User talk:82.15.226.103

December 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Drake equation, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please stop this constant changing. Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source. As someone who knows Frank Drake personally, in spite of WP:OR, my revert back accurately follows his thinking more closely than your changes. You should also bear in mind that when Frank first made the equation, it was only considered a talking point for discussion - not a bible. If you keep edit warring, you could be subject to a block. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Drake equation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 a dead end, you can 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 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. David J Johnson (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Apology for how you see this, I merely wish to draw your attention to Frank's own words (citation: Frank Drake's own words).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wltbk

The BBC report is not accurate regarding Frank's thinking. I repeat the equation is a talking point and not regarded as a "bible". Plus Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source - anyone can write something which is entirely inaccurate and unless it is picked-up quickly, it will stay there. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Spiking neural network has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Spiking neural network was changed by 82.15.226.103 (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2018-06-01T11:58:39+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

---