Content deleted Content added
m →Derivation (COI Edit Request): adding {{unsigned}} – please remember to sign talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), else it gets confusing |
→Derivation (COI Edit Request): comment |
||
Line 798:
:: It doesn't assume the form of the identity. It starts by noting the striking similarities between the terms present in quaternion multiplication and the terms present in the rotation function. It's conceivable that a person could have seen these similarities even if they hadn't known in advance about how unit quaternions do rotations. The processes is a plausible path of first discovery, and it's therefore a "derivation." It's only "long winded" because quaternion multiplication involves so many terms; you might also call general relativity "long winded" in the same sense. I resent that you don't trust my intentions, and I also resent that you just admitted to not having even looked at the material before doing your revert. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Patrick.rutkowski|Patrick.rutkowski]] ([[User talk:Patrick.rutkowski|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Patrick.rutkowski|contribs]]) 04:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Though I don't particularly put much stead by the COI as an argument against inclusion, adding a link to an external site is usually to be considered suspect (and summarily removing such is typical). And while the intention is clearly to share what might be an interesting derivation for some rather than to advertise own work, the result must still be encyclopaedic. More than a demonstration of correctness is unneeded in this context; though I have not reviewed the linked paper, and though my reasoning might differ from JohnBlackburne's, my general conclusion about what should be in an *encyclopaedia* page is much the same. That said, a new editor getting the feel of what is considered to be encyclopaedic and who has value to add to WP is most certainly to be encouraged. May I suggest at first working on page wording and contained content than external content while growing familiar with the style and objectives? It is exactly interactions like this from which one learns what works. —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 05:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
| |||