User talk:IncompleteBits

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Past, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kinetic energy, 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. DVdm (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DVdm: Thank you for taking the time to leave a message. I'll add it back in with a couple of sources, but I wonder if you might share some insight for my future edits; my impression is that physics and mathematics articles have a little bit of an unusual citation structure (for instance, in the kinetic energy article the sections "Kinetic energy of rigid bodies," "Rotating bodies," "Kinetic energy of systems," "Rotation in systems," "General relativity," and "Kinetic energy in quantum mechanics" do not have any citations at all and the section which one would imagine would have plenty of them, "Overview," only has one [it appears that there are more sections without citations than there are with citations and that the citations in sections that have them are sparse.]). Moreover, that citation in the Overview section is of a McGraw-Hill book written by somebody who doesn't show up in a google search and is, as far as I could tell, not available for purchase anywhere online (one can't use the citation!); in terms of reliability, I might choose to trust my memory before trusting something out of that book (I recognize that there are explicit criteria for a source's reliability on Wikipedia, I'm only trying to make a point.) Also, preceding the statement with the citation in the same paragraph is a claim which is absolutely wrong (that the forms of energy can be categorized into kinetic and potential.) Is it the case that physics and math articles are pathologically undercited? Should I aim to include citations for everything, including derivations? IncompleteBits (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@IncompleteBits: Indeed, many math and physics articles are undersourced, or just poorlly/badly sourced. Much of that (—let's say historical—) unsourced content has survived by de-facto consensus. That's why we must make sure that newly added content is always properly sourced by the book. The more sources, the better, and i.m.o. wp:Inline citations are always better than just putting a textbook at the end of the article and assuming that the suspicious reader will find everything in the cited book.

When you find content that is wrong, the best practice is to go to the article talk page and propose to make a change. Or be wp:bold, make the change and clearly explain the reasons in the edit summary. When you do that and your bold edit gets reverted, immediately go the talk page and discuss — see wp:BRD. Hope this helps. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This all was helpful. Thanks very much for helping me along! IncompleteBits (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, IncompleteBits. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:University of California, Los Angeles Department of Physics and Astronomy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, IncompleteBits. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "University of California".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Incomplete Bits. I saw your edit today to kinetic energy (“and the second term in a Taylor expansion of a particle’s relativistic energy.”)

It inspired me to look closely at the entire lead section of the article. I have started a new discussion thread on the Talk page. Please see:

Talk:Kinetic energy/Archive 3#Make technical articles understandable

Dolphin (t) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi IncompleteBits, I reverted your latest edit removing 'medical doctor' from Casey Means biography. There is extensive discussion on the articles talk page which provides ample support for her designation as a medical doctor/physician and is consistent with other Wikipedia entries of notable persons that have similarly earned medical degrees and practiced medicine, but are no longer. WCNo47 (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! IncompleteBits (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply