Tdadamemd sioz
Welcome edit
|
Hi Tdadamemd sioz, and thanks for your contributions. I am sorry I seem to have reverted out some of your work at this article recently. Can I suggest making a proposal at Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster? If there is a consensus there to include this material then that is fine. No hard feelings, I hope. --John (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done!--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Please re-read the definition of an irrational number. Not all numbers with infinite decimal expansions are irrational.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. Your recent edit to the page Leap year appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
In particular, there are many definitions for the second of time and the statement you added is only true for a subset of the definitions. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please repost your comments over on the Talk section for that article. I would like to offer you my reply over at that forum rather than here.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
June 2016 edit
Your recent editing history at Solar System 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 article's 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. (Hohum @) 16:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
September 2016 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to OK, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see you continue to edit without adding reliable sources. This is original research. You must provide a source for your A-OK assertion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I see you continue to remove productive edits without so much as clicking through to the A-OK article where you yourself could have found a plethora of references.
- Also, I don't know why you came here to my Talk page to discuss an issue dealing with the OK article. It is clear to me that the best place to have this discussion is over on the Talk page for that article where everyone interested in that topic can clearly see it, instead of hunting around to all the various user pages.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Tdadamemd sioz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Tdadamemd sioz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)