Knowledge (XXG)

User talk:Max Longint

Source 📝

254:, simply to help people find the content they're looking for in other articles. That is the longstanding status, seems to be accepted by most editors, and is the way matters should remain. All your comments about referencing and so on are completely beside the point — if there should not be an article, then it does not matter how well-referenced the content you would want to put in that article might be. -- 476: 166: 22: 287:
and, in particular, you have reached the maximum allowed reverts for one article in a 24 hour period. Please do not revert again, and use the talk page instead. One thing that would certainly be chaos is if many editors simply reverted each other back and forth on many articles; the goal of our rules
353:
I am sorry that you have run into an unpleasant situation so early in your Knowledge (XXG) experience. I am sure you will find that most editing is not nearly so contentious. One thing that I often find more pleasant is to find some article marked as a "stub" and expand it into a longer article.
410:
As to removed it could be turned into a disambiguation page or redirect to remove and remove point to cousin as well I suppose, but it's not important, Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is the place for worrying about that sort of thing. See also the dictionary definition
268:
Disagreed. What was before was useless. Neither of pages claimed to be "disambiguation" speak about "whole numbers". The talk page shows a "longstanding status" of unresolved confusion. Please discuss article content, not your opinion about whether article be or not to be.
502:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
213:. If you make another revert, you will be blocked per this rule. I will note that two different editors have reverted your edits. You should avoid reverting again until there is clear agreement on the talk page in favor of your edits. — Carl 506:
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.
141:
but it is my opinion that this is not an encyclopedic topic, but only an ambiguous word all of whose meanings are subsumed in other articles. If you disagree please open a discussion at the talk page,
375:, and condescending demeanor. Oh, and I bet that someone will be just as bullying if I try to fix a yet another consensus nonsense I've just detected: just click at the " 28:
Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG), but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
283:
I hope you both can use the article talk page to discuss the issue. I only come here, as a Knowledge (XXG) administrator, to point out that you appear to be engaged in
499: 488: 147: 379:" link redirect. Enough of this bickering. Consider me removed, but not your cousin, contrar to what wikipedia suggests by this stupid redirect. 55:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Knowledge (XXG) articles, and
94: 209:, there is a firm limit of no more than 3 reverts on any one article within a 24 hour period. You have made 3 reverts today on 150:, given that the page gets so little traffic that your remarks on the talk page are unlikely to be seen by very many people. -- 492: 250:, because it does not describe any nontrivial content not handled just as well elsewhere. There is a *page* called 74:, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please 284: 52: 393:
Actually it was you who removed the disambiguation marker and replaced it with a stub marker with this edit
193: 180: 64: 108: 188: 48: 445: 259: 155: 56: 483: 467: 60: 513: 143: 380: 333: 314: 270: 232: 119: 97: 206: 436:
is silly. I think I'll list it on RfD. I can't see any good reason to wikilink the word
104: 75: 71: 40: 441: 419: 401: 255: 246:
What "chaos"? There is simply no good reason to have a Knowledge (XXG) article called
184: 151: 35: 440:; if someone does, having it come up as a redlink is probably the correct behavior. -- 371:
Oh, yeah? That's what I did. And I didn't find it pleasant, including your all smug,
361: 295: 220: 508: 210: 170: 138: 86: 29: 169:
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge (XXG), as you did at
415: 397: 79: 518: 449: 423: 405: 388: 366: 341: 322: 300: 278: 263: 240: 225: 199: 159: 127: 112: 357: 291: 216: 82:, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again. 429: 376: 372: 433: 412: 231:
This is how you treat attempts to add meaningful content to chaos.
137:
Hi, Max. Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). I appreciate your effort at
103:
ANN scored at 0.951423 on 2011-05-06T18:29:39+00:00 . Thank you.
51:
for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the
175: 187:
or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
20: 487:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to
305:
Why don't you go and bully another person who reverts my
481:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
394: 90: 85:
The following is the log entry regarding this warning:
414:
where the sense given here is the principal meaning.
