Hi. I hope this doesn't sound like canvassing but given the strength of your comments at User talk:Michael Fontenot and on the talk page at Talk:Twin paradox I thought you should be made aware of the current AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer, which is basically about the same thing. andy (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I had noticed that deletion discussion even before you posted the above. It looks to be a foregone conclusion that the article will be deleted. With that and the block on the user, this little episode is probably wrapped up. If he chooses to adhere to consensus and be unblocked then so be it. Thanks for being proactive on this issue. There was a very good chance of a messier and longer period of frustration with that user, and you were quite helpful in cutting it short. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You removed my additions to some articles about operator of proper-time-derivative. In your opinion there is self-promotion of non-notable material. In this case why you do not remove the new article operator of proper-time-derivative? I can not see your logic. Fedosin (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Please return my additions until possible deletion the new article operator of proper-time-derivative in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia. Fedosin (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed you deleted most of this page. Why did you do this? For most readers, orthogonality of four-velocity and four-acceleration probably isn't obvious when reading the article. However, Fermi-Walker transporting a vector not orthogonal to the velocity does not necessarily result in the correct Thomas precession, so this information should definitely be included in the article. I suggest you move the section to the bottom of the article, maybe including orthogonality of spin vectors since this is probably the most interesting case. --130.75.25.83 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The two sections I removed from that article [1][2] never even mentioned Fermi–Walker transport, nor were they based on sources which do so. I agreed with the comments on the talk page that they are detrimental to the article. The article is admittedly quite poor. If you can provide properly sourced information about the article subject, please go ahead. I am opposed to wholesale reinsertion of the deleted material. You may also wish to bring this up at the physics project page in order to get others' input. Tim Shuba (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Free-fall atomic model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply