Can I suggest that you use the talk page at Telegrapher's equations to make suggestions before changing the article. You are making a lot of factual mistakes and I'm not convinced that you know a lot about this subject. If you do want to edit the article directly you should take your information from a reliable source and cite it with the material you add. Spinning Spark 17:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
What makes you the expert, you also presented incorrect facts. I got the facts about the inverse square law from wikipedia. I know what I am talking about because I am a reliable source until proved otherwise, so I don't need to ask for suggestions, and bad edits are not shown in the article for long, and people should know the risks about accurate information from wikipedia or any other source, tomorrow we may discover something new Bookbuddi ( talk) 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I will add the new information about the inverse square law here Inverse-square_law Bookbuddi ( talk) 22:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Dani Harmer because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr ( talk) 19:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)