User talk:Linceo~enwiki

Agora
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Agora (film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The appropriate sources of the scientific errors of the film are in the whole paper of Kepler, Astronomia Nova, where he explains the reasons because he cannot use the equant with Mars orbits with Tycho Brahe data (and not with the Sun, like Hypatia in the film pretends).--Linceo (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
 * I have commented on the article talk page linked above. Please keep all discussion confined to this thread so that we don't have to fragment the discussion across three separate pages. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your request is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with an ORIGINAL RESEARCH, (1609 ?? ) it is SIMPLY WRONG!!  Are you afraid to tell that AGORA is an UNFOUNDED scientific history ? --Linceo (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Linceo. I understand your confusion.  Wikipedia uses the term "original research" differently.  Please take a moment to review No original research, and if that doesn't make sense, we can participate in a discussion over at the No original research noticeboard to clear this up.  I only mention this because the article talk page discussion isn't working for you.  Let me know what else I can do to help. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Dear administrator, my contribution about the film Agora (film) is systematically cancelled. I've not reverted three times the voice, as Viriditas says: on the contrary, I've been reverted. I've just answered to the questions posed in the   and cited the required sources,  but the request of Viriditas and Erik was a pretext to cancel my contribution and to engage an edit war. To have an objective Agora (film) voice,  each sourced  contribution should appear ad not cancelled--Linceo (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all it would helped had you linked to Agora (film), not to Agora. I wasted a lot of time trying to find relevant edits to the wrong article. You have inserted substantially the same statement, albeit slight differently worded, five times, as the following links show:, , , , , so I don't understand why you think you have "not reverted three times". Whatever the merits of your edits, Wikipedia works by consensus, and in this case there is a clear consensus against you, with several editors in agreement, and only you taking an opposing view. The policy on edit warring is (basically) "no edit warring", not "no edit warring unless you are personally convinced you are right, and everyone else is wrong". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson Thank you for the swift answer and for your patience.

Regarding your statement of a “majority consensus”, it could be dangerous, especially if people are not expert in this field:  majority could adopt a false idea and will never access to other opinions. For this reason, an “encyclopedia” should provide the maximum reference and not searching for the “mainstream statement”. The main point is that there is clearly evidence against the scientific point reported in the Film Agora. My little contribution was only to underline this fact. This is not a personal point of view but a fact and it should be reported. There are many books about the discovery of elliptic orbits. Briefly, I was asked to put a reference []. Then, I mentioned the primary reference. Apparently it was not enough: I was asked to put a secondary reference. Thus, I put a very good book on the story of astronomy. Everything was cancelled and I got an edit war. Please, be constructive and read again my discussion in the talk page and you will see that I have not revered five times, I was satisfying the queries made by  Viriditas and Erik.--Linceo (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Linceo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Linceo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)