User talk:Georgekeeling

February 2019
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lorentz transformation, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello DVdm, I can't see how to leave a comment on your talk page! Your talk page tells me "Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (...) at the end." I scroll down and see no way to add a comment there or elsewhere. Sorry I'm being so stupid! I am relatively new here. Once I have crossed that bridge I will ask about the real problem. I thought I had given a citation and am now trying to digest the citation page.... Georgekeeling (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there, it looks like you managed to leave a comment here. You could have used the same procedure on my talk page, but never mind, we can discuss here.
 * The problem with the citation in your edit is that it came from an "unreliable" source. This source is just a blog on someone's personal website, and does not qualify as a wp:reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. See for instance wp:Reliable sources. A standard text book would be needed here. Compare with the other citations in the article. Hope this helps! - DVdm (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if this works ... (It does :-)
Hello DVdm, I followed the link to 'ask another question' and got here. I'll see if it works in a minute! I will bookmark ii for future reference.

I have read your reply about my inadequate citation and am caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand the citation does not meet Wiki standards on the other I could not a find source that proved the alternative formulation. So the reference to "someone's personal website" (mine of course) was the only source that I know of. The proof is straightforward, but a leap unless one knows the target. So, sadly, the readers of this page will remain in ignorance, as I was to begin with.... unless you reconsider.

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time! Georgekeeling (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi George, yes, your proof might be straighforward and perfectly rock-solid okay, but Wikipedia does not accept wp:original research. You see, even if the proof is okay, Wikipedia still needs reliable wp:secondary sources to demonstrate the actual relevance of the content. Without such sources the encyclopedia would quicky be flooded with true but irrelevant content. If your new formulation is really important, it will soon be used in the literature . Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)