Chipdink69420

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Cauchy–Schwarz inequality‎‎ 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.

It appears that your edits are for including your own original research. This is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia, not only by the policy on original research (WP:OR), but also by the rules of conflict of interest (WP:COI). D.Lazard (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Routine mathematical calculations do not violate the original research policy, provided there is editor consensus that they are correct. Do you agree that the proof is correct? Your point about conflict of interest is taken. Perhaps I can post "Proof 3" without mentioning my name. Chipdink69420 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Dental floss. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think this is promotional? It is an objective fact. What is being promoted? Chipdink69420 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You said "Twin-line floss picks eliminate all new cavities after a few weeks of proper use." A. "Twin-line floss picks" may be a formal product or may promote a specific floss pick product line; B. "eliminate all new cavities after a few weeks" is highly unlikely - there is no medical source to support the statement, WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)