User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh/Archive 1

Proper formatting of block quotations
For block quotations, use Quote not Cquote, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. For example:. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Your addition to File:N3 standard logo.gif has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Jeff G. ツ 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can I change the first line to: "The Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) specification defines a set of document types for authoring and organizing topic-oriented information, as well as a set of mechanisms for combining, extending, and constraining document types." Because the first line does not clearly define DITA. This line exists in http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/errata02/os/complete/part3-all-inclusive/introduction/dita-release-overview.html#ditaspec.
 * OK? Existing first line lacks some information and does not contain some important information and is unclear.Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I change at least first line (by mentioning citation)?

Please discuss before renaming (moving) a page
I moved "CPU mode" back to its original name of "CPU modes" (and cleaned up the referencing pages). The reason you gave for the move is "According to Wikipedia rules, title of articles should always consist of singular words", which is not entirely accurate. If you read a little further, on the WP:PLURAL page, you'll see "Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages)." [Emphasis added]

Page moves can be a big deal, and can have far-reaching effects. I recommend you discuss a move (on the Talk page) before performing it. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 15:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fine advice, I try to discuss before every change from now on. Yours, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit to Dirac delta function
Hi Hooman Mallahzadeh! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Dirac delta function that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. As it says on that page, adding content or templates, such as infoboxes, to an article should not be marked as minor. You may wish to re-do your edit, remembering not to mark it as minor. Thank you! Wuffuwwuf (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not right
This edit certainly cannot be right (x is not in the image of $$\vec{f}$$). I don't have time at the moment to figure out whether the right thing is just to revert you or something else; please check. JBL (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirected to talk page of article..