User talk:WAREL

Dylan, you may want to check out the definition of decimal at Webster's online dictionary.

Also note that some people wrote that your links to the Japanese Wikipedia are not always correct.

I am sure you know mathematics, but I would like to ask you to pay more attention to what you are doing. A good chunk of your edits are not in the right place, and may be wrong also. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being so obstinate at real number. Look for instance at decimal, if you don't believe Webster's: decimal means base ten. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dylan, I removed your comment again. I don't think you read carefully the place you inserted the stuff at real number. The point of that section is about the reals forming an continuum. Insisting on other bases is just a distraction, and besides, the observation you like so much is a triviality.

Please understand, adding things in don't always make for a better article. Stop fooling around. More and more Wikipedians are noticing your erratic behavor. Please pay attention. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof that 0.999... equals 1

Do you have any evidence that Koji Yokogawa proved anything? Melchoir 03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In a now reverted edit at Proof that 0.999... equals 1, Warel gave this link to this PDF (in Japenese?): http://www.math.ocha.ac.jp/yokogawa/Lecture_Notes/kazu.pdf. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.math.ocha.ac.jp/yokogawa/Lecture_Notes/kazu.pdf is just a elementary lecture note for liberal arts. I think it is not notable.--218.251.72.210 14:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule

Dylan, per WP:3RR, I may block you for 24 hours for doing four reverts at Proof that 0.999... equals 1 (hist). I will not do it, but please stop reverting. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Sasquatch t|c 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The above block is for reverts at real number. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I counted 2 sets of WP:3RR. Can he be blocked for 48 hours? Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

why you renamed

Hey, you DYLAN LENNON, why do you repeat vandalism yet? Did you hope that you could cheat by changing your name? --218.251.73.157 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I too was able to identify the combination of persistent arrogance coupled with shallow understanding as DYLAN LENNON on seeing WAREL's posts. Wearing a mask is no disguise if you still act in a uniquely boorish way.Elroch 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting people's time

You have just made made six edits to an article on a topic of which you appear almost entirely ignorant, not even knowing the axioms for a field. As a result the time of several other people was wasted, reverting your inappropriate edits, with no net benefit to Wikipedia.

To blunder around in articles on topics which you demonstrably know little about is discourteous to the Wikipedia communitity and against the spirit of Wikipedia. This is intended to be a place where people who have special knowledge, provide that knowledge to others who don't, not a place where those who lack knowledge impart their errors and irrelevancies to those who do.

The problem with providing freedom, as Wikipedia does, is that some people will abuse it, like you. Again, Wikipedia articles are not there to be abused by people who have very limited understanding of the subject matter. 80.0.184.11 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect numbers

Do you have a citation for your change? I'm not aware of Nielsen having done that yet. JoshuaZ 21:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

WAREL, why are you willfully and repeatedly ignoring Wikipedia guidance that says you should only refer to papers in respected, peer-reviewed journals? It is unfortunate that the trusting freedom that Wikipedia provides allows you to waste the time of someone like Dmharvey, who is doing research in number theory.

Don't be arrogant, don't ignore what specialists say, and follow Wikipedia guidance.Elroch 01:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Koji Yokogawa

WAREL, I think you have been here long enough (as DYLAN) to learn some of the basic style on Wikipedia. I suggest you visit Koji Yokogawa and do some good cleanup, by comparing say with the article on Leonhard Euler.

Also please note:

• Must be algebraic geometry and not Algebraic Geometry
• After a period (.), you must put a space.
• The sections need to be done with ==Section==.
• The article needs a category, say Category:Japanese mathematicians.

Nice work is better than sloppy work. Thanks.

Note also that that article has been deleted before, and it may be again, if it is not notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)