User talk:SJRubenstein
Welcome
[edit]Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 04:22, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Classical Unified Field Theories -- Mendel Sach
[edit]DAGwyn: Why do you remove the information on Mendel Sachs? - SJRubenstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJRubenstein (talk • contribs) 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The reasons were given in the edit description. The cited reference didn't support the text that had been added, and disrupted the nice closing of the previous text. Sachs evidently did not publish a complete theory like the others(*) in the article, and certainly did not "complete" Einstein's work.. If we were to start mentioning relatively minor contributions, there are numerous candidates from more recent times, Penrose's twistor theory for example. Since later work of this sort borrowed ideas more heavily from quantum theory, it doesn't really fit the theme of the article.
- (*) The existing text concerning Whyte could also be challenged as referring to an incomplete theory, but attempts to remove the associated text turned into an "editing war", ending in a compromise in which the text remained but was adjusted to more accurately reflect the status of Whyte's work. The article would be improved by excising the section on Whyte, but I don't want to instigate that at this time. — DAGwyn (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)