Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.
Hi, I noticed that you are having some problems regarding a specific contribution of yours that was deleted. I briefly reviewed Floor and ceiling functions, the article in question, and I think I understand the issue. It seems that the equation(s) you tried to include in the article are your personal work. While it's laudable that you are not seeking credit for your work, Wikipedia has a firm policy regarding original research; specifically, we are not allowed to publish it here. In order to be included in the article, your equation would first need to be published in a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed mathematics journal or accredited textbook. I hope this helps explain at least some of the circumstances you encountered. Good luck and happy editing, Doc Tropics22:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc. This is the kind of feed back I have become accustomed to in open collaboration projects. Reverting contribution without any explanation doesn't help anyone, and only causes problems like this.
I use Wikipedia a lot, but only just started contributing. I can appreciate the policy you speak of, and, though I didn't think it would related to an equation that would be simply verifiable, I respect it if it does. Reg Holmes (talk)
Reg, I'm happy if you found that helpful; I have to agree that reverting without explanation is generally counter-productive. We also have a policy here about not biting newbies and the treatment you got bordered on bad behaviour, but probably isn't worth making an issue of. If you have any questions or need help feel free to drop me a note by clicking on the word "Tropics" in my sig, it will take you to my talkpage. Also, note how I have indented our conversation by using the ":" (colon) in front of a new comment; this is standard formatting on talkpages to help make succeeding comments more obvious. The colon itself isn't visible on the talkpage, only in the edit mode. Let me know if you need anything else, and happy editing. Doc Tropics01:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Modulo operation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, or you may be blocked from editing. Nja24707:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, can you give me an explanation of where I went wrong? This general warning tells me nothing. Why am I being warned when I was the one who made a contribution, in good faith, and had my posts removed without reasonable explanation from the other editor.
If you have seriously considered the issue and applied this warning to both as a general policy, then this seems like the faulty public school policy that if any kids fight, they both get expelled, whether one was victimized and was simply defending themselves or not.
According to your policy, I had to wait until they exceeded the 3RRs before I could request your help. How can I handle this better in the future?
Well actually the template above explains it all, ie once you realise there's a dispute you should stop and talk to them to seek consensus. If that doesn't work follow the next step found in the dispute resolution process. Also requesting page protection in content disputes is a possibility. Good faith or not, do not edit war, otherwise you risk a block. Sides aren't taken in edit wars as the disruption is the edit warring itself. Also note that edit warring doesn't mean 3RR. Several reverts can be disruptive and be an edit war, which can lead to blocks. Nja24715:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This shows you didn't actually evaluate the situation. Once I realized there was an issue, I did try to communicate with them. Though I may not have followed all of Wikipedia's procedures correctly(I am a bit of a noob here), I obviously made reasonable attempt to communicate with the other individual, and followed what I believed to be the correct procedure to get help. I never asked an administrator to step in and say if my content was correct, simply to intervene in what was mounting to be an edit war that I was trying to stop.
I would expect that if someone objected to my entry, that they should talk about it on either the article's discussion page, on my talk page, or e-mail me (this is why I said to make my e-mail available). If the issue was minor we could leave the edit in place while everyone came to a consensus. If someone seriously objected or it turned out to be very controversial, then it could come down until the issue was settled. Please note Doc Tropics comment above, and how I responded to that. I also went to the Floor and ceiling functions and reverted my edits back out, once I was shown there could be a problem. I fully intend to bring up the topic on the discussion page to see if it would be agreeable, by the community, to put the equations back up, but that will be for the community to decide.
I'm going to be real clear here; I don't care about the warning. What concerns me is that another editor would so casually dismiss another editors entry and destroy it without comment/discussion and even refusing discussion.
However, even more concerning than that, is when an Admin doesn't take the time to understand the situation when asked for help, and simply issues a blanket warning. I think you need to review the page Please do not bite the newcomers which actually does put me in the right here. I don't think I can just do what ever I want and expect to get away with it, but I do expect to be treated as a member of this community; which means to be held accountable for my actions and to be protected from others who disregard Wikipedia's procedures and conduct codes. Yes there was a bit of edit warring, but I was trying to stop it by communicating with the other person, and then I sought help to end it when it was made clear that the other editor did not wish to communicate with me.Reg Holmes (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Modulo operation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, or you may be blocked from editing. Nja247 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)