User talk:DmVdx
|
Your addition to Vixra has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Sources please...[edit]
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Spacetime, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note that, taking into account your edit histories, it looks like you made that edit in logged-out mode with IP-address 99.255.218.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Hi. Please note that the sources you provided here in your second attempt do not directly back the text you added, so I had to revert your edit again. We are not allowed to draw conclusions form sources -- see wp:NOR and wp:SYNT. We can only report what the sources actually say. When you add a source, you must also add the exact page from which the statements are drawn, so everyone can directly verify it. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. See also this revert by user Waleswatcher, for the same reason. It's the way it works here at Wikipedia. It takes a while to get the hang of it, but it's worth it. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk first, unrevert later[edit]
Please make your point on your idiosyncratic and self-promoting edits first in Talk:Ehrenfest_theorem, before heating up a revert cascade. That is the purpose of the talk page. Tendentious pleading has no place in comment lines. Please reply at that talk page, if you must, and not, repeat, not on this page. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Ehrenfest theorem 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. 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. - DVdm (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)