User talk:86.24.46.135

Your recent editing history at Square pyramidal number shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Square pyramidal number

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:86.24.46.135 reported by User:David Eppstein (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

In my opinion this block is unfair. I tried to make useful contribution to the page. As everybody can see in the discussion page I tried to follow the useful suggestions from other people. First of all they said my proof was too long and I tried to make it shorter, after that they said a proof will break to flow of the page and I inserted an hidden expandable field (I am a wikipedia newbie and I had to learn how to write math, hidden fields and so on, I experimented before to save it as the guide suggest to do. I'm not an computer scientist, I'm an italian mathematician). the user David Eppstein, then, told me that hidden fields are deprecated, so I restored the shorted proof without any hidden field. They linked a page where to discuss about this proof, this page is WT:WPM, and I tried to explain my point of view.

All this can be checked on the Revision history of Square pyramidal number and the page WT:WPM. I feel this block unfair for many reasons. First of all, in my opinion, if an user observe that something is not good for some reasons could try to correct it, without removing it, explaining why it's not correct. In this way I and other people will learn something useful. In my opinion removing content without any reason is vandalism.

"In secundis" today, the user 65.36.92.133 removed the proof tagging it "nonsense". Why? What in that proof is a nonsense? Is the presence of the proof a nonsense? In my opinion a proof of the square pyramidal formula helps the user to understand where it comes from, moreover an agebraic proof is better than an induction proof, because the induction proof carries no information where the formula comes from. I reported a simplified formula from the Faulhaber proof (k+1)^n-k^n,that, in my opinion, it's too complicated for the aim of the page. I really would like to contribute to wikipedia and I had a rough start. I really hope who is entitled to remove my block will make it (The problem isn't to wait 31 hours, the problem is that my feeling is this block is unfair). Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you for reading.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=In my opinion this block is unfair. I tried to make useful contribution to the page. As everybody can see in the discussion page I tried to follow the useful suggestions from other people. First of all they said my proof was too long and I tried to make it shorter, after that they said a proof will break to flow of the page and I inserted an hidden expandable field (I am a wikipedia newbie and I had to learn how to write math, hidden fields and so on, I experimented before to save it as the guide suggest to do. I'm not an computer scientist, I'm an italian mathematician). the user David Eppstein, then, told me that hidden fields are deprecated, so I restored the shorted proof without any hidden field. They linked a page where to discuss about this proof, this page is [[WT:WPM]], and I tried to explain my point of view. All this can be checked on the Revision history of Square pyramidal number and the page [[WT:WPM]]. I feel this block unfair for many reasons. First of all, in my opinion, if an user observe that something is not good for some reasons could try to correct it, without removing it, explaining why it's not correct. In this way I and other people will learn something useful. In my opinion removing content without any reason is vandalism. "In secundis" today, the user 65.36.92.133 removed the proof tagging it "nonsense". Why? What in that proof is a nonsense? Is the presence of the proof a nonsense? In my opinion a proof of the square pyramidal formula helps the user to understand where it comes from, moreover an agebraic proof is better than an induction proof, because the induction proof carries no information where the formula comes from. I reported a simplified formula from the Faulhaber proof (k+1)^n-k^n,that, in my opinion, it's too complicated for the aim of the page. I really would like to contribute to wikipedia and I had a rough start. I really hope who is entitled to remove my block will make it (The problem isn't to wait 31 hours, the problem is that my feeling is this block is unfair). Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you for reading. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=In my opinion this block is unfair. I tried to make useful contribution to the page. As everybody can see in the discussion page I tried to follow the useful suggestions from other people. First of all they said my proof was too long and I tried to make it shorter, after that they said a proof will break to flow of the page and I inserted an hidden expandable field (I am a wikipedia newbie and I had to learn how to write math, hidden fields and so on, I experimented before to save it as the guide suggest to do. I'm not an computer scientist, I'm an italian mathematician). the user David Eppstein, then, told me that hidden fields are deprecated, so I restored the shorted proof without any hidden field. They linked a page where to discuss about this proof, this page is [[WT:WPM]], and I tried to explain my point of view. All this can be checked on the Revision history of Square pyramidal number and the page [[WT:WPM]]. I feel this block unfair for many reasons. First of all, in my opinion, if an user observe that something is not good for some reasons could try to correct it, without removing it, explaining why it's not correct. In this way I and other people will learn something useful. In my opinion removing content without any reason is vandalism. "In secundis" today, the user 65.36.92.133 removed the proof tagging it "nonsense". Why? What in that proof is a nonsense? Is the presence of the proof a nonsense? In my opinion a proof of the square pyramidal formula helps the user to understand where it comes from, moreover an agebraic proof is better than an induction proof, because the induction proof carries no information where the formula comes from. I reported a simplified formula from the Faulhaber proof (k+1)^n-k^n,that, in my opinion, it's too complicated for the aim of the page. I really would like to contribute to wikipedia and I had a rough start. I really hope who is entitled to remove my block will make it (The problem isn't to wait 31 hours, the problem is that my feeling is this block is unfair). Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you for reading. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=In my opinion this block is unfair. I tried to make useful contribution to the page. As everybody can see in the discussion page I tried to follow the useful suggestions from other people. First of all they said my proof was too long and I tried to make it shorter, after that they said a proof will break to flow of the page and I inserted an hidden expandable field (I am a wikipedia newbie and I had to learn how to write math, hidden fields and so on, I experimented before to save it as the guide suggest to do. I'm not an computer scientist, I'm an italian mathematician). the user David Eppstein, then, told me that hidden fields are deprecated, so I restored the shorted proof without any hidden field. They linked a page where to discuss about this proof, this page is [[WT:WPM]], and I tried to explain my point of view. All this can be checked on the Revision history of Square pyramidal number and the page [[WT:WPM]]. I feel this block unfair for many reasons. First of all, in my opinion, if an user observe that something is not good for some reasons could try to correct it, without removing it, explaining why it's not correct. In this way I and other people will learn something useful. In my opinion removing content without any reason is vandalism. "In secundis" today, the user 65.36.92.133 removed the proof tagging it "nonsense". Why? What in that proof is a nonsense? Is the presence of the proof a nonsense? In my opinion a proof of the square pyramidal formula helps the user to understand where it comes from, moreover an agebraic proof is better than an induction proof, because the induction proof carries no information where the formula comes from. I reported a simplified formula from the Faulhaber proof (k+1)^n-k^n,that, in my opinion, it's too complicated for the aim of the page. I really would like to contribute to wikipedia and I had a rough start. I really hope who is entitled to remove my block will make it (The problem isn't to wait 31 hours, the problem is that my feeling is this block is unfair). Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you for reading. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}