X11311

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.

Note that creating another account to advance the same edits is in violation of the sockpuppet policy, and may lead to a permanent block. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC) I think Russ Woodroofe is right. Socking does not make it better. Yes,you are a respectable mathematician, I think. However if someone says that he is like the scientist Galileo, Galilei, then how can you explain such a situation? Even though someone says no to my paper, could that last forever? If one says no, he or she should give not a simple no but precice errors in the paper, right?

Well, I am not a socker, as you know.So many thanks.

May 2022

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Riemann hypothesis, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source 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. Thanks. SunDawntalk 10:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, SunDawn. You looks like a great mathematician who is respectable. Do you remember Sir M.F. Atiyah's Riemann Hypothesis(abb. RH) paper? His RH paper is still not acknowledged from AMS or Zentralblatt let alone citation.

However my RH paper didn't get any negative comments from AMS and Zentralblatt,right? It shall be cited in due time. Don't worry about that please. Zentralblatt asked me saying "Is it true that you only wrote your RH paper?" So no problem at all untill now. So many thanks. X11311 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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) 12:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23;

Hi,I didn't recognize that there is such a penalty for abusing multiple accounts.

I will use only one account henceforth. So please unblock me as soon as possible.

So many thanks. X11311 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23;

Hi,I didn't recognize that there is such a penalty for abusing multiple accounts.

I will use only one account henceforth. So please unblock me as soon as possible.

So many thanks. X11311 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

X11311 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

Given that you said above you weren't socking, you'd have to also explain why you stated an untruth. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, Sir.

But I didn't know that there was such a block policy.

So would you please let me unblocked as soon as possible?

So many thanks again. X11311 (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2022

{unblock|reason=Your reason here X11311 (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)}} Hi,Bbb23: But I am sorry to say that I didn't say any untruth relating to Riemann Hypothesis. So would you please let me know what I said wrong? So many thanks.Best regards.