User talk:Fangong00

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polynomial root-finding algorithms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiplicity. 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) 05:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newton's method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Function.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Newton's method

Your recent editing history at Newton's method 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; read about 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. D.Lazard (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Fangong00 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you did--I just reverted you again. Please be assured that a block is next. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert to my earlier correction. I followed suggestions and put my contributions as later sections. Is that not allowed? Fangong00 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request permission to submit a correction following the discussion of in the talk page, not reverting to the controversial one. Can I do that? It appears that an agreement is in the making. Fangong00 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So one of the things that's good to do is know the lay of the land when you walk into a place and start getting into conflict. You've been here since 2022, it seems, and yet you're asking about the definition of edit warring--when D.Lazard pointed you toward the policy that governs it already. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a yes, but never mind. Just realized that I have no stake in Wikipedia or in that particular page. I thought I could contribute my expertice to something and feel good about it, but end up in a fight with nothing to win but stepping on the toes of people who seem to have good intentions and stake in the status quo. I'll leave a list of errors and fallacies in the talk page, hoping some people notice, and let the stake holders win. Fangong00 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are all stakeholders, but the others aren't edit warring. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]