User talk:QrTTf7fH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello QrTTf7fH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

At Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin (t) 02:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Engine balance[edit]

Thank you for your attention to Engine balance. Your statement "This is a valid ISBN for the work." may be correct, and the result of your edit is the same as my original edit (as you could check in the history). However, Wikipedia does not allow two or more ISBN's in the field, and your edit created the "Check |isbn= value" error. Would appreciate your reverting that part back. Yiba (talk | contribs) 02:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Linux shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Aoidh (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think that I deserve this canned message any more that you do (If either of us do). I have accompanied my reverts with both edit messages and comments in the talk page. I started both sections Talk:Linux#Consensus? and Talk:Linux#GNU Bash to explain my changes based on Wikipedia policy and the content of the page itself. If you check the revision history of the Linux page you will see edits and some reverts from both of us, none of which is in violation of the 3 revert rule. When I rewrote the caption of GNU Bash I added a reference backing up the assertion that Bash is part of GNU (Hence it's GNU's) for the sake of verifiability.
I think than it's worth pointing out that the Wikipedia policy on edit warring recommends against using canned messages when an user thinks that he has spotted an edit warring that involves him. It recommends that messages aim to cool things down. I will take this advice and (Apart from making clear that I don't want to continue this discussion) suggest that we stay on topic and focus on the merits of the changes in the article, rather than on the behavior of the one who makes them.
This is of course, my viewpoint on the civility issue that you pointed. You're entitled to your own opinion on this (My comment itself) but I will probably abstain myself from continuing the discussion; this won't mean that agree with your reply, but rather than I'm not willing to continue a discussion about a discussion. I edit Wikipedia with the aim of improving it, and I assume that you do as well, and nobody accomplished that aim by judging other users. That being said, I felt compelled to reply to your accusation of edit warring; furthermore an absence of reply could be interpreted as agreement from my part, and like I said, I don't agree with this accusation. Regards.
QrTTf7fH (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Turns ratio eq.[edit]

Transformer's note g provide enunciated version of turns ratio. Ideal equations infobox inherently deals with equations.Cblambert (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, I don't understand. I suppose that you were talking about this edit, but I don't get what's your comment about it. Anyways. I just undid it in case I broke something. Could you please rephrase your comment? Regards. QrTTf7fH (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC).