User talk:Yanickborg

Welcome!

Hello, Yanickborg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to True length may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

For example, in a top view of a pyramid, which is an [[orthographic projection (geometry)], the [[base edges]] (which are parallel to the projection

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yintan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Time, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yintan 23:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to User talk:Yintan, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yintan 10:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time article

Hello.

Your recent edits to Time have been reverted. The current version, last edited by Pfhorrest, and Yintan before that, is a consensus version. Please see the talk page where several editors worked together and agreed on this version, which is supported by the references. Sorry to say, but one or two references that agree with "geometric and numerical" need to be provided before such edits can remain in the article. In any case, please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page because this article has been and remains a collaborative effort. Thanks in advance. Also, for more information please see Wikipedia: Five Pillars. I think this will be very helpful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring on Publius Enigma

Maybe it would be best for you to take a step back, and, before reverting any more edits of a Wikipedia admin (referring to Mindmatrix), do some reading up on how sourcing on Wikipedia works, because you have a lot to learn. You cannot add the statement that the band denied all involvement without a reliable source that explicitly says so. --SubSeven (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to lie on wikipedia, and I'm not going to back down. The Publius Enigma is not official band material. What do you not understand about this ? It's almost as if you're purposefully spreading lies and myths and misinformation on the Wikipedia. This is trolling and when admins at the wiki finally intervene, I hope you get a good rogering. Check out this website. It says explicitly. "In 1995 interviews by guitar magazines, David Gilmour denied it all, saying he knew nothing about the enigma until people began asking him. In a WWW interview in 1996, Rick Wright also denied knowing about it." http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/faq/question56/ (Yanickborg (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The article does not state that it is official band material, so I don't know what you are railing against. --SubSeven (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Publius Enigma isn't official band material, it only leaves one other explanation. A hoax. I would regard interviews where band members say about the Enigma, "no, that wasn't us" as about as official as it gets wouldn't you ? That's how the hoax was exposed. (Yanickborg (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The simple answer is that we don't know. The article did not make a judgement one way or the other when you intervened. You are trying to fix a problem that isn't there. --SubSeven (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include me in your "we". "You" admit yourself, "you" don't know. I make no such admissions. There were many problems in the article which allowed readers to draw the conclusion that the Publius' material was official band material (such as the misleading airship story). The evidence plainly shows the opposite (from interviews with the band) and there is no need in leading future others astray. I can personally assure you, this is the case. I'm sorry if you're hurt by this evidence, but you lost the battle I'm afraid. Evidence talks, and Publius walks. I suggest, if you or others wish to join mensa, you sit the formal IQ examination and make an application that way. Dreams and fantasies for a puzzle in The Division Bell won't help you. (Yanickborg (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Publius Enigma shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for 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. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been adding unsourced material and edit-warring by our definition. You need to confine yourself to the talk page right now. If you have specific problems with the version resulting from my last edit, discuss them, but you need to stop reverting/replacing. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, and your concerns are duly noted. My first specific problem on reading your edits regards mention of the Mensa society. The Mensa Society did not issue this as puzzle, nor offer any prizes to the effect. Yet, you removed that being mentioned on the page. Why ? This is the kind of misinformation that concerns me with this page. Would you really like to be known as the person who propagated a myth about an unclaimed mensa puzzle (and corresponding prize) which mensa simply did NOT offer ? I for one would not. Please do not tarnish the integrity of The Mensa Society with this currently libellous page and reprehensible hoaxer 'uncle custard'. It needs to be mentioned that there is no evidence or record of mensa having issued any such puzzle or corresponding prize for membership. The rules for mensa membership have been spelled out from the beginning. If one has what it takes, they should take the formal IQ test route, and avoid silly falsehoods. (Yanickborg (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits, specifically your comment above "this currently libellous page" could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've never made any edits about the Mensa society. You are confusing me with someone else. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]