慈居
capital letter
editWhat is the point of this edit? Why should that particular section heading be the only one in the article that makes that particular use of capitalization, and why should this be different from the usage prescribed in WP:MOS? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for this, I undid your edit just because I saw the 'Joseph-Louis Lagrange' table in the head does not work in your version, but now I see there's no error in your version when I check history. I didn't realize there can be a brief error even when the source is correct. So I didn't check the change of your version just undid and thought someone may redo your edit (except the error in the head). Doyoon1995 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Interval (mathematics) 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. D.Lazard (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did what I have to do since you were removing referenced contents out of some personal doubts ([1]). If you want to call it an edit war, you were also a participant. 慈居 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- If I had to choose which one of you two was the worse edit warrior, I'd pick the one who leaves either no edit summaries or edit summaries that insult the opposing party. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies I don't remember me insulting or being insulted. I'm used to leaving edit summaries only occasionally because that's the most common practice in my home Wikimedia project. If that's not acceptable here I can of course start to leave a summary for each of my edits. 慈居 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes please. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies I don't remember me insulting or being insulted. I'm used to leaving edit summaries only occasionally because that's the most common practice in my home Wikimedia project. If that's not acceptable here I can of course start to leave a summary for each of my edits. 慈居 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- If I had to choose which one of you two was the worse edit warrior, I'd pick the one who leaves either no edit summaries or edit summaries that insult the opposing party. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHi 慈居. Thank you for your work on Abel–Dini–Pringsheim theorem. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
editHi 慈居. Thank you for your work on Balanced group. Another editor, Fermiboson, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Hi, I'm not familiar with topology, but in Topological_group#Uniform_space it appears to state that the left and right uniform structures coincide if(f?) the group is abelian. Could you clarify in this context how balanced differs from abelian?
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Fermiboson}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Fermiboson (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fermiboson: Hello! You're right that the two uniformities coincide if the group is abelian. This sufficient condition is not necessary; I will try and add a note about this in a while. Best regards. 慈居 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)