User talk:MathLine

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MathLine. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order
Your new article List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order appears to be original research. As you may know, original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. If it is not original research, you need to demonstrate this by adding references from reliable sources to the article. The whole layout and style of the article also needs to be improved. At the momement it is very difficult to understand, and it does not meet our manual of style rules. I don't want to be too harsh on an article that may still be under construction, but if you do not provide references and tidy up the article within a few days, I am afraid I shall be proposing it for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that I take an even less favorable view of this article. Wikipedia, by its nature, requires that its contents have reliable sources, or at least the possibility of reliable sources.  Arranging quadratic irrationals by the continued fraction expansion strikes me as a very peculiar thing to do, and I strongly doubt that there are sufficient sources to support an article of this nature.  (A better order would be by the discriminant of the corresponding number field.)  Consequently I have proposed deletion of this article.  Ozob (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order


The article List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appears to be non-notable original research

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ozob (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Articles for deletion/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order
I have undone your edit to this deletion discussion. It is now closed and no other edits should be made to that page. If you want to dispute the close the best thing is to first raise it with the closing admin,. If that seems inappropriate or they are unable to help you then then the proper venue for disputing closed deletion discussions is Deletion review.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have again removed your edit to a closed discussion, this time the one at Deletion review/Log/2013 December 17. Your one theoretical route of appeal is to the closing admin, – if you feel they have made a mistake or you would like the closure explained you should ask them. But it would be unusual to do so; there have been two discussions on this now, both have come to the same conclusion. I suggest you read and review both discussions for the many reasons for this. There is no further review process, to review the review – after two discussions there is normally nothing else to be said.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Article userified
See User:MathLine/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order.

I removed the AFD notice and orphan article notice from it prior to moving, just so there are no potential wrong category issues with it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't restore the article to main space without reaching consensus with other editors involved in the deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on Exponentiation
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Exponentiation.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Exponentiation or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research and edit warring
MathLine, I'm an administrator here on the English Wikipedia. As a result of your post at ANI, I have been looking over your contributions here on Wikipedia and I see a couple of troubling patterns: Continuing to edit in this manner will cause you to be blocked from editing.
 * 1) You do not cite your contributions. In fact, they seem to be 100% WP:OR.  This is a major problem.  While WP:CALC says the most obvious of calculations don't need to be cited,  Verifiability is at the core of what we do here.  You may be a maths expert, but frankly we don't take your word for it that you are correct.  You need to cite your work using reliable sources.
 * 2) You have gotten into several edit wars on several articles (some spanning months) relating to actions where your unsourced additions to articles have been (correctly) deleted.  That has to stop.

I can tell you have a lot to contribute to the project - you just have to work within our rules to do so. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your addition to WP:NOT
I have reverted your addition, because I do not think that level of detail is required there, and because you seem to be trying to alter the general rule to fit a particular case. Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, it is now time to discuss: if you want your change considered, please propose it on WT:NOT and see whether there is a consensus to make it. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeatedly adding your own original content to Wikipedia, despite numerous warnings and discussions. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your addition to Periodic continued fraction
For the third time, I invite you to read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your addition to this article was reverted by Toddst1; you should not have re-inserted it but started a talk page discussion to see whether there was WP:Consensus for its addition. As this material has been decisively rejected both at AfD and DRV, that seems unlikely, but that is the only way forward. If you want to try, I suggest a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics would be useful, to attract expert contributors. JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Universal trinity


The article Universal trinity has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This appears to violate Wikipedia's prohibition of original research as the content of an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fire in entertainment


The article Fire in entertainment has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appears to violate WP:OR. Arbitrary list of works containing fire with no evidence that this topic is discussed in WP:RS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kinu t/c 15:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Coming Home (Diddy – Dirty Money song). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Men in Black 3. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 22:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Burning Down the House (disambiguation). Mlpearc ( open channel ) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 22:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 to the bottom of your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 23:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 to the bottom of your talk page:. Kinu t/c 03:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As this request does not address the underlying reason for the block, I've disabled your access to this talkpage. The unblock template is not for back-and-forth communication. SQL Query me!  04:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:MathLine/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order
User:MathLine/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MathLine/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:MathLine/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)