User talk:Sapphorain

Augustine Prevost

Augustine Prevost is born in Geneva, Switzerland from parents of Bossy, Geneva, Switzerland as Augustine Prévost.

Carella

Thanks for removing the reference to Carella's paper in August and for explaining why it is incorrect. I did something similar several months ago, but he did not understand about Omega and he put back the reference to his preprint. (Carella has many preprints on the arXiv claiming proofs of famous conjectures, but he has no published papers.) Jsondow (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent comments on my talk page. You are right! Jsondow (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carella has finally managed to publish a paper! It is "Least Prime Primitive Roots", freely available at [1] for downloading. Please let me know if you find a mistake. Thanks! Jsondow (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will. His lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 are very suspect to me. They are crucial in his proof, but he doesn't prove them. He just gives four references, not saying whether the lemmas can be found there. I haven't been able to find anything close in the Hardy and Wright and in the Tenenbaum (but my copies are of different editions with different paginations). I don't have the two other textbooks available right now. I will try to find them. Sapphorain (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest! For his reference to Montgomery and Vaughan 19, p. 55 see [2]. For his Hardy and Wright reference 11, p. 473 see sections 22.10 and 22.11 in the 5th edition. I don't have the other two references. I hope you can locate them. For Cojocaru and Murty try searching in [3]. Jsondow (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

… Well, finally I don’t need to check these references. I just realised his lemmas 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 are false, as they clearly contradict the Erdős-Kac theorem.Sapphorain (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Why not send the International Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science a note rebutting Carella's paper? Jsondow (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firouz Mirza Nosrat-ed-Dowleh Farman Farmaian III

Thanks for the feedback, I replied on my talk page. Feel free to make further adjustments in the article. --Bobak (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph-Louis Lagrange

Did you even read the talk page after I reverted you again? Ten Pound Hammer • ^(What did I screw up now?) 07:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed in Greatest common divisor

Could you take a look at this sentence? --50.53.60.41 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you grow up, open yourself a user account, and stop changing ip every day? Sapphorain (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand's postulate

What does your edit summary mean "No, Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, vol. 7, pp.17-33, 1850". Are you claiming that source does not exist? SpinningSpark 20:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud keep the conversation in one place.

No, of course not. (Sorry, I made a misprint in the comment). But the reference is wrong, the year of publication is 1854, after the french paper. Sapphorain (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources disagree with you [4][5][6][7] SpinningSpark 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All are modern sources, and all probably stem from the same mistake. Edmund Landau in his Handbuch gives 1854 for this paper (with pages 15-33), and he is known to be very reliable . But I will check tomorrow in our library, where we have Tchebychev's complete works. Sapphorain (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... I checked in Tchebychef's complete works ("Oeuvres de P.L. Tchebychef, publiées par les soins de MM A. Markoff et N. Sonin, membres ordinaires de l'académie impériale des sciences, 1899-1907"). The paper is in Tome I, pages 47-70; on page 47 the reference is given: "Mémoires présentés à l'Académie Impériale des sciences de St-Pétersbourg par divers savants, VII, 1854, p.17-33 (it is the exact same paper than that published in 1852 in France). So the year of the Russian publication is definitely 1854; as for the pagination, being familiar with Landau's precision, I strongly suspect he checked the original publication, noticed there was a mistake, and corrected 17-33 to 15-33 ! Sapphorain (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riemann hypothesis

Please avoid labelling as vandalism the cancellation of a paragraph whose content has nothing to do with the title of it. I have deleted it because, contrary to what is claimed in the text, the paper reviewed there has nothing to do with an attempt, of any nature, to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Just giving a further conjecture which would imply the Riemann Hypothesis is by no means a sufficient motivation to be called an attempt of proving the Riemann hypothesis, more especially if nobody has ever tried to prove that conjecture after it was stated, as it happens to be the case. Columns17 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works on the behavior of zeta functions inevitably have to do with the Riemann hypothesis. If the subsection is not in the right section of the article, then move it in another section. But when you unilaterally blank it, without asking for a consensus in the talk page, I call that vandalism. Sapphorain (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphorain, on Wikipedia the term vandalism is used exclusively for those who have no other intention than to deliberately damage the encyclopaedia. A removal of material can be vandalism, but you must not call a colleague vandal who removes material with a reasoned explanation. It does not matter how much you disagree with them, or if they were really wrong to do so. You still must not use such insults. An action by an editor with a history of good edits can, in almost no cases, be called vandalism. We assume our fellow editors are acting in good faith until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. SpinningSpark 17:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the English language, "vandalism" means "malicious or ignorant destruction" (Webster's). I was not aware that on Wikipedia only the meaning "malicious destruction" is authorized, and it is of course not this meaning I had in mind. Sorry. I will be more precise in my wording next time. Sapphorain (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qajar dynasty

Just a heads up, since you reverted Karak1lc1k's last edit. I found a journal source for Azeri Turkish and have added it to the article. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big oh notation

