User talk:Riczw

Welcome
Hello, Riczw, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community - subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Anita5192 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello, I'm Anita5192. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Euler's formula have been undone because they did not appear constructive. The use of multiple accounts to evade reversion is considered sockpuppetry, for which you can have your editing privileges revoked indefinitely. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. — Anita5192 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First, I am a new user to Wikipedia and I apologize if I have hit multiple times for trying to upload. Second, we are faculties in statistics and were trying to help improve the content of Euler formula with its latest important extension/application in testing uniformity in Statistics. We are not sure what do you mean by not constructive and what is your background in hypothesis testing and binary probabilistic expansion. We demand an explanation. I am not sure even if you can see this comment, if you do, we look forward to your reply. Thank you - Riczw (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your new section was reverted twice by D.Lazard (talk | contribs), and the edit summary he supplied the first time he reverted it was, "ArXiV is not a source, and secondary sources are needed for verifiability and notoriety." Please see Citing sources for the accepted way to cite sources. Also, before reinserting your new section, please discuss it on the talk page for the article.—Anita5192 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for promoting your brand-new, unpublished research. Your last comment looks very much like a legal threat; per WP:NLT you should withdraw it immediately or be blocked from editing. —JBL (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)