User talk:DavidMichaelFabian

Welcome!

Hello, DavidMichaelFabian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DVdm (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

November 2013

Hello, I'm DavidMichaelFabian. I posted some formulas that come directly from me, are self-evident, and are easily verifiable (if you simply do the math); but they have been deleted because they do not have external sources. Can someone explain why a mathematical identity, such as "2x+2x=4x", needs a citation or why such an identity is labeled "vandalism"!? DavidMichaelFabian (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Beal's conjecture, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please go to the article talk page Talk:Beal's conjecture and discuss your edits. See wp:Consensus and wp:BRD. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Beal's conjecture. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Beal's conjecture. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVdm (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Beal's conjecture. DVdm (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for breaking WP:3RR. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Giant Snowman 19:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DavidMichaelFabian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I posted some formulas that come directly from me, are self-evident, and are verifiable (if you simply do the math). I should not have to cite a reference for "1+1=2", just because someone is too lazy or ignorant to do the math.

Decline reason:

however skilled you are at mathematics, articles here must be adequately referenced from reputable third party sources. And edit warring is never acceptable, whoever may be factually correct. you will either have to edit our way or not edit at all.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The missing reason is: "I posted some formulas that come directly from me, are self-evident, and are verifiable (if you simply do the math). I should not have to cite a reference for "1+1=2", just because someone is too lazy or ignorant to do the math." Peridon (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of us aren't mathematicians, and I at least take exception to being called 'lazy or ignorant' by someone who couldn't get his reason into the right place in an unblock request... I would suggest you have a look at WP:OR and WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following facts:

No matter how easy or how difficult it may be for someone to, as you put it, "do the math", Wikipedia policy is that we don't accept original research, and that any content which has been or is likely to be challenged or reverted must not be restored without references to verifiable and reliable sources.
Following Wikipedia policy is not optional, and persistence in doing so after being informed of the relevant policies can lead to being blocked.
You say that the stuff you have posted "come[s] directly from" you. At least once you also put your name in an article, stating that you were the originator of the work This not only means that you are using Wikipedia to publish original research, but it also suggests that you are using Wikipedia to promote yourself and your work. That too is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DavidMichaelFabian (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC): James, in response to your two allegations: (1) my post to the Wikipedia page was non-self-promotional (since I did not cite myself as the author), and (2) the so-called "original research" you mention is merely a couple math identities (just slightly more complex than "2x+2x=4x") and should not be considered as unverified or unreliable research, in need of a reputable, prestigious scientific review board.[reply]

And, yes, one time, several years ago, I put my name with my research results, which I had decided to share with the rest of the world. However, the post was tossed by a Wikipedia admin (who, I supposed, was just following some counter-productive rule, so I did not bother to object). I attributed the work to myself, simply because I wrote the search software and was willing to share it with anyone who wanted to verify it (not because I considered it to be an accomplishment worthy of promoting).

Apologies

Hi DavidMichaelFabian, I owe you an apology.

I was convinced that you were also anonymously vandalising as IP 84.135.*.* (see User talk:84.135.37.112). After I had reported ([1], [2]) that user for vandalism, assuming that you were totally unresponsive to the warnings, I made the wrong assumption about your identity and reported you ([3], [4], [5]). At the time when I noticed your comment here on top of your page, I already had reported you, and began to doubt, so I struck my last comment ([6]). By then it was too late, as we eventually both were blocked for edit warring. I should have taken a different line of action entirely. Please accept my apologies for assuming you were vandalising anonymously. I hope you stay at Wikipedia and will make good contributions to our math related articles. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm, I accept you apology; but I also owe you and several others an apology for my ignorance of how to use Wikipedia. I did not realize that you were sending me messages concerning your objections and I started suspecting that I was dealing with people who were just trying to annoy me. Anyway, I still do not understand why a mathematical identity needs an external citation. 05:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, mutual apologies accepted then. You can read about mathematical identities and sources in the little section wp:CALC of our wp:no original research policy. It's a short but very important section, and it takes many—if not most—new editors by surprise. I have put a big welcome-menu here on your talk page. It provides a way-in to the many policies and guidelines here. Enjoy, and feel free to remove the above sections with warnings and block notices from your own talk page — see wp:OWNTALK. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of animal names. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the source does not mention wildebeest. Read WP:SYN. You can't synethesize a conclusion by combining two sources to reach a unique conclusion, or combining a source and your personal knowledge to reach a unique conclusion. I don't think you'll have any difficulty finding a source that specifically mentions wildebeest. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]