User talk:Mkhomo

Hello Mkhomo!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, in particular to Covariant transformation.

Thank you also for your contributions to discussions about the articles. I saw that you have made many improvements to your own discussion contributions. I like that.

If you would like to further improve your work, here are a few wiki editing tips:

You have sometimes replied to other discussion participants. It is custom to use colons (":") in the wiki source text to indent such replies. See Help:Wikitext#Indent_text for examples.

In your discussion contributions, you have enclosed external hyperlinks with *two* pairs of square brackets, like this: [[http://...]]. If you look closely, you can see that this results in something like "[[5]^]", or "[5]", to be more precise. The results show a visible pair of square brackets, which is usually not intended. Double square brackets are only for internal wiki links. For external links, use single square brackets, or have a look at Help:Wikitext#External_links for more options.

You have explicitly stated that you are offering your discussion contributions as material for improving the articles themselves. Some of your discussion contributions regarding HIsarna read a bit like a journalistic article or discussion (which is what they are, of course). This may make it harder than needed to integrate your efforts. I do not know whether your suggestions have been integrated, or whether they are good or not. But in my view, your writing style is good, so I encourage you to simply make article improvements yourself, as opposed to suggesting that others do it. Yes, this is hard work. But reading your discussion contributions, I see research and phrasing effort, and you seem to know a great deal about very specific subjects. And I get the impression that you are up for hard work. So Wikipedia:Be Bold! :-)

Regards, RainerBlome (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial typesetting pointers. I shall remember to start here to remind myself the next time I have something to add to your very valuable resource base. In the past I have posted per circumstance as I browsed for clarity in some matter or other, only to find something that does not sit well with my understanding. I looked back at my (now almost forgotten) postings you referred to.

For 'Contravariant Transformation', I can say in hindsight it was the disagreeable conflation of INVARIANCE with the idea of [Co/Contra]Variance, and that's a problem that could have been resolved via disambiguating VARIANCE. In physics invariance applies to a field property, be it Density, Young's Modulus, Magnetic Permeability, Curvature, et cetra, and it is a necessary feature of TENSOR. Vectors do not have that responsibility nor the discriminating capability, as the main page implies but rather Vector Fields do in this case.

For the HISARNA Iron Reduction process, the original was in fact journalistic piece, promoting a particular technology by proponents from Tata Steel, for the benefit of EU Carbon Footprint Reduction efforts of the time, much less about Direct Reduced Iron. Again My Talk piece there could simply be placed in a DRI Process Terminology for disambiguation and distinction

At some stage I noticed editing guidelines that required contributors to be recognized 'authorities' for the subject matter at hand, and I thenceforth stopped supplying primary page content and restricted myself to Talk. I think this followed my last attempt at providing a visual and concrete example(s) of Parallel Transport which graphic examples were deleted summarily without any Talk motivation.

I could add finally on whether my '... suggestions have been integrated ...', I can say, mostly no. HISARNA proponents did clarify their meaning an word usage along the way; but the Talk pages are visible to all readers so I do not think there is need to rewrite primary content as a result.

Sorry to reply so late. "your very valuable resource base"? Thank you for the compliment, but it is also yours, in particular, because, as far as I can see, you have improved it. :-) I like to think that Wikipedia is owned by all editors, past and future. (Yeah I know, there are finer legal points, but thankfully they usually do not matter.)

"editing guidelines that required contributors to be recognized 'authorities'" - This may be a misunderstanding. Klicking the link "About Wikipedia" at the bottom of every page shows: "Wikipedia is written largely by amateurs. Those with expert credentials are given no additional weight." Yes, if you do not understand a topic, editing it may be a bad idea. But all that I would require is that editors understand their own changes enough to know that the change is an improvement. Wikipedia welcomes knowledgeable amateurs, see for example Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Amateurs. See also Wikipedia:We_aren't_Citizendium.

Keep up the good work! (And to avoid confusion, please sign your reply, there's even a button for that. :-) --RainerBlome (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)