User talk:CAPTAIN JTK

Archives

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ben Tapper. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. jp×g 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Hello.

In response to your warning:

1. I have made only 3 edits to that page, so the basic condition for WP:3RR is not met.

2. As per WP:NOT3RR, my reverts were efforts to revert clear vandalism as the IP was repeatedly removing sourced information from the article.

First, the IP removed content that was critical of the article's subject, stating that it was false and not fact checked, even though it was clearly sourced.
After I performed the first revert, the IP then went on to remove more sourced content, including another paragraph critical of the subject.
After I reverted for the 2^nd time, the IP then again removed the same content, stating that the issue was that the subject should be addressed as a 'Doctor', even though he is Chiropracter (not a medical doctor). But performing this edit, the IP again removed the criticism mention in the previous point. As they did not explain the reason for that removal, the edit summary was clearly misleading. So, I restored the said paragraph.
If the IP was only interested in what title the article subject should be addressed by, why did they remove two critical paragraphs without explanation, that too a total of 3 times? Why did they not provide the 'Doctor' explanation initially? It almost appeared as if the article subject himself was trying to remove criticism about himself (of course, that cannot be confirmed). Considering all this, I feel my edits were justified responses to clear vandalism & qualify for WP:NOT3RR.

3. I am also curious as to why this warning was issued almost 2.5 days after I last edited that page.

Thanks — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the bold text says in the message above, it is generally not good practice to undo someone's edits repeatedly without attempting to discuss it on the talk page, especially on an article whose history makes it clear that this is a frequent subject of contention. If you think the IP's opinion about the content of the article is obviously stupid, that should make it easier to explain your reasoning on the talk page, not harder. jp×g 02:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: My problem was not the title 'Doctor' being added. I am not related to the Chiropractic field & so I did not feel that it would be appropriate for me to decide what title professionals in that field should be addressed by. Hence, in my last edit (the one after the IP provided an explanation for the 'Doctor' change), I did not touch that content. I simply restored sourced content (the critical paragraphs) that was being removed without explanation, even after 2 warnings. Therefore, there was nothing for me to discuss on the talk page, since I have no opinion regarding what the subject should be called. Had the IP simply edited the 'Doctor' line while providing an explanation, I would not have edited the article in the first place. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is an even number of zeros 0 = 0 + 0 or units 1's?

Pattern of all even numbers is $n=2\cdot k,\forall k\in \mathbb {Z}$ , therefore $0=2\cdot 0\rightarrow 0=0+0$

Question: 0 is an even number of zeros 0's $0=0+0$ or 0 is an even number of units 1's?

Regarding article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero
188.208.126.211 (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@188.208.126.211: Sorry, I did not understand your question. This appears to be a technical question, and since I am not a mathematician, it would be better if you asked this question at the Reference Desk or referred some other reliable source. Thanks. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]