| Revision as of 14:21, 15 April 2013 editWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,106 edits hose out← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:58, 16 April 2013 edit undoWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,106 edits a sarcastic edit comment here will do me no good, no matter how funny it is...Next edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| This page has been edited. | This page has been edited. | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I would like to get the page protection lifted from ]. To do that, I am asking you to agree to not use reverts to insert your theory that there is no such thing as a negative power factor into that article without a consensus of the other editors that you are correct. You can just put the word "Agree" in the edit summary when you delete this (signifying that you agree to not insert your theory into the article; I am not asking you to agree that there is such a thing as a negative power factor) Your cooperation would be appreciated. --] (]) 02:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : But I don't agree. I've explained this to death and no matter how many Fluke user manuals I see quoted, I object to the casual assertion that power factor runs from -1 to +1. My reasons are given in detail in the talk page discussion. Maybe Mr. McEchern will fix the IEEE standard this time to clarify this. --] (]) 13:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that you don't agree about negative power factor, and have read your reasons why you believe that you are correct. And, of course, it might very well be true that you are 100% correct and I am completely wrong. I am not asking you to change your position on the content dispute. I am asking you to please make a commitment to not exhibit the behavior that resulted in the page being protected. I plan on asking the same from everyone involved and, armed with that information, asking for the protection to be lifted. I am not even asking you to admit that you ''did'' exhibit the behavior that resulted in the page being protected. Saying "I never violated the rules on consensus building or edit warring before, and I won't violate them for the first time if the protection is lifted" would be fine. --] (]) 13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Noted. Still don't agree. Leave the protection on it. --] (]) 13:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:58, 16 April 2013
This page has been edited.
Talk:Power factor
I would like to get the page protection lifted from Power factor. To do that, I am asking you to agree to not use reverts to insert your theory that there is no such thing as a negative power factor into that article without a consensus of the other editors that you are correct. You can just put the word "Agree" in the edit summary when you delete this (signifying that you agree to not insert your theory into the article; I am not asking you to agree that there is such a thing as a negative power factor) Your cooperation would be appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- But I don't agree. I've explained this to death and no matter how many Fluke user manuals I see quoted, I object to the casual assertion that power factor runs from -1 to +1. My reasons are given in detail in the talk page discussion. Maybe Mr. McEchern will fix the IEEE standard this time to clarify this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that you don't agree about negative power factor, and have read your reasons why you believe that you are correct. And, of course, it might very well be true that you are 100% correct and I am completely wrong. I am not asking you to change your position on the content dispute. I am asking you to please make a commitment to not exhibit the behavior that resulted in the page being protected. I plan on asking the same from everyone involved and, armed with that information, asking for the protection to be lifted. I am not even asking you to admit that you did exhibit the behavior that resulted in the page being protected. Saying "I never violated the rules on consensus building or edit warring before, and I won't violate them for the first time if the protection is lifted" would be fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Noted. Still don't agree. Leave the protection on it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that you don't agree about negative power factor, and have read your reasons why you believe that you are correct. And, of course, it might very well be true that you are 100% correct and I am completely wrong. I am not asking you to change your position on the content dispute. I am asking you to please make a commitment to not exhibit the behavior that resulted in the page being protected. I plan on asking the same from everyone involved and, armed with that information, asking for the protection to be lifted. I am not even asking you to admit that you did exhibit the behavior that resulted in the page being protected. Saying "I never violated the rules on consensus building or edit warring before, and I won't violate them for the first time if the protection is lifted" would be fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)