User talk:MMmpds

speed of light, vacuum

you missed the qualifier, " according to special relativity". there isn't a citation needed for the claim. it's in every physics textbook. Saintstephen000 (talk)

I did not miss the qualifier. In fact, it is historically very significant. See more on your talk page. MMmpds (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history at Speed of light 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following statements are untrue. "...how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree.", this is strictly speaking false because a) it is not how I think it should be, it is how the sources I cite indicate it ought to be; b) "when you have seen that other editors disagree" is also false because it was a single editor that could not form a convincing argument but refused to relent despite all evidence to the contrary and moreover never suggested a compromise. MMmpds (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]