Hereby, we, your fellow Wikipedians, would like to ask you to show some respect for other editors and stop engaging in revert wars, and request that you use the talk page to settle disagreements.
Also note that some people wrote that your links to the Japanese Wikipedia are not always correct.
I am sure you know mathematics, but I would like to ask you to pay more attention to what you are doing. A good chunk of your edits are not in the right place, and may be wrong also. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being so obstinate at real number. Look for instance at decimal, if you don't believe Webster's: decimal means base ten. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan, I removed your comment again. I don't think you read carefully the place you inserted the stuff at real number. The point of that section is about the reals forming an continuum. Insisting on other bases is just a distraction, and besides, the observation you like so much is a triviality.
Please understand, adding things in don't always make for a better article. Stop fooling around. More and more Wikipedians are noticing your erratic behavor. Please pay attention. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Sasquatcht|c 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you DYLAN LENNON, why do you repeat vandalism yet? Did you hope that you could cheat by changing your name? --218.251.73.157 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too was able to identify the combination of persistent arrogance coupled with shallow understanding as DYLAN LENNON on seeing WAREL's posts. Wearing a mask is no disguise if you still act in a uniquely boorish way.Elroch 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have just made made six edits to an article on a topic of which you appear almost entirely ignorant, not even knowing the axioms for a field. As a result the time of several other people was wasted, reverting your inappropriate edits, with no net benefit to Wikipedia.
To blunder around in articles on topics which you demonstrably know little about is discourteous to the Wikipedia communitity and against the spirit of Wikipedia. This is intended to be a place where people who have special knowledge, provide that knowledge to others who don't, not a place where those who lack knowledge impart their errors and irrelevancies to those who do.
The problem with providing freedom, as Wikipedia does, is that some people will abuse it, like you. Again, Wikipedia articles are not there to be abused by people who have very limited understanding of the subject matter. 80.0.184.11 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, why are you willfully and repeatedly ignoring Wikipedia guidance that says you should only refer to papers in respected, peer-reviewed journals? It is unfortunate that the trusting freedom that Wikipedia provides allows you to waste the time of someone like Dmharvey, who is doing research in number theory.
Don't be arrogant, don't ignore what specialists say, and follow Wikipedia guidance.Elroch 01:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, I think you have been here long enough (as DYLAN) to learn some of the basic style on Wikipedia. I suggest you visit Koji Yokogawa and do some good cleanup, by comparing say with the article on Leonhard Euler.
Note also that that article has been deleted before, and it may be again, if it is not notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, by now you will have noticed that several mathematicians have found your edits to mathematical articles unhelpful. The reason for this is partly that you do not have the background of experience necessary to know what edits genuinely improve an article. This is to be expected, as you appear to only have a limited knowledge of mathematics, which is a subject that is particularly inaccessible to the untrained.
In my country we have an organisation called the Open University (OU) that allows any citizen, of any age, starting from any level of knowledge, to get a stage where they have the equivalent of a conventional university degree over several years. The fact is that you just cannot get to a good level of knowledge in mathematics by picking up a few facts here and there in an unorganised way, and probably doing very little mathematics yourself. Many of the other people editing these articles have considerable experience of doing mathematics, which puts them in a much better position.
I would suggest, if you are interested in mathematics and willing to put in a lot of hard work over a long time on something you want to understand well, that you find out if there is any equivalent to the OU in your country, and enlist on a course. I don't know how old you are, but age should not be a barrier - one retired person, who used to belong to the same chess club as me, started a maths degree after he retired, and I am aware that one of your compatriots has the record of being the oldest undergraduate in the world. Elroch 14:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is,however,that I think I know math better than you do.WAREL 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WAREL, that may well be the problem.80.0.184.11 22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true, which, well, is still to be demonstrated, knowing math is not enough. How about cleaning up Koji Yokogawa as I asked you to? Not being sloppy, and doing good work, is very important. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, why did you get banned from the Japanese wikipedia? Dmharvey 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of stupid wikiwriters wrote a very unfair article about a sociologist whom I respect, and I reverted it to protect him.WAREL 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you study sociology? Dmharvey 01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an economics minor, and read and liked his books. WAREL 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of things does he write about? Dmharvey 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly about what post-modern world is.He is a researcher of Kenji Miyazawa at the same time. WAREL 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about Mita Munesuke? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, WAREL, it hadn't occurred to me that you might currently be an undergraduate. I see you mention a minor in economics. If you are currently majoring in mathematics, you are taking the best step to be able to write good mathematical articles in the future. But there are others who have the advantage of much more extensive experience than than you, and you can benefit from their experience. Wikipedia is a much better place if you leave your ego at the door. It is a collaborative project, not a competitive sport. Elroch 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why Dylan(=WAREL) get banned from the ja.wikipedia is so unrelated to sociologist articles. Most reasons concern the articles on mathematics.
"Though I think my behavior is bad, in engrish version, I often divide and concoct articles without mutual agreement."
「それでも、みなさん協力的です。日本もそうなれば、もっとよくなるはず。」
"Still, Everyone cooperates. I want you to become ja.wikipedia so."
