User talk:Max Longint

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Whole number, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Whole number was changed by Max Longint (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951423 on 2011-05-06T18:29:39+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not ClueBot. This is CluelessBot. Max Longint (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole number

Hi, Max. Welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your effort at whole number 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, talk:whole number, and perhaps mention it at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics, given that the page gets so little traffic that your remarks on the talk page are unlikely to be seen by very many people. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Whole number with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Meph^talk 23:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, per WP:3RR, 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 whole number. 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 (CBM · talk) 00:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is how you treat attempts to add meaningful content to chaos. Max Longint (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "chaos"? There is simply no good reason to have a Wikipedia article called whole number, because it does not describe any nontrivial content not handled just as well elsewhere. There is a *page* called whole number, 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. --Trovatore (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Max Longint (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you both can use the article talk page to discuss the issue. I only come here, as a Wikipedia administrator, to point out that you appear to be engaged in edit warring 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 is to avoid that situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go and bully another person who reverts my new and referenced from textbooks text? Max Longint (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of wikipedia editing. Max Longint (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you have run into an unpleasant situation so early in your Wikipedia 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah? That's what I did. And I didn't find it pleasant, including your all smug, removed, 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 "removed" link redirect. Enough of this bickering. Consider me removed, but not your cousin, contrar to what wikipedia suggests by this stupid redirect. Max Longint (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was you who removed the disambiguation marker and replaced it with a stub marker with this edit [1]. Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is the place for worrying about that sort of thing. See also the dictionary definition [2] where the sense given here is the principal meaning. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I kind of agree that removed redirecting to cousin is silly. I think I'll list it on RfD. I can't see any good reason to wikilink the word removed; if someone does, having it come up as a redlink is probably the correct behavior. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Roy Jewell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roy Jewell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Jewell 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.

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. FiendYT ★ 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]