Kulprit001

Welcome!

Hello, Kulprit001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mersenne prime. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• With this edit, you have violated the three-revert rule. Would you like to undo the edit yourself and discuss the matter on Talk:Mersenne prime, to avoid being blocked? —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Mersenne prime shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ifnord (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kulprit001 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: ). Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Mersenne prime, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". That is in no way a minor edit. It had been undone multiple times by four different editors. You are edit warring to include an unsourced claim. Provide a reliable source to verify your claim or leave it out. If it is original research WP:OR it cannot go in the article. If it is not WP:OR then provide the requested source. Meters (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

okay then, since everyone else is so full of petty criticism, how exactly would one reference the basic geometry of a pyramid chart? which is universal?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulprit001 (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for what good sources are. Do you know of math textbooks and websites by established institutions, that state this fact? Those would be examples of reliable sources. Gap9551 (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I just created an app that uses Mersennes principal in solving the problem of spatially organizing an infinitely large, ever expanding unbalanced and balanced pyramid chart. I just thought it would be useful for anyone else seeking to solve the same problem to more easily find the solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulprit001 (talk • contribs)

We're not asking you to provide a source for what a pyramid chart is (although if you do need to actually describe what one is). We're asking for a source for your claim about how Mersennes primes can be used to analyse them. If an authority has has said this then provide the source. If, on the other hand, this is something you have come up with, then this is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. Again, see WP:OR. When your block ends either source it or leave it out. It will not go in the way it stands. Meters (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Kulprit001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19923 was submitted on Dec 03, 2017 09:42:26. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey people of the future, sorry for all this nonsense, but people of our time have severe learning difficulties. it leads to a lack of comprehension, an inability to read & an ineptitude to count. So as you can see, the truth continues to struggle to survive in the 21st century...  :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulprit001 (talk • contribs) 09:49, December 3, 2017 (UTC)

Kulprit, you've done an extremely poor job of communicating: stubborn, lots of shouting, lots of reverting, but almost no attempt to listen to what others are saying or to explain to anyone else what you're thinking. Your position that everyone must really know what you mean by the words "pyramid chart", for example, is just totally wrong -- I, for one, don't know what you think those words mean. (The thing I would be most likely to call a pyramid chart does not have 2^n - 1 of anything.) However, I have made a guess and written about it on the talk page of the article. Maybe when your block expires, you can join that discussion in a more civil, collaborative way and we can work towards including something. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)