User talk:2600:1012:A024:A5C0:5540:B7D8:4D6A:270A

Your recent editing history 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. JBL (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reinserting the same material; I'm inserting newly presented content. You're the one that keeps reverting everything. 2600:1012:A024:A5C0:5540:B7D8:4D6A:270A (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an aside posted here to avoid distracting from the main point in the ongoing article talk page.

I try to provide an addition of what looks to be obvious mathematical content, and I get reverted. I try to address the concerns brought up with the way my content was presented (e.g. "arithmetic series can be mentioned in 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... but inserting it at the very beginning is distracting"), modifying the addition to better address them, and they still get reverted.

I try to make other improvements along the way, but no one is trying to build and improve on what I'm updating; they just get reverted in entirety.

The whole premise underlying the argument against my edits is the assumption that the term "arithmetic series" is used only for the finite case (contrary to basically any other type of series). I say that this convoluted stance - as opposed to straightforward, mathematically valid stance of just treating it a type of series - is inaccurate, and bring up sources to back it up. But instead of conceding at this point or being satisfied with the information given, the stance is not budging and I feel like my work was a waste of time.

Basically, I am told what is wanted, but it feels like what is wanted is a moving target that's designed to always be out of reach.

I am spending hours of effort on making these edits and refashioning those edits to make them more acceptable and citing sources. And yet I am not seeing any effort or sources put in by those same editors that revert my edits, even after when I make my own request - how about you show me those sources that make explicit what you claim, rather than simply omit what I claim (which is supplanted by my sources that do contain what I claim).

So what is your solution here? To keep arithmetic progression article exclusively to the finite series (never mind that the sequence has both finite and infinite versions discussed), and not talk about the concept of an infinite arithmetic series anywhere, in either that article or in other pages such as an example of such a series? Because of the "it diverges" excuse? Is your stance in this so absolute that you are not willing to accept anything to permit otherwise? Discussion and consensus shouldn't mean a couple of editors should endlessly gatekeep content just because they don't like it, no matter what information has been presented to support it. 2600:1012:A024:A5C0:5540:B7D8:4D6A:270A (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]