I welcome all comment and suggestions from other Wikipedians. If I am ever uncivil or illogical, I may just need some guidance or sleep. If I make some changes that are counter to a dominant convention within Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to mention this. I tend to focus on what I perceive as inconsistencies, whether logical or typographical.
I am an electronic engineer, and enjoy areas such as cryptography and side-channel analysis (and countermeasures). I have an interest in mathematics and physics. I like rigour, simplicity, regularity, and (dare I mention it) terseness/compactness of exposition.
My preferred set of units: SI, with reservations (kg is a base unit?).
I'll generally prefer a presentation that makes an underlying symmetry salient. For example, I prefer Maxwell's equations expressed in terms of E and H rather than E and B – to emphasise the symmetry of E–M duality. Also manifestly coordinate-free formulations in physics.
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics
- Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
- Help:Wiki markup
- Help:Displaying a formula
- English relative clause#Restrictive or non-restrictive relative clauses
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style – choice of terms and spelling
- Derived units would include 1 = μ0 = Z0. A consequence is that the reduced Planck charge would be qɍ = √, and the electromagnetic coupling constant would be e = 0.30282212⋅qɍ.
- The unusual choice of normalization for the gravitational constant results from two considerations: that the reference direction for force be consistent (independent of the type of force, for example when matched with Coulomb's law), and that the equations be rationalized. Forgive the pun, but I consider this to be the only rational choice, especially when considering other symmetries and dimensions.