User talk:VllyWndrr

December 2023
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of trigonometric identities, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, it's difficult (and don't know if necessary) to cite a source for a simple mathematical derivation, or is it necessary to even provide a source for "1 + 1 = 2".
 * Although I am new regarding editing on wikipedia, it is kind of very frustrating when someone comes in and states "you have to provide a reliable source for a mathematical derivation" which is in principle by itself the source of truth.
 * My motivation for extending the wikipedia article was that i didn't find an appropriate derivation for these identites (although coincidentally I found a similar proof today on another wikipedia page).
 * So I derived it myself, and wanted to share this fact/derivation on wikipedia. But if this is not possible in this way, maybe helping wikipedia is not for me. So what shall it be?
 * best
 * VllyWndrr VllyWndrr (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there. One of the compelling reasons why Wikipedia demands sources, is to demonstrate notability, specially for mathematical content. If no author has ever bothered to mention a result in a textbook or in a relevant widely visible and quoted journal, then the result is —by design— not fit for WIkipedia. Also note that, strange as it might sound at first, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source for itself — see wp:circular. If you think about it, that makes perfect sense though . - DVdm (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough.
 * Haven't seen it in these way before, but it makes sense, I see your point ;)
 * Still it is unfortunate, I would have loved for wikipedia to be also a sort of mathematical compendium/source, since I use wiki a lot.
 * Thanks though for the quick reply! VllyWndrr (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yeah, Wikipedia is indeed a good mathematical compendium... but only for well-recognised, well-established, well-documented, well-published, well-etcetera... well-content
 * Getting comfortable with it takes some learning curve, but it's worth it. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)