User talk:DVdm/Archive 2024
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:DVdm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2020 | ← | Archive 2022 | Archive 2023 | Archive 2024 |
scare quotes
Dear DVdm, I am not so naïve as to try to meddle with as edit by such an authority as yourself, but I am still able to say to you that I think the single quotes were appropriate. They helped the reader to deal with the fact that the singular was being used for a plural.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Chjoaygame: yes, that's true, but o.t.o.h. the reader could also think that Wikipedia distances itself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression, as is suggested in MOS:SCAREQUOTES. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I was just using the inverted commas to warn of the non-literal meaning of 'an observer', because there isn't prior mention of an actually single observer to whom the phrase 'such an observer' refers. I wasn't using the inverted commas to indicate scare or scepticism, but I defer to your knowledge of the rules. Now that you bring my closer attention to it, I see that the syntax of 'such an observer' is objectionable. I now think that it would be better with another construction. I won't right now try it, but perhaps I may think about it.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Chjoaygame: I was just thinking about this and had this edit ready, when I went back here to have a look at your comment again. Perhaps this is a solution? - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your care. I don't like that because it seems to attribute, to the special theory of relativity, a concept of an interrupted observer, which I don't see as properly belonging to that that theory. I would prefer a deeper reconstruction of the sentence. Chjoaygame (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. See my next stab. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your care in this. I find your edit to be good. I suggest a little anaphora, replacing "The situation at the turnaround point can be thought of as ..." with 'This can be thought of as ...', if you like.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. See my next stab. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your care. I don't like that because it seems to attribute, to the special theory of relativity, a concept of an interrupted observer, which I don't see as properly belonging to that that theory. I would prefer a deeper reconstruction of the sentence. Chjoaygame (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Chjoaygame: I was just thinking about this and had this edit ready, when I went back here to have a look at your comment again. Perhaps this is a solution? - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I was just using the inverted commas to warn of the non-literal meaning of 'an observer', because there isn't prior mention of an actually single observer to whom the phrase 'such an observer' refers. I wasn't using the inverted commas to indicate scare or scepticism, but I defer to your knowledge of the rules. Now that you bring my closer attention to it, I see that the syntax of 'such an observer' is objectionable. I now think that it would be better with another construction. I won't right now try it, but perhaps I may think about it.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
{{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}}
Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Question regarding Draft Physics
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Draft_Physics, is @Draft Physics's accusation that other Wikipedia editors (who are defending Newtonian mechanics and standard kinematics) are promoting their own personal theories well-founded? If not, is it not a form of libel? I'd like to know an answer and your thoughts on this matter. Thanks. Selbram (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Selbram: See my reply on your talk page. There's no need to do this in two places. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Division by zero
Hi DVdm, I took your advice to move the discussion of the "Calculus" paragraph to the talk page. Thank you, Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)