User talk:62.178.105.105

June 2020
Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gravitational potential— has been undone because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Gravitational potential. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: the source you are promoting is (1) a wp:primary source, and (2) is nowhere mentioned in the literature: see Google Scholar. This is not a wp:reliable source. Persistent addition and pushing of this, amounts to wp:spamming. - DVdm (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: Dear DVdm, the current reference (Marion & Thornton 2003) is simply wrong. There is no title field in the reference and the link does not work
 * I notified this in the discussion. You reverted two times to a not working reference. Good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.105.105 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the dead link with a book reference: . That's always better than an unpublished or uncited article. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that what you cited is a good source. Usually, citations on Wikipedia are thoughts to gain more knowledge out of them. In this case, what you cite contains less than what is written on Wikipedia. However, definitively better than the dead link you put before. But definitively worse than what I suggested, and many others that one could have cited (for the simple case of a ball there are many complete references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.105.105 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) and indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * Yes, so I have added a better source: . Sure this will help - DVdm (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)