Hi, I noticed you reverted my 2 previous edits to this article with regards to abuse of notation. I think the abuse is quite obvious since the = isn't an equivalence relation. I also think it's good to remind people of this since it's quite frstrating to see = meaning element of, subset, equals all at the same time. But since you seem to disagree I'd like to know your views on this matter. Cheers! Smk65536 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an (old) mathematician, and I am used to the old school (Bachmann, Landau, Hardy-Littlewood) regarding this matter, according to which, in the expression "f(x)=O(g(x))" the symbols "=" and "O" are not defined separately. In this way I consider there is no abuse of notation, but just a different acception of the symbol "=" in this particular context. So it is quite sufficient to write in the article that "some consider it an abuse of notation". Because some others don't. Sapphorain (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity symbol and Möbius Strip

Hey why did you delete the paragraph explaining the relation between infinity symbol and Möbius sign? Nisankoc (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't provide any source proving that this likeness is notorious and widely recognized, and not just something that came up to your mind (which would be a personal theory). Sapphorain (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satrapi

Marjane Satrapi was a guest at Santa Barbara City College and invited by Prof. Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar. Asked by him about her Qajar lineage she said she did not know. First she claimed to be a descendant of Soltan Ahmad Shah, later of Nasser ed-Din Shah. Of both men we have a list of descendants in a registry of the Kadjar Family Association; she is not mentioned in it and her family is not known with the descendants of Nasser ed-Din Shah. When we asked her first cousin (Satrapi) about a Qajar lineage, he informed us he did not know of any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darakeh (talk • contribs) 07:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have already heard doubts expressed about her claims by some members of Qajar's descent I know. Nevertheless, things have to be done correctly: first ask for some serious references (here on wikipédia, and not at a private meeting!), and if those are not provided after a reasonable delay, then you can delete the whole claim. For this reason I am going to revert you again. Sapphorain (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what is the time frame we are talking about? I am the genealogist of the Qajar Family (Association) and editor-in-chief of Qajar Studies. It is annoying to have false claims, especially when a person claims to be your relative, while that person is not know in the family. It is nothing personal against Marjane, the opposite, she is a very talented lady; but truth should prevail! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:1A19:1:448D:B04E:CD7D:191 (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, and I am personally convinced her claim is unfounded, But still I would wait three or four months before deleting. By the way, if you wish to perform a thorough job about this matter it will take you some time: see for instance here. Well, good luck… Sapphorain (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the genealogy of the family on the websites referred to in the link you just sent ( Kadscharen website / Qajars website ) are in my hands. IQSA have had conferences held and annual journals published for the last 15 years. We have an elaborate family database, which is kept up-to-date constantly. In the board of the Qajar Family Association I am responsible for memberships and I have all the genealogies of the different branches under my care. Kindest regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:1A19:1:448D:B04E:CD7D:191 (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the problem here (policies on the German wikipedia are different: templates such as "citation needed" are not allowed). If no serious source is offered I will delete her. Sapphorain (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! I really do hope a serious source IS offered, because it is always better to gain relatives than to loose them .......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:1A19:1:448D:B04E:CD7D:191 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's hope so. Otherwise you will have to take care of this and this as well !... Sapphorain (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brillat-Savarin

Hello. You're free to add his burial place if you find a proper reliable source for it, but you cannot add it if it's only sourced to a non-RS user-contributed web site, a site that is also being actively spammed. Thomas.W ^talk 20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several pictures of his grave are to be found on Commons, like this one File:Père-Lachaise - Division 28 - Brillat-Savarin 02.jpg, used for instance on his french page (...and by the user you don't like, but who is perfectly accurate in this case). Sapphorain (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you edit the article, remove the link to "findagrave.com" and add the picture you linked to as a thumbnail image in the article, just under the heading "Death". Thomas.W ^talk 20:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. On my side I suggest you stop mechanically destroying information in dozens of pages, just because a source doesn't appear correct to you: check first. Sapphorain (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're reverting 50-100 edits adding spamlinks you don't have time to check every one of them. I'm doing this in my spare time just like everyone else here. Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's exactly what I am saying is not acceptable: reverting 50-100 edits you don't have the time to check. If you don't have the time to check, don't do it at all, it does more harm than good. Do something constructive, this is destructive. Sapphorain (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always check every single edit before reverting, to see what it is, and what I saw in this case was a large number of edits adding links to a non-RS website along with what in most cases was totally unneeded information (such as "place of burial unknown", "cremated and ashes handed over to family or friend" etc), i.e. spam. But it's not reasonable to expect that someone who reverts spamming should check if the more than 50 dead people whose articles the links were added to really were buried where the edits claimed they were buried, or not, as you seem to say I should. Thomas.W ^talk 21:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, you should. Simply because you shouldn't edit articles you are not interested in. Sapphorain (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that people should fight vandalism and spamming only on articles they're interested in. Sheeesh. There are about 5 million articles here on en-WP but only about 4,000 really active editors, each of those editors having only maybe a bit over 100 articles that really interest them, and with their interests in many cases overlapping each other. What about the other articles? Should we just abandon those around 4.5 million articles and let vandals and spammers do whatever they want on them, or what? Thomas.W ^talk 21:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant vandalism is one thing, and can I guess be reverted quite automatically. But you are reverting systematically edits that are clearly not vandalism, because your own opinion is that the sources offered are not reliable: this you should not do on an article in which you are not interested, and not willing to double-check. Because in such an article you are not competent. Sapphorain (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be aware of the level of spamming that goes on here, every day, all year 'round. Everyone wants links to their website on the English Wikipedia, because of the enormous exposure they get here, much more than on any other language version of Wikipedia, exposure that in turn moves their websites closer to the top in Google searches. Thomas.W ^talk 22:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Legendary"

