User talk:DeyaoChen

Vizing's theorem

Your recent editing history at Vizing's theorem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I'm assuming, by the way, that this anonymous edit is yours. You probably merely forgot to log in, but you should know that using multiple accounts or not-logged-in edits to create the appearance of multiple editors is strictly forbidden and, if deliberate, would likely lead to being blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That anonymous ip was not mine.

Heres the full story. I was talking to my flatmat about this, and he convinced me that it is true, which is why I said I was wrong and agreed with the logic. I agree with you and I see the logic now. You’re totally right. I went to university and talk to my other friend about it and he decided to revert the edit based on no original research. DeyaoChen (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also why would I apologize for being wrong in the talk page and then revert someone else's helpful edit in the first place? DeyaoChen (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm the one who reverted the edit you indicated. My opinion on this is exactly as outlined in the edit - the reverse direction is not in the source and not necessary for the proof. It shouldn't be included.

Singularities421 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)