Rbrane7
Your recent editing history at Tuple shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. D.Lazard (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I do not violate the rule because I do not make more than one revert per day. At second, I don’t delete work of any other contributor, just otherwise, someone deletes my work and deletes added value to the topic. I’m suggesting stop the rollbacks and discus the argumentation on this talk. Wiki is open and we are here contribute all on making topic best. I’m quite sure that I do the best for topic to be of optimal quality. Rbrane7 (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- You did not revert formally the rule WP:3RR. But you started an edit-war, and this is forbidden in Wikipedia, as explained above. Please, read WP:BRD. You will see there that, when an edit is challenged and reverted by another editor, its author must not restore it. Instead, you must open a discussion in the talk page of the article (not in my user talk page) in wiew of a WP:CONSENSUS.
- In the present case, your edit was reverted by two different editors, which are both experiemented mathematicians and experimented Wikipedians. So, it will be little hope that you can get a consensus in your favor. More specifically, your edits consists mainly of changing the meaning of a tuple for including "infinite tuples". Wikipedia cannot accept this, as, per WP:Verifiability, every mathematical definition must be supported by a WP:reliable source. There are other reasons for reverting your edit, but this is the main one.
- Please, if you want discussing the revert further, do it at Talk:Tuple. D.Lazard (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think I didn't start the edit-war. I think you started the edit war. But that doesn't matter. The problem is that we can't reach consensus in such a clear case. You stated that 2 different experimented mathematicians do not accept prolongation of definition to natural superset of definition space of the topic of the third graduated analytical mathematician whose is relevant in his conclusion. Those 2 mathematicians probably don't accept placement of infinite tuple concept on Tuple page.? That's strange. Why infinite tuple concept doesn't belong to Tuple page? Of course, if we accept the infinite tuple concept in Tuple page, another question immediately occurs: why not define finite and infinite tuple directly in one definition, if it means just change of one word, keeping all essentials unchanged. Let's transfer the discussion to the talk page. Rbrane7 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Why infinite tuple concept doesn't belong to Tuple page?": Again because there is no published source that mention such a concept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. This mean that the only things that can be mentioned by Wikipedia are things that are published elsewhere. Bu being published does not implies to be relevant to Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- This page is level 5 vital source. Publishing new concepts are not prohibited. Infinite tuple concept belongs to this page. You could hardly proof that infinite concept of tuple violates the essential principle of tuple. Standing that tuple differs from set in that set can be infinite and tuple not is very misguiding. In ancient age we also had just finite sets theory. We matured. With tuple it’s similar thing. Rbrane7 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- You wrote
Publishing new concepts are not prohibited
. This is not prohibited outside Wikipedia, but it is clearly prohibited inside Wikipedia, per the policy WP:NOR. Please, stop these WP:disruptive discussions (here and in other talk pages). Their only possible outcome is a waste of time of other editors and, for you, a possible edit block. D.Lazard (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- You wrote
- This page is level 5 vital source. Publishing new concepts are not prohibited. Infinite tuple concept belongs to this page. You could hardly proof that infinite concept of tuple violates the essential principle of tuple. Standing that tuple differs from set in that set can be infinite and tuple not is very misguiding. In ancient age we also had just finite sets theory. We matured. With tuple it’s similar thing. Rbrane7 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Why infinite tuple concept doesn't belong to Tuple page?": Again because there is no published source that mention such a concept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. This mean that the only things that can be mentioned by Wikipedia are things that are published elsewhere. Bu being published does not implies to be relevant to Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think I didn't start the edit-war. I think you started the edit war. But that doesn't matter. The problem is that we can't reach consensus in such a clear case. You stated that 2 different experimented mathematicians do not accept prolongation of definition to natural superset of definition space of the topic of the third graduated analytical mathematician whose is relevant in his conclusion. Those 2 mathematicians probably don't accept placement of infinite tuple concept on Tuple page.? That's strange. Why infinite tuple concept doesn't belong to Tuple page? Of course, if we accept the infinite tuple concept in Tuple page, another question immediately occurs: why not define finite and infinite tuple directly in one definition, if it means just change of one word, keeping all essentials unchanged. Let's transfer the discussion to the talk page. Rbrane7 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)