Why did you revert the latest version on the Numa Pompilius page? It clarifies what legends it's talking about. Is there a particular reason you like the original wording so much? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the seven kings of Rome are described by historians as being « legendary », and this is pointed in their wikipedia page, because the informations we have about them are very scarce, sometimes contradictory, sometimes impossible to believe (miraculous feats). It has nothing to do with one or several particular legends. It is sufficient to mention what is attributed to him, without pointing that it is legendary, if one line before a link (which should not be suppressed) is made to the Roman mythology. Sapphorain (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange

Hallo, WP:OPENPARA, a guideline of wikipedia, is absolutely clear about the nationality that should appear on the lead.

"if (the person is) notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

Now, Lagrange became notable when he was still in Turin (the king of Prussia in his invitation to Berlin called him the foremost mathematician in Europe), reached the apogee of his fame in Berlin, then went to Paris, where among others he became French citizen. Notability was reached in Italy, so only the Italian nationality should be mentioned in the opening paragraph (not elsewhere, of course). I know that this rule is not optimal, but has the advantage to be clear and precise, and as a rule must be followed. In other cases (f.e. at Riccardo Giacconi, Richard Rogers, Andrew Viterbi) I had to remove the Italian nationality from the lead. If you don't like it, and want to introduce another rule (like the double nationality, which I can approve) please open a thread on the discussion page of the manual of style. Otherwise, at your next revert I will be forced to open a thread at ANI. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reproduction of WP:OPENPARA is dishonest. It reads: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." The interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange, and the best solution is to mention both nationalities in the lead. Sapphorain (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I'm distressed to see you jumping to calling a perfectly reasonable quote by Alessandro "dishonest" above.[8] Please show other editors respect . Bishonen | talk 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distortion or mutilation of a citation in order to make a point is dishonest. The observation that such a distortion was done, and that it was dishonest to do it, is not an attack, it is just … an observation. I am calling a cat a cat, and there is no way I will not mention such a fact just in order to be nice. Sapphorain (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Mall

Hi

Updated info rather than another revert. It's the world's largest by area, joint 18th (not 10th) by leasable retail space. Best, Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four squares theorem

The classical proof of Lagrange's sum of four squares theorem seems to be missing something. ie it contains "Similarly, for b taking ..." with no previous mention of b. A quick glance at another website shows more. Is there a chunk of text missing? JohnOliverZ (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, there is nothing missing. A previous mention of b is unnecessary, as its properties are introduced by the the sentence "Similarly, for b taking integral values between 0 and (p − 1)/2 (inclusive),…". Sapphorain (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Symbol - Graphic design

If you have a problem with the edits to the graphic design section on the Infinity symbol article use the Talk page to discuss them. Looking through your User talk page, I can see that you have been warned about edit wars before. Please refer to the January 2016 warning above. Looks like you have also been accused multiple times of being belligerent to other editors. Perhaps you should remember that Wikipedia is not just a platform for your own personal opinions. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal opinion regarding the graphic logos whose mention you decided to suppress. Thus I am not particularly interested in conserving them. But I was puzzled by your insistence in suppressing them, and by the very subjective reasons you invoked for doing so. I have no particular problem with these edits, and I couldn't care less if they are deleted. But I think you do care, despite not being able to justify the deletion by rational reasons. Perhaps you should remember wikipedia is not a platform for your own personal irrational feelings. Sapphorain (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dali

Hi, I've explained several times that the content you twice restored is a blatant copyright violation. I've requested further assistance here [9]. Please feel free to comment. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Dalí

Looks like you missed the link in the edit summary for the IP editors copyrighted content removal. It's pretty clearly a copyright violation. I've removed the content again. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about my revert. Best wishes. Waggie (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BC or BCE

Hello. I don't particularly care which era system is used in articles; but as far as I know, the constraints and terms of WP:ERA still apply. Could you please give me a link to the Wikipedia policy or consensus that overides it in this particular case? Thanks, Haploidavey (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The original article used BC. As you can check, several contributors have recently tried to change it to BCE. Very incompletely: there are 65 occurrences of "BC" in the text, and the last change only concerned 22 of them. Besides, it just doesn't make sense to have categories constantly using BC, but not in the articles. Sapphorain (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom expect categories to show that kind of common consistency; but thank you for explaining and justifying your reversion in more detail. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Iran

Hi, I want to inform you recently, I edited the List of Prime Ministers of Iran and corrected its mistakes. I hope you find it useful. Best regards. Shfarshid (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for being a hero of disruption, in removing perfectly neutral and most likely correct information, as you did in this edit. If we only had more editors like you, Wikipedia would contain so much less information, and wouldn't that be good? I haven't seen the likes of your edit in productiveness in the longest time. Must be hard, to be such an active contributor to this encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because there are no sources, doesn't mean it is not true": I must say I am baffled by this statement of yours. May I remind you it is the other way around in an encyclopedia: until you are able to prove and source an assertion, you are not supposed to publish it. You cannot write anything you please on wikipedia and then say: "well, if you don't believe me, find a source yourself. Otherwise, you will be a really bad boy if you erase my work". Besides, sources have been asked on almost every section of this article in March or May 2015, with no effect. Sapphorain (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion in Legendre's three-square theorem

