User talk:Pbierre

Hi, Pbierre, and welcome to Wikipedia! You may find this welcome page helpful in getting started.

I don't know the answer to your question of why your origami trisection is ineffective, but I might offer a few tips on editing based on your first edit to trisection. First, as you surmised, something that specific should not go in the lead section--one should always look through the table of contents to get a feel for the structure of the article in order to decide where to place a particular edit. Also, Wikipedia uses a formal style, so the word "you" and the use of the imperative mood should be avoided-- thus for example "one does it this way" or "it is done this way" is used instead of "you do it this way" or "do it this way". Also, don't sign your entry in an article. (But on an article's talk page, or on a user's talk page, you should generate an automatic signature by simply typing four tildes (i.e., ~ four times in succession; the ~ key is in the upper left of the keyboard). And finally, anything you put in has to be verifiable with a source; after the period at the end of your entry, type ref enclosed in < >, then type the complete reference, then type /ref enclosed in < >. But if the entry is your original invention, it's not permissible to put it in, because it's original research.

A good way to learn how to do new things in editing is to simply find someplace in some Wikipedia article that already does it, click the "Edit this page" button, and look in the edit window to see how someone else did it.

Happy editing! Duoduoduo (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Point vector for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Point vector is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point vector until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Transcendence (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birthright citizenship in the United States

Hi. I had to revert (undo) a series of edits you made just now to the article on Birthright citizenship in the United States. The reason I did this was that material in a Wikipedia article needs to be backed up by references to reliable sources. Without citations to reliable sources, your comments (even if true) constitute original research, which is not permitted. Find reliable published sources, such as comments in legal / historical texts, which say the things you want to add to the article. Please don't just dismiss these words of caution and re-add your proposed new material "as is" (that would be edit warring and could get you blocked from editing) — rather, go to the article's talk page (Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States) and start a discussion on the things you believe need to go into the article. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Birthright citizenship in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. 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.

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. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice - American politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 08:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Birthright citizenship in the United States

The complaint about your edits has been closed with a warning. You may be blocked if you revert this article again unless you get a prior talk page consensus in your favor. You've already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS. When we perceive that someone may be on Wikipedia to advance a personal point of view, this fact may attract attention from admins. You are responsible for the neutrality of your individual edits. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

You continued to edit the article in spite of the above warning. You were told to wait for talk page consensus but there is no evidence of anyone agreeing with your change. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigration to the United States

Hi Pbierre, please refrain from making any additions to the above named article until you've read WP:OR. Part of your edit here [1] demonstrates a clear violation of WP:OR. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source, self-promotion

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Linear equation. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Also, please stop adding your own work to our articles. Your source is a wp:primary source and lacking wp:secondary sources, the content is wp:undue. Please quote from someone else's book, and mind edit warring wp:BRD. It is time to propose and discuss on the article talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]