User talk:173.76.146.145

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider  [ creating an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (173.76.146.145) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 23:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir: I am not interested in creating an account with Wikipedia. I was recently informed by another Wikipedia administrator that my edits — which consist mainly of citations of primary sources — are unwelcome in Wikipedia because Wikipedia has a rule barring such citations. I am, therefore, engaged in prohibited activities, and therefore there would be no benefit to my creating an account, since I would quickly be banned from further editing. 173.76.146.145 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that you don't want to create an account because you want to freely continue to engage in behaviour you're aware violates Wikipedia's rules, to the detriment of the encyclopedia? You may want to think about that attitude again. By the way, IP addresses can also be blocked from editing if necessary. Huon (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My dear Sir:

If Wikipedia objects to having people provide citations of primary sources, then there is something wrong with that rule. Furthermore, enforcement of that rule must be extremely lax, as Wikipedia is FULL of citations of primary sources. Your threats are PRECISELY the reason that I don't want to create an account. I'm doing careful research, thoroughly documented, for no compensation, and you threaten me. By the way, where is "I dream of horses"?173.76.146.145 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure where you were informed by the administrator you mentioned in your original comment (all I can tell is it wasn't here nor on Talk:Topology (electrical circuits)). You're right in that Wikipedia has many articles with problematic sources (or even without any sources), but the correct approach to resolving that issue is to improve the sourcing, not to introduce more problematic sources. Take for example the Poincare reference cited for this statement:  In 1900 Henri Poincaré introduced the idea of representing a graph by its incidence matrix, hence founding the field of algebraic topology. Does the paper you cited for that claim really say, "hereby I found the field of algebraic topology"? I rather doubt that. Even if it did, such self-aggrandizing claims are viewed with suspicion because many people (probably not Poincaré, who of course was among the greatest mathematicians of his time) have an inflated opinion of their own contributions' worth. Thus the requirement for secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for the relevant policy, part of our core policy against original research. For a well-established field of science more than a half-century old, secondary sources are guaranteed to exist and in fact were already present in the article. It's not as if you were adding primary references to an article which doesn't cite any sources at all; you're shifting the focus from secondary to primary sources that partly don't even say what you cite them for. Huon (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The paper by Poincaré which I cited does not claim "I found the field of algebraic topology" ; rather, it IS the paper in which Poincaré founded the field of algebraic topology. Poincaré never made any such claim; others did.  I could have positioned the citation after the phrase "by its incidence matrix" instead of placing it at the end of the sentence, but then I would have received yet another scolding for failing to place the citation at the end of the sentence, where links to footnotes are usually placed.  I could also have broken the original sentence into two sentences, one mentioning only Poincaré's of 1900 and another mentioning the claim that it founded algebraic topology, but I regarded that as needlessly punctilious.  If you are upset by an unsubstantiated claim that Poincaré's paper of 1900 founded algebraic topology, feel free to delete that claim from the article.  My intention in including the citation was to provide a link to the actual paper in which Poincaré created the incidence matrix, which is a focus of the article.  Presumably some readers — including university students, instructors, authors, etc. — might want to know where Poincaré's work actually appears.  (I myself wanted to know.)  They might even want to read the paper itself — if, like me, they can read French.  After finding it on line, I did read it.  Perhaps others would like to read it as well.  I do not see any harm to citing it and providing a link to it.  The best evidence that in 1900 Poincaré created the incidence matrix is the actual paper itself.  I have found MANY errors in secondary sources — indeed, the Wikipedia article on "Topology (electrical circuits)" contained an error:  it claimed that J. C. Maxwell invented node analysis in 1892 — although Maxwell died in 1879 and therefore could not possibly have made any discoveries thereafter.  Nevertheless, a search of the Internet will reveal many secondary sources that claim that Maxwell made his discovery in 1892.  This is why I do not trust secondary sources and this is why I prefer primary sources.  Primary sources are the best evidence.  One cannot argue that Maxwell invented nodal analysis in 1892 (despite whatever secondary sources claim) when the Wiki article provides a direct link to the passage of his 1873 book where nodal analysis actually appears.  