The reversion was explained as "Hazy assertion, certainly inappropriate in the lead". Would you like this statement clarified further and placed somewhere else? Or is this article not the appropriate place to mention this? Thanks. --Fylwind (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unicity is indeed evident, does not need to be pointed anywhere, and certainly not in the lead. On the other hand the fact that the set of such integers has density 1/6 is not evident at all and does not immediately follow from this trivial fact, as the formulation "This means…" seems to imply. And as it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, it would need some reference in order to be kept. Sapphorain (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closest "reference" I could find is on OEIS: a(n) = 6n + O(log n). Proving that the density is 1/6 simply involves fixing a, noting that the density of the subsequence is `1/(4^a × 8)`, and then summing over all a (this is where the uniqueness of a and b is needed: to prevent overlapping subsequences), which leads to a geometric sum with value 1/6. Does this sounds sensible? --Fylwind (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to prove this density is 1/6. But the question to ask (and answer) in wikipedia is not "how do I prove this?" but "where do I find a reliable source in which it is proven?".Sapphorain (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fermat's theorem on the sum of two squares

Then perhaps you could have bothered to format it correctly, which was the first reason I reverted? Too much work, I guess. In addition, it is not a reference, and it is not a note, so why is it listed when no other specific proof not referenced is listed? If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the page on the proofs, not on the page of the theorem itself. And if it is added to the page of proofs, it needs to be summarized there, not merely dropped, badly formatted, into a random place of the article. Magidin (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. When I ran into the information the first thing I did was the obvious one: to look up the paper and read it. The first thing you did was to dismiss the whole matter for editorial reasons. I will include the reference in Proofs of Fermat's theorem on sums of two squares. Sapphorain (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the reference at the right place in the general page, and I included it also in the specific page about proofs. The format is perfectly correct according to standard good maths journals habits. If your first reason to revert a reference can in any circumstance be about formatting it, and if you are not even interested in its content, you might as well want to edit elsewhere than on mathematics. Sapphorain (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vituzzu

Please, go to to understand who "really" is Vituzzu (https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/4/42/Mewhenreadingstupidstuff.gif/revision/latest?cb=20051111042000 Vituzzu reverting BD for the 1000 time)...anyway thanks for your tentative to save information about Berytus, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.244.42 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, they just spammed the same thing in multiple locations and it didn't really seem worth keeping. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oho, thank you for your solicitude. But after careful consideration I think I will not delete this section. Sapphorain (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfriston Revert

I suppose you're too busy to ask for a source or just give me some time to give one. You've a despicable attitude. I'm sorry you've nothing more positive to do than removing things. Poor man, I'm really sorry for the vaccum you live in. BIRDIE ^® 10:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good day too. Please source your edits (with verifiable sources). Sapphorain (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riemann zeta function

You undo the change I did. However my change was not vandalism but a correction. Just look at Riemann's paper wolfram etc. Even in the same Wikipedia page the correct formula exits in the Mellin-type integrals section. I wrote the explanation in the "Riemann zeta function" talk page. Please return my change or explain to me what was I wrong about. Adikatz (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on the article talk page. Please avoid contributing to math articles in the future. It is obviously not your cup of tea. Sapphorain (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of twin towns and sister cities in China

Hello, there are more than 25 sources in List of twin towns and sister cities in China isn't in English. And a provision in Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia." I think the Chinese source is ok.--xiliuheshui※MESSAGE BOARD 04:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a Chinese source is acceptable: a great majority of wikipedia users of WP:en will not be able to verify it. It should at least be carefully translated, and labelled with a "better source needed". Sapphorain (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference spam on Switzerland

Hello. The material that was removed from the article does indeed qualify as reference spam for a number of reasons, ranging from containing inline external links that were neither needed (since we have an article about that subject here, see message on User talk:Jhansc) nor allowed here, to being added to a considerable number of articles by an editor with an obvious conflict of interest. So I suggest you trust the judgement of experienced users reverting material for being spam, even if it doesn't look like spam to you, because reference spamming is usually done in such a way that it isn't obvious to editors who look at only one or two articles, but requires seeing the full picture. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Lumumba

Just letting you know that the third opinion was officially dropped off at Talk:Patrice Lumumba. Perhaps this will help us reach consensus? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss writers

Fisrtly, it doesn't matter if it was Switzerland at the time or not — it matters whether it's Switzerland today or not. Secondly, Category:Male writers and Category:Historians and Category:Politicians are all categories that are required to be as strictly empty of individual articles as possible — all people in them are supposed to be subcategorized on some criterion or other, with the undifferentiated parent category containing zero articles directly. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But of course it does matter. With that sort of simplistic reasoning John Calvin would be considered a Swiss citizen, and the French general of the Napoleonic wars Edmé Nicolas Fiteau, who died in 1810 in the capital city of the French Département du Léman (which was Geneva), would be known to have died in Switzerland. There is besides absolutely no reason to consider Geneva as being naturally part of a « Swiss » or « Helvetic » region historically. Even during Roman times it was populated by Allobroges, and not by Helvetii. If there is no subcategory for historians or writer or politicians of the Republic of Geneva [fr], it it not a valid reason to put these historians or writer or politicians in a wrong category Sapphorain (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sapphorain. You have new messages at Axiomus's talk page.
Message added 11:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Axiomus (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sister cities in Canada

