User talk:Caffemac
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Caffemac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ←†@πωεεṝ ♥@me 05:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You are estroy of the History of ESA!
[edit]Dear Caffemac,
Why you deleted my text about History? This is very importent science results. This article include in SCOPUS and she was citised Hansen and other scienties in works. This text was support by Diannaa and Quinton Feldberg. The History of ESA not stopped after Harrington and has now the 4th stage. Wiki-users should be know anout this. Swadim (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Dear Caffemac,
The text about the history without reference [1] violates the my copyrights: "In 1960, Harrington.[2] related the effects of antenna size, gain and minimum Q for the near and far field diffraction zones for linearly and circularly polarized waves, and also treated the case where the antenna efficiency is less than 100%" [1].
This text is the full identical citation from pages 116 -117 of IEEE conference [1] Swadim (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c Slyusar V. I. 60 Years of Electrically Small Antennas Theory.//Рroceedings of the 6-th International Conference on Antenna Theory and Techniques, 17-21 September, 2007, Sevastopol, Ukraine. - Pp. 116 - 118. [1]
- ^ R.F. Harrington, ‘Effect of Antenna Size on Gain, Bandwidth, and Efficiency,’ J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand., Vol. 64-D, Jan/Feb 1960, pp. 1-12
Caffemac, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Caffemac! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
LionMans Account (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
– 296.x (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)You're long past the point of 3RR here, and it's becoming pointless. The user has just spoken to Diannaa and claims the article is violating their copyright by not using their link, so at this point I'd just wait on her to have a look instead of Wikipedia:Edit warring. Keira1996 09:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- In response to your email -- I'm aware of this, but edit warring is not the way to go here. Let Diannaa deal with it, or go through the correct processes -- WP:3RR still applies. Keira1996 09:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Electrically small antenna 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 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 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I received your email and am replying here. It's not the place of administrators to make content decisions or assess the quality of sources. My sole reason for visiting the article was to remove copyright violations, and this has been done, and the other user warned. Edit warring, even if you believe you are right, is never okay. If you believe the source is not reliable, there's proper venues to discuss that issue such as the WP:reliable sources noticeboard or the article talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)