User talk:Reuns

Welcome!

Hello, Reuns, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

food

O kile wa ja rice ka inkomasi Abutiyaya (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the CoV secondary structure articles

Thank you for the suggestion! I can see why one might want to merge the articles, but personally I would argue against doing so. These wiki articles are used to support the corresponding Rfam database entries: The text of the 5' UTR article is included on all the 5' UTR coronavirus pages (for example, https://rfam.org/family/RF03120 and https://rfam.org/family/RF03116), and the text of the 3' UTR article is included on all the 3' UTR pages. If these pages are merged, it would be harder to use Rfam because both 5' and 3' structures will be mixed together and the users could be more likely to be confused and less likely to contribute to improving these articles on Wikipedia.

Based on the previous experience at Rfam, it seems that shorter articles about RNA structures are easier to maintain and keep up-to-date than big, all-encompassing pages. Let me know what you think, happy to discuss further if you like! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonipetrov (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Euler's totient function 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]