32:, did not appear to be constructive and has been 500:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Roy Jewell 63:users from editing if they repeatedly engage in 8: 148:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Wikiproject Mathematics 118:This is not ClueBot. This is CluelessBot. 489:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines 7: 288:is to avoid that situation. — Carl 179:. Your edits appear to constitute 14: 498:The article will be discussed at 332:I am sick of wikipedia editing. 474: 164: 428:Actually I kind of agree that 1: 519:16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 70:ClueBot NG produces very few 146:, and perhaps mention it at 534: 311:referenced from textbooks 491:or whether it should be 384: 337: 318: 274: 236: 123: 450:20:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 424:10:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 406:10:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 389:00:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 367:00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 342:00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 323:00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 301:00:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 279:00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 264:00:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 241:00:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 226:00:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 200:23:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 160:23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 128:18:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 113:18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC) 205:Please note that, per 25: 24: 59:have the ability to 26: 365: 299: 224: 144:talk:whole number 525: 516: 511: 478: 477: 355: 289: 214: 198: 196: 178: 168: 167: 23: 533: 532: 528: 527: 526: 524: 523: 522: 514: 509: 479: 475: 472: 432:redirecting to 194: 192: 174: 165: 135: 72:false positives 21: 19: 12: 11: 5: 531: 529: 473: 471: 466:Nomination of 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 408: 369: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 303: 229: 228: 183:and have been 134: 131: 116: 115: 83: 80:report it here 68: 57:administrators 34:automatically 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 530: 521: 520: 517: 512: 504: 501: 496: 494: 490: 486: 485: 469: 465: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 426: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 407: 403: 399: 395: 392: 391: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 370: 368: 363: 359: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 339: 335: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 302: 297: 293: 286: 282: 281: 280: 276: 272: 267: 266: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 244: 243: 242: 238: 234: 227: 222: 218: 212: 208: 204: 203: 202: 201: 197: 191:. Thank you. 190: 186: 182: 177: 172: 162: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 140: 132: 130: 129: 125: 121: 114: 110: 106: 102: 99: 96: 92: 88: 84: 81: 77: 76:read about it 73: 69: 66: 62: 58: 54: 50: 46: 45: 44: 42: 38: 37: 31: 16: 505: 497: 482: 480: 470:for deletion 437: 331: 310: 306: 285:edit warring 252:whole number 251: 248:whole number 247: 230: 211:whole number 171:Whole number 163: 139:whole number 136: 133:Whole number 117: 100: 87:Whole number 53:welcome page 39:(undone) by 33: 30:Whole number 27: 381:Max Longint 334:Max Longint 315:Max Longint 271:Max Longint 233:Max Longint 120:Max Longint 95:Max Longint 49:the sandbox 47:Please use 484:Roy Jewell 468:Roy Jewell 105:ClueBot NG 41:ClueBot NG 442:Trovatore 256:Trovatore 181:vandalism 176:this edit 152:Trovatore 65:vandalism 185:reverted 36:reverted 17:May 2011 510:FiendYT 493:deleted 438:removed 430:removed 377:removed 373:removed 354:— Carl 189:sandbox 91:changed 434:cousin 313:text? 207:WP:3RR 173:with 61:block 446:talk 420:talk 416:Dmcq 402:talk 398:Dmcq 385:talk 362:talk 338:talk 319:talk 309:and 296:talk 275:talk 260:talk 237:talk 221:talk 195:Meph 156:talk 124:talk 109:talk 89:was 358:CBM 307:new 292:CBM 217:CBM 101:(t) 98:(u) 93:by 43:. 495:. 448:) 422:) 404:) 396:. 387:) 360:· 340:) 321:) 294:· 277:) 262:) 239:) 219:· 158:) 126:) 111:) 78:, 515:★ 444:( 418:( 400:( 383:( 364:) 356:( 336:( 317:( 298:) 290:( 273:( 258:( 235:( 223:) 215:( 154:( 122:( 107:( 67:.

Index

Whole number
reverted
ClueBot NG
the sandbox
welcome page
administrators
block
vandalism
false positives
read about it
report it here
Whole number
changed
Max Longint
(u)
(t)
ClueBot NG
talk
18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Max Longint
talk
18:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
whole number
talk:whole number
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Wikiproject Mathematics
Trovatore
talk
23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Whole number
this edit

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.