User talk:Harrell Geron

Most people have liked my web sites, but for the last month, I have forgot type right. I type error and I don't know the errors. I forger typing right, so if someone can fink my errors about typing wrong and forgetting think. someone can fix the miss timing thinks. Please read my thinks and fix them if you can fix the miss thinks I typed.

Over the last few month, I forget the right typing, and some folks have helped me because I did not now the wrong things, but when I re=read the fixed thing, I then see understate there info fixed my errors. Some times when I re-read things I typed I see the errors I made, and I try to fix them.

I am old, and forget lots of stuff, and mostly type something wrong. I don't understand the section below. Harrell Geron

Welcome!

 * }

October 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Darcy friction factor formulae has been reverted. Your edit here to Darcy friction factor formulae was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://colebrook-white.blogspot.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Darcy friction factor formulae, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to Darcy friction factor formulae was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://colebrook-white.blogspot.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Published?
When your new method is published in a WP:RS, let us know, and we can then consider including a brief mention of it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have undone your edit again. Please edit Talk:Darcy friction factor formulae to say what you're up to; maybe we can help you find a way to make an acceptable contribution. Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And again you have been reverted. Perhaps you will infer that the approach you are using is not working. You can respond here if you have questions or would like advice. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted again today. It apparently isn't worth it to you to discuss this on the article's talk page. Why not? - Ac44ck (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See above. - Ac44ck (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ditto. - Ac44ck (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Darcy friction factor formulae
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Darcy friction factor formulae article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Noyster  (talk),  09:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. You have been asked four times to use the article's talk page for your additions. I've already put your latest contribution on there for you. Your most recent two edits have also removed the list of references, so your actions now have to be regarded as "disruptive editing" Noyster  (talk),  10:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See above. Again. - Ac44ck (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Darcy friction factor formulae. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Darcy friction factor formulae, you may be blocked from editing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Darcy friction factor formulae. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Harrell Geron and original research. Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent addition of unsourced original research, as you did at Darcy friction factor formulae. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Red rose64 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Darcy friction factor formulae. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent addition of unsourced original research, as you did at Darcy friction factor formulae. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Red rose64 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...

I want to enter a Easy and True solution that will be easy for folks that can use Excel. It will be easy and I want you to test it and learn it is read easy and true, because the Log makes a guess get right in lest than 20 loops, but you only have to enter an easy equation and copy it down to about 20 cells, but the solution for 15 digits will be right. I have used about 100 digits that is more right. Let me enter it and it you learn in is easy.

You need to know that many of the folks in the worked learned it was easy and true, but the USA told me they would not publish it because it would stop the selling of approximations. But you will learn most of the approximations are right for about 10 digits, but some are very wrong since you can compute the right number and see some are not very right.

Harrell Geron email me at...
 * Hey, Harrell Geron, I'm here in response to your help template. Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia, but to be blunt, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an Excel how-to guide, and we don't publish original research (which is what we call information that hasn't been published in a reliable source). Please don't keep trying to put this into articles; it's going to be out of scope for pretty much any extant Wikipedia article. Sorry. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 09:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You clearly didn't read what wrote, but instead posted, yet again, so:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent addition of unsourced original research, as you did at Darcy friction factor formulae. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Red rose64 (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You just don't learn do you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent addition of unsourced original research, as you did at Darcy friction factor formulae. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Red rose64 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Harrell Geron". Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note I have removed your talk page access and extended your block indefinitely, because you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to publicize something you believe is noteworthy. After 14+ emails to OTRS, several friendly explanations as to what is wrong with your approach and several blocks, we've hit the limit. See WP:UTRS for your only other unblock option left, if you want to return and contribute constructively to Wikipedia. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)