User talk:Dftyapo

Dear Dftyapo,

Page vandalism is a serious crime in Wikipedia. Please do not keep on deleting the verifiable content from other users.

If there would be a conflict, please first populate Talk page, or add another section in the article.

Kind regards

17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you have made to the OpenFOAM page are largely incorrect and I have been and will continue to correct these errors. Correcting errors in not vandalism, it is the right thing to do so that accuracy of Wikipedia pages is preserved and ensured.

Dftyapo (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Dftyap[reply]

Add verifiable citations, and don't promote a certain company, then. Otherwise, I will continue to protect the page from your vandalism, forever.

17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked Henry Weller who was involved in the creation of FOAM at Imperial College in 1989? How do you recon the other you have added were involved when none of them were at Imperial College in 1989?

Dftyapo (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Dftyap[reply]

In the history part of the article, it has clearly been stated that Henry Weller created CFD-FOAM. "Original authors" is a template entry for software, and does not indicate the first person who wrote the first line (in that case Charlie Hill seems to be the first author, doesn't he?), but the people who made the software as we know today. Could you please tell me what would be left in OpenFOAM if we remove all those main authors (I didn't add all contributors)? My argument might not be true. Yet changing the page without any discussion in the Talk page is not the way Wikipedia edition allows. Let's first discuss each item in the Talk page, and add the material whatever we agree on as verifiable. Otherwise, this is vandalism, and it will have tangible consequences according to Wikipedia rules. 17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Weller created the FOAM library for field operation and manipulation which interfaced to the GUISE (Graphical User Interface Software Environment) created by Charlie Hill for interfacing to AVS. Details of Charlie Hill's work on GUISE are provided in his thesis. The original author of the FOAM library is Henry Weller, you can contact him directly to confirm this or the editors of Wikipedia can do it if they need verification.

Dftyapo (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Dftyap[reply]

Please add these entries into the Talk page, and then have a healthy discussion, and grow OpenFOAM page together.

17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep changing the original author, have you contacted Henry Weller to make your claim that he is not the original author? Also the copyright of OpenFOAM was transferred from OpenCFD to the OpenFOAM Foundation in 2011, all versions not released by the OpenFOAM Foundation since then are forks.

Dftyapo (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Dftyap[reply]

No, I am protecting the page from your vandalism. I think you don't know how Wikipedia works. There are counter-arguments to the authorship:

You seem to have misunderstood the work that Charlie Hill did, he worked on GUISE, FOAM was created by Henry Weller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenFOAM

17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should check your facts. I am sure Henry Weller will confirm that he is the original author of OpenFOAM, he can be contacted via the OpenFOAM Foundation enquiries contact page. I feel that is it my duty to correct the factual errors you keep introducing to the OpenFOAM page.

Dftyapo (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Dftyap[reply]

Let's check it together in the Talk page not via the persistent vandalism.

17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information on that page is not reliable, if you want to know how and when OpenFOAM was created in 1989 you will need to contact Henry Weller.

Dftyapo (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Dftyap[reply]

Henry Weller name is now singled out as the sole author. Please don't edit like a vandal - the proper way of editing of controversial content: first discussion in Talk page, convince other users, and then migrate the content from Talk page to the actual page. 17 kutalmis bercin (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now so many errors introduced recently on the OpenFOAM page, we must start to correct them. The most important issue is that the copyright of OpenFOAM was transferred from OpenCFD to the OpenFOAM Foundation in 2011, all versions not released by the OpenFOAM Foundation since then are forks. This is a fact, the transfer was executed before OpenCFD was bought by SGI, see https://cfd.direct/openfoam/about/

Dftyapo (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Dftyap[reply]

July 2019

Your recent editing history at OpenFOAM 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. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at OpenFOAM. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]