User talk:Tdadamemd sioz

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
Hi Tdadamemd sioz, and thanks for your contributions. I am sorry I seem to have reverted out some of your work at this article recently. Can I suggest making a proposal at Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster? If there is a consensus there to include this material then that is fine. No hard feelings, I hope. --John (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Done!--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

February 29
Hello. Please re-read the definition of an irrational number. Not all numbers with infinite decimal expansions are irrational.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jc3s5h. Your recent edit to the page Leap year appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

In particular, there are many definitions for the second of time and the statement you added is only true for a subset of the definitions. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please repost your comments over on the Talk section for that article. I would like to offer you my reply over at that forum rather than here.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Your recent editing history at Solar System shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to OK, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you continue to edit without adding reliable sources. This is original research. You must provide a source for your A-OK assertion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And I see you continue to remove productive edits without so much as clicking through to the A-OK article where you yourself could have found a plethora of references.


 * Also, I don't know why you came here to my Talk page to discuss an issue dealing with the OK article. It is clear to me that the best place to have this discussion is over on the Talk page for that article where everyone interested in that topic can clearly see it, instead of hunting around to all the various user pages.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)