Talk:Spherical polar coordinates: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos (abandonning my comment; should check more conventions (perhaps we should just note that different authors assign differently the variables) |
imported>Anthony Argyriou (protest) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
I reverted changes by Anthony Argyriou because I don't know why he made them. Had I known I would have strived for a compromise. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 06:45, 16 January 2008 (CST) | I reverted changes by Anthony Argyriou because I don't know why he made them. Had I known I would have strived for a compromise. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 06:45, 16 January 2008 (CST) | ||
:I protest. My reasons for the changes were made in the edit summary, and you did not ask me for further detail if you did not understand the issues I had. The reason I changed the article is that you have introduced your own personal point of view into the article, in a way which detracts from the quality of the article. You say "Unfortunately, some American mathematical textbooks..." - the unforuntateness of this is clearly a statement of opinion, and unsupported opinion at that. (The article presents the reason for this supposedly "unfortunate" state of affairs.) The paragraph following the quote is pure editorializing, and isn't very clear, either. My edit also clarified what was meant by "Ref.", and added a wikilink to [[spherical harmonic]]s, which would presumably be a useful article to link to from this one. But rather than ask, you reverted without question. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 00:48, 17 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 01:48, 17 January 2008
I reverted changes by Anthony Argyriou because I don't know why he made them. Had I known I would have strived for a compromise. --Paul Wormer 06:45, 16 January 2008 (CST)
- I protest. My reasons for the changes were made in the edit summary, and you did not ask me for further detail if you did not understand the issues I had. The reason I changed the article is that you have introduced your own personal point of view into the article, in a way which detracts from the quality of the article. You say "Unfortunately, some American mathematical textbooks..." - the unforuntateness of this is clearly a statement of opinion, and unsupported opinion at that. (The article presents the reason for this supposedly "unfortunate" state of affairs.) The paragraph following the quote is pure editorializing, and isn't very clear, either. My edit also clarified what was meant by "Ref.", and added a wikilink to spherical harmonics, which would presumably be a useful article to link to from this one. But rather than ask, you reverted without question. Anthony Argyriou 00:48, 17 January 2008 (CST)