User talk:AaronKauf

August 2011
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.  MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What external links are you talking about? Are you referring to the link I added in Dynkin's page about the Dynkin School?  How can this be advertising?  Please do not automatically label someone as "Spammer", and plaster his page with warnings, just because you don't agree with his input.  There should be respect among fellow editors on the Wikipedia.  Thank you.  AaronKauf (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, let's call a spade a spade then. Because your account along with your friends' will be in that discussion. Cheers! AaronKauf (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion can be found here. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This link does not work, apparently you moved it. AaronKauf (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ANI is cleared out regularly; Mathsci didn't move anything William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look for it, but it's hard to respond if they keep moving them around. AaronKauf (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved it back to ANI, you can comment here N o f o rmation  Talk  19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christian Houdré


The article Christian Houdré has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a famous Mathematician. What reliable sources are you referring to? Please elaborate or give example. Thank you. AaronKauf (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erhan Cinlar


The article Erhan Cinlar has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a famous Mathematician. What reliable sources are you referring to? Please elaborate or give example. Thank you. AaronKauf (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Itō calculus. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. N o f o rmation  Talk  00:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Hello, before plastering my page with you warnings, please see the edit wars enticed first by Mathsci, William M. Connolley, SimonL, and Hairer which I've been responding to. So, at least be fare. Thank you. AaronKauf (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've proposed at ANI that you should be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because when a user doesn't bow to the manipulating editorial demands of one macher, you get rid of him … Euro style. Well this doesn't work here, the Wiki is based on democratic editorial environment.  You guys are just showing your true colors. AaronKauf (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
I've moved the case page you opened to Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 September 2011/Itō calculus because the original case page was malformed (didn't include "Itō calculus" at the end of the title). Don't forget to notify those users involved in the dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AaronKauf (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice the case is closed-rejected. For the future: you really ought to notify people when you file these things; mediation is a communal activity after all. In the "Who is involved?" section you should have listed yourself and RHD too; remember, this is mediation, not reporting misbehaviour. Although since you were treating it as a case of harassment (which it isn't) maybe you should have reported it else where (I don't encourage you to do that, because I think it would be a waste of time). The following users are coordinating together is wrong: there is no coordination. Both are being sent by Hairer - I've no idea at all what you mean by that. Finally, as you've been told elsewhere ''Our voice needs to be heard. We are expert mathematicians in this field'' has no credibility if you won't give you name (it isn't a great argument even if you do; but without a name, it is just silly) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hijacking the section and sealing it off so no other user can challenge a misleading interpretation is considered harassment. Experts because we work in this field, we are not sent by another user to just revert and delete sections. AaronKauf (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ito Calculus
The ANI discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722 has now been archived with no response from you, and with no objection from other editors to a block of your account. Please be aware that if you resume inserting your preferred material at Ito Calculus without getting talk page consensus you may be blocked from editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * News flash, not everyone sits on the Wiki all day long, mangling sections and harassing other users. We do have a life, and a fulfilling one.  Switching a discussion on and off on your own terms, along with your friends, doesn't make you win the argument.  AaronKauf (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)