User talk:Dannecoolboi

November 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Culture of Italy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Culture of Italy was changed by Dannecoolboi (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.912961 on 2016-11-05T16:25:50+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Hello I am trying to be a new and good wiki contributer but everyone I meet seems to be violating Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, Wikipedia:Be_bold, and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith! Also the user who blocked me seems to have been blocked twice for "uncivilty unbecoming of an admin".

Decline reason:

All of your contributions indeed appear to be vandalism. Can you show one which wasn't? Yamla (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hello, I am a new wiki user and I'm trying to be Bold (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold) and helpful but everyone I meet seems to be violating Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, Wikipedia:Be_bold, and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith! I was trying to insert a template that said 'this article needs expansion. please consider elongating it' and I come back a few minutes later and Cluebot NG has reverted my changes. I report it as a false positive and revert my changes again. I come back a few minutes later and Bishonen had blocked me for vandalism when I was only trying to be helpful. The user who blocked me appears to once be blocked by Jimbo Wales for "incivility unbecoming an admin" Dannecoolboi (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you, but there were significant problems with your edits that you should fix going forward. For example, here practically every change makes the grammar worse, at times even jumbling words. Bringing up issues in the history of the admin who blocked you also is not a good strategy; you should discuss your own conduct, not that of others. If the quality of your edits does not improve, you may find yourself blocked again. Huon (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can see your contributions, you know, Dannecoolboi. Here they are. They show you didn't in fact report Cluebot's revert as a false positive, so I don't know why you would say you did. But you did revert Cluebot, which is hardly ever a good idea. In any case, how would it be helpful to suggest Culture of Italy is too short? It's a very long article. And "elongate" was a joke, wasn't it? Also, for a new user, you are surprisingly proficient with templates and policies and their abbreviations. Is your previous account blocked? Bishonen | talk 21:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

As Bishonen said, after reviewing your edits, they appear to be a joke/vandalism. One edit could be argued as borderline good faith, but there are simple mistakes in it and I can't say for certain whether they were deliberate or not. Reverting ClueBot is not something you should do unless there was a clear mistake - you added a string right outside of the template which matched the vandalism filter. Bishonens block history is not relevant here because none of Bishonens actions were uncivil to you. Finally, your behavior and editing pattern does indeed seem to be that of someone trying to use a sockpuppet. I think this block should stay. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, ClueBot uses an off-wiki reporting tool. The report is here. Dannecoolboi didn't try to tag the entire article but rather a section that only has a "see also" link. That to me looks like something that may well be done in good faith. The remaining edit is more problematic, mildly put, but I'm not quite prepared to indef a new editor for one bad edit. (Adding the "CheckUser needed" template here is, of course, ... interesting.) Personally I'd tend to unblock and await further contributions, keeping in mind that good faith alone does not suffice - competence is required, too. Huon (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I have difficulty believing this is in fact a new editor, but I'll be glad to leave it to you. Feel free to unblock. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

First of all, I try my best to learn so I am not so bad at the templates. Second, I don't know why "elongate" would be considered a joke. Third, I try to be helpful; Cluebot didn't think I was trying to be. I admit I may have overstepped my bounds on the San Marino article since I am not particularly knowledgeable on it, but I am good with grammar so I thought I would try to correct it. Huon pointed out Cluebot has an off-wiki reporting tool which I used to the best of my ability. I didn't know that reverting Cluebot was not a good idea as I didn't see it on its user page. And Bishonen, I love to read; that's how I know policies and templates. Adding the "CheckUser needed" template was an idea I had because I had heard putting it under unblock requests might get more views since it would ping checkusers and that would mean more uninvolved opinions because how else would I find them. And as Huon and Dane2007 pointed out, there were good faith edits which invalidate the opinion that this is an vandilism Only account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannecoolboi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Both Tonelli-Shanks and Cipolla's modular square root algorithms can handle powers of prime modula (not just primes)

I looked up Dickson's History of Numbers vol 1 p215(Tonelli) and p218(Cipolla) and Dickson clearly shows that both modular square root algorithms can handle powers of prime modula (whereas the Wiki articles say they can only do prime modula).

I've updated the TALK pages of both articles with the relevant Dickson math, along with numeric runthroughs with Mathematica code.

However, I am not a professional mathematician so I hesitate to update the articles.

Perhaps yourself, or someone else in the Computer science field could update the relevant articles with this information from Dickson.

The articles in question are:

Tonelli–Shanks algorithm

Cipolla's algorithm