User talk:Emadawad1978

December 2022
Hi Emadawad1978! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Telegrapher's equations several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Constant314 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Constant314, Thanks a lot for your message. I though that the 2D contour plot which has been published as screen shots in   may be useful to readers of the telegrapher's equation. I read the article of the telegrapher equation published on Wiki and unfortunately, I found it is reviewed from a narrow point of view [electrical engineering]. The introduction to the telegrapher's equation was written from a single point of view. A lot of publications, that released a day after a day, name this equation as Cattaneo, Cattaneo-Vernotte, or Maxwell-Cattaneo-Vernotte in addition to the name telegrapher, see also [ https://doi.org/10.1515/fca-2020-0003 ]. So, I believe that the equation attributes to Maxwell not Heaviside as written. Moreover, the application of telegrapher equation is not confined to electrical engineering, it had been already extended, and still, to modeling mass diffusion, heat transfer, fluid motion, ..etc.
 * Consequently, I attached my pattern as an example on the telegrapher's equation on the plane. I claim that the video was not found previously in the literature and I attached a peer-reviewed article of mine in a reputed Q2 journal according to ISI classification.
 * Anyway, if the editorial board finds this plot is useful to the audience, I would like to share it with colleagues as I shared it previously at YouTube . If not, it is not a big problem to me.
 * Thanks for your message
 * Happy new year!
 * Emad Awad
 * Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
 * Emadawad1978 (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sure that your research is interesting. Wikipedia does not publish primary research.  Your animation is not meaningful to most readers without a lot of explanation.  Large animations are difficult for readers with small screen devices.  Animations are distracting.  The latest Wikipedia guidelines call for animations to stop themselves after no more than 15 seconds or have a control so that the reader can stop them.  Our target audience is not scholars and academics.  Your material is too academic for telegrapher's equations, but it might be useful on some other article.  But feel free to make the case on the talk page of the article.  You may find support from other editors. Constant314 (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I guess that the article published @Wikipedia is itself an academic one and need to a variety of specialists in what-so-called telegrapher's equation and its generalizations and applications in applied sciences. I insist that the sentence "telegrapher equation" has different interpretations in applied sciences, e.g.. "Lord-Shulman thermoelasticity", "Finite-velocity diffusion" and "Fractional telegraph equation". Just put these keywords in google search bar to see the variety of applications, not only to electrical engineering as the article published to Wiki exhibits.
 * To me, I do not need to a help from any editor. As I told, I offer my help. So, if it is not acceptable, again, it not a big problem to me.
 * Thanks! Emadawad1978 (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)