Hi. My bad. I published my changes because of an edit conflict with you earlier which added back some of the unsourced ones. Sorry. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? Please source all your edits. Next time I'll simply revert the whole thing. Sapphorain (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time-categories

Hello Sapphorain! Thank you for all the good work that you do. I saw what you wrote in the talk page of Marie Huber, and as I have seen that you have a very understandable feeling about these categories - I have some knowledge in history myself, so I know the feeling! - I thought that I should at least give you a reply. Please remember, that I do not say this to reprimand you in any way, or try to make you adjust to any policy whatsoever: I simply though to explain, and I hope that is quite alright.

In English Wikipedia, these categories are usually used to categorize in accordance to current borders and nationalities.

American people of the 17th-century are categorized as Americans despite the fact that the USA did not exist prior to the late 18th-century. Finland was only a Swedish province until 1809, but still have its own categories, because it is an independent nation now. Greece was not a united nation until 1830, but still have these categories. Similarly, Geneva may not have been a part of Switzerland prior to 1815, but because Geneva is apart of Switzerland today, Genevan people may still be categorized as Swiss, simply because we use the categories in accordance to current borders.

This can be somewhat incorrect, but the categories are made foremost to find people of history within current nations, and the result is that it is impossible to be completely historically accurate. The borders changed so many times on the same places, there has been so many states that does no longer exist, so many provinces that are not nations, and so forth, that it is impossible to adjust categories to all of them. The only solution is to adjust to current borders: even if that is also incorrect, it is sadly the best we can do.

If we where to be completely historically accurate, these categories would, in the end, have to be deleted entirely, because the further in history you go back, the more the borders changed. Further, many historical states have no such categories at all, because that would make the access to information too hard to find in a Wikipedia where information should be so easy to find as possible.

So the reason is simple: the more one think about it, the more one may come to realize, that one has no other choice than to adjust to modern borders and nationalities, because too adjust to the borders of history would in end lead to such chaos that the categories would have to be deleted entirely. That would be a great shame, because the categories are used for people who need to find people active in the history within the borders of present-day countries. That is, unfortunately, the only thing you can do if you want these useful system to exist.

I myself do not want participate in discussions in Wikipedia, so I to not like to press matters. I write this simply to explain, and perhaps be of some help, because I understand how this matter can make one wonder. My very best wishes, and keep up your good work, --Aciram (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aciram! Thank you for your comment. You will maybe not be surprised if I tell you that I don’t agree at all with you!

You write that « these categories are usually used to categorize according to current borders » . But this doesn’t seem to be quite true. For instance Schopenhauer is categorised as German, although he is originally from Dantzig (Gdansk), now in Poland (and it would of course be absurd to classify him as Polish). And for instance the people from colonial Texas and Mexican Texas are categorized as Spanish or Mexican, not as American (and it would as well be absurd to classify them as American (« American » meaning here of course « citizen of the United States)). For similar reasons I think it is completely absurd to classify as « Swiss » for instance a Genevan theologian of Calvin’s time.

I admit that it is sometimes difficult to be completely accurate. But I think you are being pessimistic in claiming it is impossible in all cases. You write that «  The borders changed so many times on the same places, …, that it is impossible to adjust categories to all of them » Maybe so, but certainly not in the case of Geneva. Indeed for 250 years it was an independent republic, and its borders didn’t change at all during that long period of time (longer by the way than the period during which it has been Swiss, which it has been for 200 years only!).

Besides, there is a big difference compared to examples such as « Greek » of «  Italian » : people speaking Greek have been called Greeks for several thousands of years; the Italian peninsula has been call « Italia » for nearly two thousands years; whereas nobody before the 19th century would have called « Swiss » a Genevan. Simply because historically there has never been a « Swiss » ethnicity. There were of course Helvetii in nearby regions (very) long ago; but they moved (very) long ago also, and anyway Geneva (« Genava » ) was never in their territories: it was part of Allobroges territories at the time of Helvetii.

Best wishes! Sapphorain (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of twin towns and sister cities in Paraguay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of twin towns and sister cities in Paraguay 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/List of twin towns and sister cities in Paraguay 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. —Bkell (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your blanking of this article to allow the community to determine if the article should be kept (with or without improvement) or deleted. Iffy★Chat -- 14:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. But if it is kept I will erase again the unsourced entries (i.e., most likely, everything). Sapphorain (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphorain, I think your point of view would be valuable in the deletion discussion, and I encourage you to post a comment there with your thoughts. —Bkell (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Your recent editing history 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 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Petersburg paradox

Hi there

I came across this article today and I spotted the flaw in the paradox. About which I posted an update on the page earlier today. You since deleted the comment.

Please explain why you deleted it. I believe my logic is correct.

