (CDT)
- If you feel you have something to contribute to the article then please do! Nathaniel Dektor 17:41, 28 April 2008 (CDT)
- I'm slow (as you can see), busy life... but OK I will make some changes later with some clarifications on its Talk page. Regards, Harald van Lintel 10:21, 10 May 2008 (CDT)