User talk:Co-scienza

WP:3RR

@Co-scienza, Please visit the talk page for Maxwell's equations to learn about a protocol for Wikipedia --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I urge you to read how to stay out of trouble over the three-revert rule --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Co-scienza, when on the talk pages, please sign your posts thus: --~~~~ That markup will display your account name and a timestamp. This is the custom for the talk pages of the encyclopedia. You may wish to study the Help pages for the documentation on Wiki markup language. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A bot signed your contribution. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I see that I didn't explain signatures very well: We don't write our signatures first. The custom in a talk page message, when replying on a talk page, is to write

1. The name of the person you are replying to
2. The message
3. --4 tildes, thus ~~~~. This generates your account name (your signature), and a timestamp that we use to state when we wrote the message. 3 tildes ~~~ generates your account name alone. 5 tildes ~~~~~ generates the timestamp only.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's the custom to read talk page messages in time order, then add your reply after that message, wait for the response, add your reply after that message, et cetera. The fact that you adhered to this custom from the first message fooled us into thinking that you already knew the other customs of wikipedia. For example we don't edit other people's messages, but you already understood this from the beginning. We should edit only our own messages. But it's less confusing if we simply add to our own replies, at the bottom of the page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Your recent editing history at Maxwell's equations shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note that as a result of the recent back-and-forth, the page is now fully-protected for a short while; this should give you time to discuss your proposed changes with other editors and reach consensus as to whether they should be made. Please understand that any further edit-warring is likely to lead to suspension of editing privileges without further warning. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your signature

As explained at Wikipedia:Signatures, please make sure to add your signature to any comments you make on talk pages. This will make it easier to distinguish your comments from the comments of others. It will also allow people to more easily find your user page, talk page, and contribution page. Thank you for your cooperation. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Lorentz–Heaviside units

Please discuss your proposed edits in the Talkpage of that article, rather than reverting deletions of bad english contributions. The terms "dimensioned" and "adimensioned" you insistently introduce are bad english. The Einstein book ref is gratuitous, irrelevant, and subsumable in associated wikilinks. You honestly believe you are helping a reader appreciate the point better this way? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Cuzkatzimhut, I would simply add the note that vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability are dimensioned constants in SI, and dimensionless constants in Gauss (and HLU) formalism. I checked that these words exist in English (I wrote in my last intervention "dimensionless" and not "adimensioned" that doesn't exist). I think that this is a key factor to understand that E, H, D and B have the same units in Gauss and HLU, and different in SI system. Regarding the Einstein book, I understand that I cited it in a bad manner, I can erase this book that is a "trivial" reference, but I would like to put the note that Einstein himself used the LHU, I think that this is good information for the common reader. Far from me the intention to "disrupt" the WP article.Co-scienza (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wary apologies for the unwarranted imprecation of bad faith. The standard terms are "dimensionful" and "dimensionless". I suppose you may repeat somewhere, out of the fray of things, the fact that E, H, D, and B have the same units in the Gaussian and HLU systems, although different ones in the SI system. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, thanks Cuzkatzimhut. You are right that in other WP articles the fact that E, H, D, and B have the same units in the Gaussian and HLU systems is well explained (I checked it). Anywhere, I don't agree on the word "dimensionful" (see, for example, D. H. Foster, A Concise Guide to Communication in Science and Engineering, Oxford University Press, 2017, page 69, where dimensioned quantity is used), as I always heard in my studies on English language texts. Coming back to Einstein classical book, I agree that putting it into references would be outdated, but I insist that a note about the use by Einstein of LHU is, perhaps, trivial for relativity specialists but can give also an hystorical touch to the WP article. Co-scienza (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)