Thank you Hylton Hyltonr (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Hyltonr (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The issue here is not whether your reasoning is correct or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a blog where you can discuss your own theories. Whoever Rottcher is, his argument can be inserted in a Wikipedia article only if it has been published by a reliable source. In mathematics, this means by a peer review journal, and in principle reviewed by the Mathematical Reviews or the Zentralblatt MATH. Sapphorain (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Lumumba

So a single unreputable source is ok? I thought things had to be factually accurate? Especially when the assertion is on someone's character. How can a non-reputable source stand, on any Wikipedia article, let alone a historic figure? The reason there is only one source is because the man's life has been documented thoroughly. This assertion appears nowhere else, but here...and it is made by a historical fiction writer, without any merit. It's no different than me making an "assertion" and putting it on my website and someone citing it. How can this stand? ...(p.s. sorry for the multiple edits)Justbean (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence carefully begins with «  According to David van Reybrouck ». The author of this book appears to be rather well known and to have been awarded literary prizes. Certainly the publishing company is not «  unreputable » , and nor is the author. That the book is « unreputable » is for the time being your own personal assertion, and you can certainly not suppress it as a source as long as nobody else shares the same opinion and publishes it in a reputable publication (which, just in passing since you mention it, can definitely not be a personal website!) If there are inaccuracies or uncertainties in this book, somebody must have expressed doubts about them somewhere, especially since as you point it « the man’s life has been documented thoroughly ». Sapphorain (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of sister cities in the United States

Can you explain why you removed Barrow, Alaska from the list of sister cities in the US even though it is listed as such on Barrow's and Ushuaia's pages ad on the official list? Blair277(talk) 15:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not directly sourced, as all the other entries are. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Sapphorain (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of twin towns and sister cities in Poland

You are deleted my contribution because source is in Polish (although many other sources are in Polish too but they still are not removed). There is nowhere any source in English in this topic (partner cities of Augustów). My source is from official site of this city's Town Hall. Why this is so unacceptable for you? KarolDz95 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is in Polish, at least please provide a direct link to the part of the site where the twin cities are mentioned. A link only to the general (Polish) site is not acceptable, because a user who doesn't know Polish will not be able to read the menu of the site and thus will not be able to verify if your information is correct. This is WP:EN. Sapphorain (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of those links was directly provided to parts of the site where each twin city is mentioned, you can check it. KarolDz95 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, my mistake. Sapphorain (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smederevo and Tangshan

See: sr:Смедерево#Партнерски градови and sr:Spisak pobratimljenih gradova u Srbiji#Smederevo

See also this:

• ПОТПИСАН СПОРАЗУМ О БРАТИМЉЕЊУ СМЕДЕРЕВА И ТАНГШАНА (cyrillic) / POTPISAN SPORAZUM O BRATIMLJENJU SMEDEREVA I TANGŠANA (latin) smederevskenovine.rs (in Serbian) --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for itself, (2) this is WP:EN : a source should be verifiable by an English speaking user, who is not necessarily able to read a text in Cyrillic. Sapphorain (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of the city: Потписан споразум о братимљењу Смедерева и Тангшана (cyrillic) / Potpisan sporazum o bratimljenju Smedereva i Tangšana (latin) smederevo.org.rs (in Serbian)

Official Facebook page of the city: Потписан споразум о братимљењу Смедерева и Тангшана facebook.com (in Serbian)

Ozvaničena saradnja Tangšana i Smedereva danas.rs (in Serbian)

Ozvaničena saradnja Tangšana i Smedereva podunavlje.info (in Serbian) --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last link appears to be an acceptable source (but its place is on the page, not here!)Sapphorain (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss engravers

WP does not recognise Genevan as a nationality. Any more of this & it goes to CFD, where it will certainly be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion is simply not true. You have for instance the "Category:Scientists of former countries", to which "Category:Scientists from the Republic of Geneva" belongs. Sapphorain (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We shall see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_10#Category:Engravers_from_the_Republic_of_Geneva Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (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. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about Swiss nationality at Jean-Étienne Liotard and other articles

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User: EdJohnston, of course I did edit-warring. But contributors need to be at least two for edit warring. I note that User:Johnbod, who did revert me first: [10], and reverted me then 3 more times:[11], [12], [13], was not blocked. May I ask why? I also note that edit warring conveniently continued then with the help of a very suspicious ip, User: 213.205.240.200, which suddenly awoke after only 2 contributions more than 5 years ago, apparently for the very purpose of reverting me. This ip appear to be in fact continuing edit-warring right now: [14], and it is very difficult for me not to suspect that it is Johnbod himself. Sapphorain (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mertens function and Farey Sequence

The Farey Sequence F_2 is (0,1/2,1) and the sum over F_2 will be (cos(0*2*pi) + cos(1/2*2*pi) + cos(1*2*pi) =1) which is not 0, therefore: Exclude 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_function

You are right. Sorry. I reverted myself. Sapphorain (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleusis-Gela

Sorry for interrupting but if you check the Gela article also, Eleusis and Gela are twinned towns based on their common history with poet Aeschylus.Thank you.Also please write a summary on your changes. AlbusTheWhite (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This twinning is not sourced on the Gela article, and (2) anyway, wikipedia is not a valid source for wikipedia, an independent source is needed. Sapphorain (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation directing to Eleusis official candidate booklet for european capital of culture mentioning that it is twinned with Gela AlbusTheWhite (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old links on List of twin towns and sister cities in England

