User talk:D.H

This is D.H's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1

Barnstars
The Original Barnstar "This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated." Wir brauchen mehr von deiner Sorte, wie stehst Du zum Klonen? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar For your work, specially for the article Tests of relativistic energy and momentum that you created. Nice job! - DVdm (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just got done reading Electromagnetic mass and enjoyed it very much. Have you thought about writing up your research, and getting it formally published? The traditional way would be to submit articles to some history-of-science journal. There is now another avenue, also: there is a brand-new kind-of peer-reviewed-journal-of-wikipedia-articles, WikiJSci - where you submit a wikipedia article, they do whatever, and then give it some official approval-stamp. I notice it took you ten years to write History of Lorentz transformations -- Here: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science Contact Thomas Shafee <thomas.shafee@gmail.com> who is the editor.

Oh, I completely forgot to mention -- maybe you could start on a history of general relativity. I've been confused by exactly how some of the work by Cartan fits into the gran scheme of things. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation. I actually thought about writing about the history of general relativity, but I'm always postponing it because of the enormous complexity of material that has to be included. In comparison, even the history related to special relativity is enormously complex – I started contributing to History of special relativity in 2008 (and related articles), also Tests of special relativity in 2011 (and related articles), as well as Acceleration (special relativity) in 2017 (and related articles). --D.H (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation on this very important paper which has largely been ignored over the past century. I'm currently trying to translate Fermi's previous paper to this: Sulla Dinamica Di Un Sistema Rigido Di Cariche Elettriche In Moto Traslatorio, On the Dynamics of a system of rigid charges moving in translatory motion. Do you have any advice on where I can post parts that I'm stuck on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldCitizen831966 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D.H,

I'm messaging to ask if you would be interested in subjecting any wikipedia articles (e.g. Electromagnetic mass or History of Lorentz transformations) to external academic peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Science (www.WikiJSci.com).

The journals couple the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. They're therefore an excellent way to get feedback and suggestions from experts outside of Wikipedia. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and provides authors with citable, indexed publications.

We have a page on Wikipedia with a bit more information here: WP:WikiJournal_article_nominations

Anyway, let me know whether you'd be interested in putting an article through academic peer review (either solo, or with a team of coauthors). Alternatively, if you would prefer to write on a different topic, we may be able to accommodate you.

All the best, T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. As a Wikipedia editor, I don't see myself as the "author" of any of those articles – my contributions are only a part of the vast amount of information provided by the Wiki-Community. I also prefer to remain anonymous, so any peer reviewed journal publication of these articles would be complicated anyway. --D.H (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several interlocking issues that the WikiJournal is trying to solve. One is to encourage academics to get involved, by giving them a citable entry, a doi number, etc. that they can stick in their curriculum vitae. (This is the publish-or-perish conundrum -- academics get credit for writing review articles, but not if that review just happens to be a wikipedia article). A second issue is converting WP articles into citable entities: again, by issuing a doi with a datestamp, version stamp, you can cite this particular version, and not the version after its been rejiggered by a student studying for mid-term exams. So even if you did not write the article, the fact that you proof-edited it, fixed obvious mistakes, and then fixed whatever peer review brought up indicates that at least one particular version of the article isn't total bunkum. Since you are doing most of the work already, I figured that doing just a little bit more would be .. beneficial. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, if you know anyone who you think would make a good contributor but you've never been able to convince to edit Wikipedia, consider pointing them our way. As an aside about author vs contributor, we also try to make sure that contributors to the Wikipedia page are acknowledged in the contributor list (example). Eventually I'm hoping to get it properly described in the XML metadata too (example), though getting it fully JATS-compliant is still a work in progress). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit.Cheung2 (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Lorentz transformations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Graves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, using phrases such as "As far as I know" is both original research and not encyclopedic tone. So it is twice breaking Wikipedia policy. Please reword for encyclopedic tone as well as provide real references rather than stating page numbers. Thanks!Footlessmouse (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dumb, I apologize, I looked at only the difference and not the page, I didn't notice it was the talk. I'm so sorry. Will continue discussion there.Footlessmouse (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Of course, I didn't want to literally include that in the article, it should only provide some information for later use in the article. --D.H (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D.H! I have collected a bunch of reviews on the different books that are used in relativity priority dispute and it turns out many of them are notable, not just the History book by Whittaker. I will try over time to make a few of them, as it may actually make it a lot easier to rework the priority dispute article if these books have their own article with their own reviews and criticisms self-contained there. I have added tons of references on my user page and if you ever feel like starting any of the pages, feel free to use those to help get it started. I just wanted to let you know since I see you have put a lot of work into this and similar articles. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in my sandbox. I wanted to summarize the great job you've done about history of SR; I hope it's complementary to the timeline of gravitational physics and relativity and to timeline of luminiferous aether. I've already contacted about it some historians of Physics like Norton, Janssen, Stachel, Brown, Renn, Gutfreund and Wróblewski; and I'm still confused about some pieces of the story like Kaufmann's experiments, Wigner rotation and Thomas precession. Feel free to elaborate. --Tarnoob (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@D.H: Please volunteer for Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fizeau_experiment A crucial discussion point in the history of aether and relativity is under examination and I can see from your long history that you'll care that truth wins out over popularity. If it becomes a question of who's a jackass instead of what is accurate history then my 12 hours of finding citations and rewording might go to waste. An unbiased look would be appreciated! Nemesis75 (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm (99%) done with wikipedia. What's left of my motivation is directed to Wikiversity and Wikisource. Regards, --D.H (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^Complex/_Rational 00:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for an interesting one, also featured on Portal:Germany, - nice to meet you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers the chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In translating works, don't forget to translate the abbreviations in citations! For example, in your work on Joseph Petzoldt, many of the citations still use "S.", which is the German abbreviation for "Seite(n)"; that translates to (respectively) "p(p)." and "page(s)". Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]