|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schwarz lantern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smooth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cactus0192837465 , including @ Mark viking: here. Greetings to you Cactus. I have reviewed two of your articles above withe the advice of Mark viking as he is the expert in Mathematics. I would you to add additional sources to support the contain claimed as in Wikipedia we need at least 3 independent, reliable sources (Academic books are good sources - you have provided, but we need more) to pas the notability of the subject. Also, pls read referencing for beginners and learn how to provide inline citation on the body text, instead just provide the source without indicating which page of the book you are refereeing for as one could not expect the reviewer or in this case Mark to find the info in the entire book for this your content claimed. Just to clarify, I am the reviewer, but Mark is the subject matter expert for such I could not able to answer about the subject /content but what I would let you know what are needed which are missing. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Cactus0192837465,
Thanks for creating Alexandroff plank! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
This has been tagged for 4 issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Boleyn ( talk) 22:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at function (mathematics) 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
On January 10, you did four times the same revert. It is possible that, before this warning, you ignored the WP:3RR rule of Wikipedia. Now this rule has been notified to you. So, the next time you will break it, I'll report your behavior to WP:ANI for an edit block. D.Lazard ( talk) 19:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made my case why this page is really a disambig page at the talkpage. -- Taku ( talk) 23:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Favonian (
talk)
13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Cactus0192837465 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The reverts were to eliminate a logical error, and give the theorem as it is written in the references and according to the definition given in that same section. See also the section in the talk page, which I started. Moreover, my reverts are the ones turning the article back to its original form. The mistake was the one that was recently added Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 14:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Being correct is not an excuse to engage in edit warring. Yamla ( talk) 14:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
![]() | This account has been
blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for
sock puppetry per evidence presented at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Cactus0192837465. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to
make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
17:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schwarz lantern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smooth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cactus0192837465 , including @ Mark viking: here. Greetings to you Cactus. I have reviewed two of your articles above withe the advice of Mark viking as he is the expert in Mathematics. I would you to add additional sources to support the contain claimed as in Wikipedia we need at least 3 independent, reliable sources (Academic books are good sources - you have provided, but we need more) to pas the notability of the subject. Also, pls read referencing for beginners and learn how to provide inline citation on the body text, instead just provide the source without indicating which page of the book you are refereeing for as one could not expect the reviewer or in this case Mark to find the info in the entire book for this your content claimed. Just to clarify, I am the reviewer, but Mark is the subject matter expert for such I could not able to answer about the subject /content but what I would let you know what are needed which are missing. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Cactus0192837465,
Thanks for creating Alexandroff plank! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
This has been tagged for 4 issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Boleyn ( talk) 22:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at function (mathematics) 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
On January 10, you did four times the same revert. It is possible that, before this warning, you ignored the WP:3RR rule of Wikipedia. Now this rule has been notified to you. So, the next time you will break it, I'll report your behavior to WP:ANI for an edit block. D.Lazard ( talk) 19:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made my case why this page is really a disambig page at the talkpage. -- Taku ( talk) 23:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Favonian (
talk)
13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Cactus0192837465 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The reverts were to eliminate a logical error, and give the theorem as it is written in the references and according to the definition given in that same section. See also the section in the talk page, which I started. Moreover, my reverts are the ones turning the article back to its original form. The mistake was the one that was recently added Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 14:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Being correct is not an excuse to engage in edit warring. Yamla ( talk) 14:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
![]() | This account has been
blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for
sock puppetry per evidence presented at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Cactus0192837465. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to
make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
17:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC) |