Hi Sapphorain. Please could you be more cautious in removing sourced entries with out-dated links. Based on the URL and access dates provided, the original citations for North Baddesley and Plymouth were easily found on Internet Archive, so I've restored them with updated references. Even where this is not possible, the guidance at WP:BADLINK says "do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". Cheers, AJCham 09:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes I am sorry, I tried to be careful but apparently not enough. I'll be more attentive in the future. In my defence consider that I deleted nearly 100'000 bytes of unsourced entries in this page... Sapphorain (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sapphorain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva notable people reversions

Good evening Sapphorain Please see the talk pages for Geneva concerning your recent reversions of my edits

ArbieP (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in the Notable people section of Geneva

Good evening Sapphorain

Please see Talk:Geneva#Citations_in_the_Notable_people_section

Thankyou ArbieP (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva/Lausanne

Wow, you are still the most stubborn person I know on here. The same way as you did not accept your obvious error in the case of Lausanne you start now the same obvious stubborness even though I already gave you an undisputable source. You just need to read it - again! -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2019 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sapphorain reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: ). Thank you. ZH8000 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Geneva. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thanks

Dear Sapphorain,
Thank you for sending me thanks via the Thankyou button, for this edit. Your earlier revert prompted me to approach our colleague Robman94 for advice on how to upload a cropped/portrait version of the original photo. In his usual helpful way, Rob graciously took the initiative of creating a cleaner, portrait version of that photo and uploading it himself into Commons, so that all I had to do was simply link to it in the Robert Desnos article. Therefore, I feel all thanks must really go to Rob, and I have already done that; but I also wanted to thank you for taking the time to express your appreciation for my small part in all this.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 20:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who are you ? What do you know about Eduard Douwes Dekker ?

Eduard Douwes Dekker Multatuli was a free macon for sure. You might not like it but he was.

greetings J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might very well be right, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog: you cannot just claim he was a freemason, you must provide a reliable independent source establishing he was, and give it as a reference in the article. Sapphorain (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied now?

To my knowledge and experience: Wikipedia is just a blog, in scientific circles there is not at all that much confidence in wikipedia. Whenever some info is taken from wikipedia, you need to control it in many ways. It is just the fact: Wikipedia is made by lots of amateurs and alien sockpops. Why are not much people at wikipedia willing to show their real identity?

I have a scientific degree completed a study at the university, had part in scientific research for many years, and for Multatuli... in my house quite a collection of 19th century editions is available. Besides this I made a scientific edition of School of Princes, and more. Those were accepted by the Multatuli experts...

Dekker's father was freemacon in Surinam, the former colony of Holland, Dekker himself was familiar with this all, whole his life. Most of his publishers were active in as free-macon. The periodical "De Dageraad" was founded as such, R.C.Meijer, F.C. Guenst, Van Lennep and a lot more of Dekker's contacts were in this movement too.

Please, please, whenever you start a edit-war, you might take some effort in trying to get more knowledge about the subject.

another question: did you ever read one line written by Multatuli?

Best wishes J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you contribute to wikipedia as if it were a blog, you are completely mistaken, and should spend your energy elsewhere. The first fundamental principle of wikipedia reads « Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ». Thus every assertion should be correctly sourced, and the more so precisely because most contributors are not specialists. If it is not, it can be removed. If an unsourced claim comes to my attention I will remove it. This is not edit war, it is just regular maintenance. You may in no way invoke being a specialist in a subject in order to avoid providing reliable independent references to your claims. Sapphorain (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing it as a blog, but many users at wikipedia are buey in that way. Why are you busy like a sockpop ? Who are you ?

Greetings J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sap is right. But this is very odd. He just did exactly what he is here complaining about. I came to this page because of his doing so -- see below, at "Your insertion of unreferenced material in text".2604:2000:E010:1100:64FC:4B20:C241:B249 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are making a confusion between unsourced material and the lack of inline citation. It is not at all the same thing. When an article on a person lists two books devoted to the family of this person, it is not unsourced. Of course inline citations with paginations would be more handy -- and there is indeed a template mentioning the problem at the top of the page. Sapphorain (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making things up, let's look at wp policy. WP:Verifiability. It says: "Attribute ... any material whose verifiability is challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." It could not be clearer. 2604:2000:E010:1100:64FC:4B20:C241:B249 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luschny

Luschny is an amateur mathematician whose section of Bernoulli number entitled "Generalization to the odd-index Bernoulli numbers" should be removed, for the following reasons.

1. In the title, "Generalization" is not explained: generalization of what?

2. His sequence B_n is incorrect: the notation "B_n" means the usual the n-th Bernoulli number, which is zero when n > 1 is odd, but all the values of his sequence are nonzero. He needs to use a different notation, not "B_n".

