User talk:Dangvugiang

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Geodesic. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial 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. --Trovatore (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Magnetic moment
I reverted these edits because you removed content without explanation. The post here is because I didn't fill in the edit summary by mistake.

In any case please stop being disruptive as you have been elsewhere. If you have a reason to delete or insert things, please mention it on the talk page of the article first. 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jacobian conjecture
I have reverted your edits of Jacobian conjecture per WP:OR policy of Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia does not accept original research. For being acceptable in Wikipedia, a mathematical result must be published in a referred journal, and, for such a longstanding conjecture, the correctness of the proof must be supported by a reliable secondary source. Therefore, your edits have been reverted by me and another editor, and will be reverted again, if you try to reinsert them in Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Knot theory into Möbius energy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of 3-bar equivalent symbol
This is just a courtesy note to let you know that you have been mentioned in a discussion at the Maths Reference Desk and might like to add your view there.  D b f i r s   08:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)