User talk:47.202.49.36

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Margaret Court and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello user

Hi, I noticed your edits on Relativity priority dispute. I want to point out the literature does not support your charge against Whittaker and if you wish to include him in the general relativity dispute section, you need to provide reliable references to notable academics who dispute his claim (these references are non-existent as far as I know). Everyone praises Whittaker for all his books, save the one contentious chapter of the second edition on Lorentz and Poincare. In fact, Whittaker had original contributions to the theory of relativity itself and was an expert on it. So please, provide references for claims. Providing a reference for Whittaker's statement alone DOES NOT justify his inclusion in the dispute for general relativity. That constitutes the opinion of an editor, which is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Thank you.Footlessmouse (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not making any charges against Whittaker at all. I simply added to wikipedia a quote from Whittaker's book of 1954. Please put it back.

You MUST provide a source that claims Whittaker was wrong here. Otherwise, he is obviously not part of the dispute at hand. It can not stand with no references. You are the only one who thinks Whittaker was involved in the general relativity dispute at this point. If this is not the case, please provide references for his involvement. Wikipedia is not a personal website, it is an encyclopedia that uses references to document notable topics.Footlessmouse (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if this came off as biting. I want to point out to you that you have been wrong, though. Whittaker, like in so many things, was spot on. There is nothing wrong for noting that someone else came in close-second. That was Whittaker's job, did you read the books? Whittaker had a vastly better knowledge of the literature than literally anyone alive today, you and me are not capable of pointing out his wrongs (aside from it being against Wikipedia policy). Please, do not include original research or personal opinions on Wikipedia, and please, go read his books, you'll realize why he points that out: the books are comprehensive.Footlessmouse (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hilbert was not second best. Hilbert published General Relativity first, by five days. Whittaker's book of 1954 states this and must be quoted here. Put it back.

I left the statement in the article only removing Whittaker from the list of notable characters on the incident. You have been warned. If you attempt to replace the content to the previous section without reliable references noting Whittaker's role in the dispute of priority in general relativity, you will be reported and potentially subjected to a ban. As the warning states: No original research, no synthesis.Footlessmouse (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, you will notice it is in the introduction to the general relativity section now, even more prominent than it was before. Your insistence that Whittaker get his own section in the list of belligerents/actors in the dispute shows that you are trying to make a point about Whittaker which Wikipedia does not allow. Please provide references. Side note: I do not know much about the priority dispute in general relativity, other than I have done much reading about Whittaker and have yet to see anyone trash him over general relativity. In fact, what I read is that he had "significant though not leading contributions to the subject" and that his history on the subject was authoritative. He cites Einstein more than any other person in the book due to his major role in the development of general relativity. These are things I know that are in contradiction with your attempt to classify him as a belligerent here.Footlessmouse (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with how you prominently included Whittaker, thanks!

October 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Relativity priority dispute, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Original research is prohibited. You must provide a reliable reference that discusses Whittaker's role in the general relativity priority dispute Footlessmouse (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

---