Dylan understood and was repeating the same thing. Including such his attitude in en.wikipedia, It was judged that his act was malignant. I do not know where in en.wp his cooperators are. --Schildt.a 08:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, if the community does not agree with your addition to an article, please do not push it. You have to understand that being disruptive is bad, and there will be appropriate actions taken if you continue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, you added an unreferenced statement to the article on the twin prime conjecture saying "It's proved that TPC is true if Riemann Hypothesis is false". I don't believe this for a moment, and you need to explain where this came from. Elroch 02:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on the article Jeffrey Lagarias, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Jeffrey Lagarias is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Jeffrey Lagarias. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources in order that your article will be verifiable. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I took care of the Lagarias thing in what is I think a decent summary of why he is notable. JoshuaZ 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit of yours to soliton: You cannot take a sentence from another website (in this case, that of Cambridge University Press) and copy it to Wikipedia. Doing this violates CUP's copyright, which can get Wikipedia into trouble, and it is also plagiarism. Furthermore, please don't talk about things like inverse scattering theory without understanding them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't (yet) tagged the article, for a speedy deletion, but there's no assertion of notability there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on your article Takeshi Goto, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Takeshi Goto is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Takeshi Goto. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources in order that your article will be verifiable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, this is the 7th time you attempted to put text about Koji Yokogawa in decimal representation, not to count the many times you did that at real number.
You are behaving very disruptively, that in spite of countless warnings both here, on User talk:DYLAN LENNON (your sockpuppet) and in other places.
With the full support of the math Wikipedia community, the next time you insert this text in decimal representation I will block you for 12 hours. At the next attempt the block will double, and so on. Please learn to get along well with others. Your persisent revert wars will not lead you anywhere. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for adding anything about decidability to perfect number. And definitely, you should not use misleading edit summaries like "correction" (diff). Of course, you're free to discuss it on the talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked you for 12 hours for your edit warring at perfect number. You have ignored numerous pleas by other editors to stop that.
Please note that for similar edit warring at any article the block will double in length. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit at that article was incorrect. A field is commutative by definition. You meant division rings I guess. I fixed it now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, please read the definition at field (mathematics). The Wikipedia convention is that all fields are commutative. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. I suggest that when you enter a disagreement with an editor, talk first. There is plenty of time to revert later. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your defintion is also wrong. Any number greater than some constant satisfies your defintion. The limit superior must be unique. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the definition. It is correct now. One more thing. Could you please go to that article, and
replace a_n with x_n, to keep the same notation as above and below.
Say at the beginning that it is the limit superior of , to be clear what we are talking about (it is the limit superior of something, right?)
Please put the variables n in math tags, like this: <math>n</math>.
These are three conditions for me to accept your addition to that article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did four reverts in 24 hours and 22 minutes. While technically that is not a violation of the 3RR rule, taking into account that you have been engaging in edit wars many times before, and have been amply warned before by many editors, I block you for 24 hours.
The next block will double in length. Last block was 12 hours, this one is 24 hours, so next one will be 48 hours. Please learn to not do revert wars. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that, when you are reverted, two people disagree with your text; the guy that originally wrote it, and the reverter. When you are reverted twice, this becomes three people.
Whe you are reverted, please stop and try to figure out why; there is often a good reason. If you can't figure out why, please ask the user who reverted you. He should explain, he may admit he was wrong.
I will tell you, because I rescued one of them, that some of your good and helpful edits are being ignored because your approach to editing comes across as so obnoxious.
If you continue as you are doing, it is almost inevitable (in the sense of real analysis) that you will be blocked and then banned. That would be a loss to Wikipedia.
Per English language typographical rules, there must be a space after a period, comma, and parentheses. Would you mind visiting here and fixing that? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, fresh out of your most recent block you are again engaging in the same behaviour at perfect number, with two new attempts at inserting stuff related to Rosser's theorem. At the third attempt I will have you blocked again, and it will be 48 hours this time. Please do not do revert wars, there is no gain except disruption. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warel, why did you completely remove Ohno's result? JoshuaZ 23:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked, since technically there was not a WP:3RR violation (at perfect number). However I see you were blocked for 3RR on three earlier occasions, and in general rapid-fire editing disputes are discouraged. -- Curps 23:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we discussed plenty both here and at User talk:DYLAN LENNON on why you should not add info about infinite decimal representation to real number. You are back to revert warring: [1][2][3][4]. Per our "agreement" on this page, I block you for 48 hours (double of previous block). When you come back, please do not engage in edit wars.
Using your User:DYLAN LENNON account, you deleted the interwiki links at field (mathematics), and added them instead to division ring, repeatedly. That was not appropriate, as a field is a commutative division ring, and you were told about this several times before. That behavior got your User:DYLAN LENNON account blocked for 24 hours.
You attempted the same using the current account. For using sockpuppets to evade a block and to continue edit warring while inserting incorrect information, I block this account for 24 hours also. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you were told many times before. If you don't agree with other editors, talk, make your case, rather than keep on reverting. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, in ja:体 (数学), both skew field and commutative field is written, and, The difference between them is referred. It is clear that Dylan cannot understand Japanese.
To everybody.
To be able to expect rough meaning of the articles, some key words are written in English (or German, or French), if you cannot read Japanease.
In ja:体 (数学), you can see the words, skew field, kommutativ körper, corps commutatif...etc.
This request for comment is the last attempt by the community to get you to get along well with others. If that fails, the next step may be a permanent ban on your account, as well as on your User:DYLAN LENNON account. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, thank you for commenting on talk:Field (mathematics). Please from now on, always do that.
Do not, do not revert somebody else's edits more than once without talking first. Please WAREL. You antagonized the entire math community in here. I will be straight, we are in talks about banning you for good. But we are still willing to give you a chance. WAREL, please take it. Please use talk pages to make your point, and do not do revert wars. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you so that you may discuss stuff on the talk page, at the request of User:Paul August. Please do not start reverting pages. -lethetalk+ 21:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAREL, you reverted enough. Now use only the talk page for a while. If you keep on reverting the article in the meantime, I will have you blocked back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the block at this account to one week. Please take time to think about your behavior. Please learn to talk first, and if people agree, have your changes in, not otherwise. Please also see the above comment by Dmharvey about contributing constructively when you are back.
Note that any future attempts at revert-warring and unproductive behavior will result in lengthy blocks as well. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
