User:Stigmatella aurantiaca DW4/sandbox 2

BOLD revert of Spacetime for discussion
Under the provisions of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I have performed a BOLD revert of Spacetime version of 00:38, 29 May 2017 to a version which is close to 22:30, 13 May 2017 version of 22:30, 13 May 2017 except for incorporating consensus changes agreed upon between myself and several other editors, along with a few corrections and enhancements.

My work prior to May 14
On 23 March 2017, I read the following Talk Discussion: This article needs a complete redo where three editors agreed that "this is just about the worst article [that the editor had ever] seen". Seeing that, I began an effort to completely rewrite the article:
 * I envisioned an article that everybody from middle-school students to first/second-year physics students could read with profit.
 * An interested individual of almost any level of mathematical sophistication should be able to read straight through from easy to more advanced material until the reading gets too heavy going, at which point they should be able to stop and yet still feel satisfied that they have learned a lot.
 * To facilitate understanding, I intended as much as possible to substitute carefully prepared graphics for possibly scary mathematics.
 * At the time that I paused in my editing, the article had an almost completely non-mathematical Introduction, followed by an unfinished algebra-based section dealing with Flat Spacetime (Special Relativity). In the future, I hope to follow with a calculus-based section dealing with Curved Spacetime. I had created from scratch eighteen brand-new illustrations for the article, so that twenty of the twenty six illustrations were mine.
 * An additional editor who had an important role in this rewrite was User:Greg L, whose skill in writing clear and informative ledes exceeds mine.
 * According to the PageViews tool, this article is one of the most important relativity articles, viewed an average of 2300 times per day over the last 90 days. Furthermore, about 44% of the page views are from mobile devices. An important additional consideration, given the tight integration of text with figures, was to make sure that a mobile user could easily locate the figures. As much as possible, I kept figures close to accompanying text. Since several figures are used at multiple points in the text, I used Figure Numbers to ameliorate difficulties in locating referenced figures.
 * I had my contributions reviewed by professional physicists, who offered me useful advice and insight.

While I was out
I was out of the country from May 14 to May 21. During my absence, the anonymous IP 47.32.217.164 decided that he wanted to completely rearrange the article. In addition to completely rearranging my work, he tore apart Greg L's carefully composed lede.

Bad faith
here is an interesting discussion.

YohanN7 has called the IP a crank

After I got back
Both Greg and I tried to work collaboratively with the IP, but the IP has been non-cooperative. When I tried to make a few minor changes, the IP immediately reverted them. When I tried to explain to him my vision for an article that progressed in difficulty from an almost completely mathematical introduction to an algebra-based presentation to a planned calculus-based presentation, the IP dismissed my vision as not being the only way to write an article.

I decided to take a breather and to see just what sort of vision that the IP had for this article. As I wrote to Greg, "I'm curious how Anon's vision for the article will shape up .... Anon needs a chance to prove that he is really interested in the quality of the article."

State of the article at the time of my revert
The IP has introduced too many poorly thought-out edits for me to document them all. I merely report here on a representative sampling.

Beginning paragraphs
My discussion here will be based on Spacetime version of 00:38, 29 May 2017.
 * The lede includes unexplained jargon that could be discouraging to newbies, such as "interwoven kinematics", "vector space", and "metric".
 * The very first section on Early philosophy discusses ancient Inca concepts of pacha. Surprise!!!
 * The second section on Vector formalism is a stub section that throws out several vocabulary terms without explaining them.
 * The third section on Spacetime event is a brief stub that does not mesh well with any adjacent sections.
 * The fourth section on Reference frames and relative motion is a stub section that has little or no useful content.
 * The fifth section on Global and local structure is a stub.
 * The sixth section quotes a paragraph from my original introduction.
 * The seventh section is a stub section on Dimensions with little useful content.

In other words, the article starts off with a totally incoherent set of non-informative, disconnected stub sections that throw out jargon terms and offers little or no useful information, except where it makes a quote from my original version of the article.

Disorganized figures and text
The IP has completely removed figure numbers from the figures, while leaving them in the text. An important figure on the light cone in the Galilean frames section 3.3.1 is required by the Light cone section 5.2.2 a third of the article away.

Galilean transformations is not followed by Lorentz transformations, as might be expected, but instead is followed by Four dimensional description discussing eighteenth and nineteenth speculations by d'Alembert, Lagrange, Clifford and Edgar Allan Poe.

Scientific inaccuracies
In Maxwell's equations, the IP placed the statement "It is the intermingling of electric and magnetic manifestations, described by Maxwell's equations, that give spacetime its structure." Spacetime does not arise from Maxwell's equations.

In a 24 May 2017 edit, the IP placed a "dubious" tag on the statement, "But special relativity provides a new invariant, called the spacetime interval", demonstrating himself to be ignorant of basic facts.

Suggestions
Although the IP is possibly well-meaning, his edits have amounted to serious vandalism. There is no evidence that he/she has any bona fide understanding of the material in this article. His IP should be blocked. If it is possible to identify him, he should be banned.