If it can be proven by primary sources that Maxwell invented nodal analysis in 1873, then he could not have "re-invented" it in 1892, after he died.  Best regards, 173.76.146.145 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Links to footnotes are usually placed immediately after the statement that reference is cited for. If others than Poincaré made the observation that Poincaré founded algebraic topology with that paper, we should cite those others. Regarding the Maxwell issue, that error seems to be due, ironically, to an unwarranted reliance on primary sources. Papers such as this one assign to Maxwell's work not the date it was done, but the date of the publication they cite - which in that case is a newer edition of the same book you cite. You're obviously right that Maxwell didn't invent anything in 1892, but conversely, how do you know that there is no earlier work which had already introduced node analysis before Maxwell's 1873 book? How do you know what you wrote is actually correct, instead of merely wrong to a lesser degree? Huon (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to move the footnote (Poincaré, 1900), to the place where you believe it would be most appropriate. Regarding Mr. Maxwell's findings:  The later editions of his work — which obviously were edited by others than Maxwell (who died in 1879) — contain the same passage regarding "On linear systems of conductors in general" as the original 1873 edition.  So between 1873 and 1892, no one found an error in that passage.  Furthermore, if you examine Mr. Maxwell's book of 1873, he includes frequent footnotes, in which he cites his own publications and those of others.  If he had published an earlier article on the subject of linear systems of conductors, he would have cited it; he didn't; therefore there was no earlier work.  Furthermore, during my search for his work on nodal analysis, many sources cited his work of 1892, a few cited his work of 1873, but none cited any earlier work.  So neither Mr. Maxwell nor any successor has found any work on nodal analysis by Maxwell earlier than 1873.
 * (1) I am a graduate of M.I.T., where I studied under Thomas Kuhn, a noted historian of science and the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  I am also the chairman of our local historical commission, on which several published historians sit.  For some time I have been doing historical research, including the history of science.  (2)  Wikipedia will, from time to time, contain errors.  Wikipedia (supposedly) welcomes "bold edits", which I presume includes corrections.  I found an error in its article on "Topology (electrical circuits)".  I corrected that error and provided a citation for it.  If my work is in error, then someone else will correct it.  It is very strange that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit it, yet Wikipedia has no confidence in those who edit it.  Don't worry.  I did my homework.  You haven't found any error in my work yet.  If you would like me to clutter Wikipedia's pages with secondary sources that state "Maxwell invented nodal analysis in 1873", let me know.  The problem is that — as we now both know — secondary sources aren't always trustworthy, even when written by professionals.  The professionals often just copy the work of their predecessors, without checking it.  Best regards, 173.76.146.145 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know of a secondary source that states, "Maxwell invented nodal analysis in 1873", please do add that source instead of the primary source. Yes, some secondary sources contain errors. That's why we require not just any secondary sources, but reliable ones. Even those are not necessarily free from error, but relying on our own interpretation of primary sources is prone to even more severe problems. While you obviously are an expert on the history of science, if we accepted your original research (as in, "Maxwell invented it in 1873 because I know of no source for an earlier date"), we'd have to do so from everybody, and you probably can imagine the effects it would have on the quality of our articles if we let every Joe, Dick and Harry modify articles merely based on what they think is right, or even based on how they think primary sources should be interpreted.
 * I should maybe also clarify another point I tried to make: I did not intend to threaten you with a block (in fact, being an admin myself I could simply have blocked you if I had deemed it necessary), but wanted to point out that your primary reason against creating an account, the desire to avoid a block by means of obscurity, doesn't hold. A much better method to avoid a block is to work within Wikipedia's rules (which by the way do not prohibit primary sources in all circumstances) and to explain your reasoning on talk pages. After all, we're neither interested in keeping errors in our articles merely for the sake of following rules, nor do we intend to kick out good-faith editors such as yourself. Huon (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) I included a reference claiming that Maxwell developed nodal analysis in 1873; however, I left the citation of Maxwell's 1873 work on the subject, because I thought someone might want to read the original article. (2) Just to eliminate any doubt about any earlier work on the subject by Maxwell, I checked a collection of his scientific papers.  No paper on the subject before 1873 was listed.173.76.146.145 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)