User talk:Logic314

July 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Angular velocity has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Angular velocity was changed by Logic314 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.910048 on 2020-07-17T07:32:35+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia gives due weight to views found in reliable published sources

Hi Logic134. Your recent edits to Conservation laws have erased all mention of mechanical energy as a conserved quantity. You have done this on the grounds that one source, the Feynman Lectures, makes the point that such energy is not conserved. This is at odds with Wikipedia’s mission. Wikipedia does not aim to arbitrate in these matters, nor to declare which view is the correct one and which ones are incorrect. Wikipedia aims to present all reasonable views on a subject; giving due weight to all reasonable views, and avoiding giving undue weight to any of them. Please read WP:DUE carefully; some of your recent edits appear to be in breach of the principles described there. As a result, some of your edits are likely to be reverted.

When planning extensive changes of the kind you have made regarding conservation laws, there are advantages in discussing your plans with other knowledgeable and interested Users. The article Talk page is the place to do that. Offering to discuss with others on the Talk page is the best way to avoid large-scale reversion of your efforts by others Users who don’t see what you are trying to achieve, or why you are trying to achieve it. When you are planning extensive changes the burden is on you to explain what and why; there is no burden on others to sort through all your edits to try to work out what you are doing and why, and whether it improves the article. Dolphin (t) 05:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent edit did not erase all mention of mechanical energy as a conserved quantity. In fact, in the last paragraph I added, I specifically mention that mechanical energy is conserved; it is just not an approximate conservation law. Similarly, Feynman's Lectures state that the law of conservation of mechanical energy is exact, not approximate. Since this section concerns only approximate conservation laws, I removed the law of mechanical energy from the above bulleted list. That does not lessen the fact that mechanical energy is conserved. I do not offer a biased viewpoint which gives unfair weight to any viewpoint. In fact, in the last paragraph, I specifically acknowledge the other viewpoint that mechanical energy is only approximately conserved, and I explain why this is only due to not considering the fine details. That the law of conservation of mechanical energy is actually an exact (rather than approximate) conservation law is not a subjective opinion, but an objective fact that can be backed up by a variety of sources. If you are not convinced of this, we can talk about this on the talk page of the article. Logic314 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I now see that your edit added a paragraph beginning “There are also conservation laws which appear approximate, but only because microscopic details are neglected. For instance, the conservation of mechanical energy is often considered to be non-exact ...”

I have replied to you at Talk:Conservation law#Conservation of mechanical energy. Dolphin (t) 06:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]