Would you kindly remove this section? I am not sure how to remove it myself. Thanks. Jsondow (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are right, this doesn't make any sense. I just suppressed the section and we'll see what happens. Sapphorain (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jsondow (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of all US Sister Cities

You continue to remove my submissions however if you look at the annual sister cities report, all of thé sister cities I added to the list are recognized by Sister Cities International Lexingtonsistercities (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interactive list for the United States as a whole is not sufficient. You might as well give as a source for an article the Encyclopedia Britannica, on the grounds that all the assertions of the article are to be found somewhere there. Each entry, or at least each city, must be sourced individually, as it is done in the rest of the list. Otherwise anybody can add anything without even checking in the interactive list, and we'll very soon be in the situation we were in two years ago, with a mostly unsourced article. Sapphorain (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange's Lament

I see the original translation as losing context on the stress placed on 'their' disregard for life. Reverse translation shows lower vector distance in favor of the edit. I am aware this is not always a good indicator, and I apologize if it doesn't check out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.127.128 (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

\

Isabelle de Charrière Wikidata

I skipped by the second reference the Lumière website, because when read the website the source is HDS. That is double pointing at eachother. The first one hDS is than the source. Boss-well63 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a source were suppressed each time it uses another source, not much would remain. For instance Gemeisame Normdatei would have to be suppressed for most pages of Swiss people, as very often the HDS is its only source. Or, worse, Freebase would have to be suppressed in almost all cases, as its only sources are most of the time wikipedia pages (!) in various languages. Please do not suppress references. Sapphorain (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Christian Bønecke

Any particular reason why you undid my addition of a completely relevant category on Peter Christian Bønecke?Ramblersen2 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this one, I was too quick. But I think none of the other pages I reverted do mention freemasonry, let alone provide any source. And this type of category is not like a birthdate or a main activity, which are easily verifiable: it must be sourced. Sapphorain (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your insertion of unreferenced material in text

Material that is uncited and challenged is subject to deletion. You do not get to simply insert completely unreferenced material into wikipedia. This is basic. Please don't. --2604:2000:E010:1100:64FC:4B20:C241:B249 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd -- I see above that you wrote to another editor "you cannot just claim he was ..., you must provide a reliable independent source establishing he was, and give it as a reference in the article."

And yet -- you yourself, when you were apparently happy to do it, re-inserted into an article material that was unreferenced, and deleted for being unreferenced. So you appear to know better. --2604:2000:E010:1100:64FC:4B20:C241:B249 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not contribute to this article otherwise than reverting your unjustified deletion. You are making a confusion between "unreferenced" and "without inline citation"; this article is well referenced, with two books. The simple lack of inline citations does not justify massive deletion. Sapphorain (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? This is disingenous - after reading all of your above posts to others in which you say (accurately, actually) that uncited material is subject to deletion. It is. And that is what we have here. You are directly violating policy when you reinsert material lacking references/citations that has been challenged for its lack of such. That was the case here. It matters not one bit whether the material is one sentence or three -- you are just making that up. It matters not one bit whether the rest of the article is sourced, though the deleted material is not-you are making that up as a consideration, but it is not in wp policy. You are clearly not allowed to restore such deleted material without supplying proper RS support. Which you failed to do.

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability. "... any material whose verifiability has been challenged ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

It goes on to say "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who ... restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]".

It similarly says: "Attribute ... any material whose verifiability is challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)."

Please follow the rules of Wikipedia policy. And don't make up standards, as you did above, that do not exist. Sheesh - that's simply "WOW," given your discussions with other editors above. 2604:2000:E010:1100:64FC:4B20:C241:B249 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now, just relax, getting excited like this won't do you any good. I put some precise page references of one of the books in the sources. The other book is not available to me right now. Sapphorain (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mie prefecture friendship with Valencian Community

You needed me to revise this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_Prefecture It's not only a sister city, but sister regions in general. Aklearoth (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia is not an acceptable source for itself: you have to provide an independent source.Sapphorain (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Your recent editing history at Riemann hypothesis 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.

Frankly, it is difficult to distinguish your behavior there from trolling. --JBL (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Chebyshev's bias. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldbach's conjecture

I must have fat-fingered something on my IPad. It was never my intention to revert you. Terribly sorry for the inconvenience. Kleuske (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Thanks for the message. --Sapphorain (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Naruhito, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you erase the only unsourced sentence in the first place, instead of erasing the whole paragraph?! --Sapphorain (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article should be a biography of the man not a content fork of Emperor of Japan. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this man incidentally happen to be the Emperor of Japan, this small paragraph precising the very limited political role he plays appears entirely legitimate to me. --Sapphorain (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Served as" vs. "was"

Hi Sapphorain, I invite you to engage in a discussion at Talk:Calvin Coolidge#"Served as" vs. "was" to avoid further ping-pong on this choice of language. Let's see if we can develop a consensus through discussion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

If you have found better sources, good, but please add one of them to the article to back up your findings. Deb (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sapphorain (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Geneva

I dont think there are enough articles about Genevan scientists to divide into different sciences. You have left Jean-André Deluc in Category:Swiss geologists but taken out the 18th century. That doesnt seem very logical. Do you think its unacceptable to call him Swiss? He appears to have worked in Switzerland - and other places - not just in Geneva. As far as scientists go their place of operation is more significant than their place of birth. Rathfelder (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He his a very borderline case. If he had died before May 21, 1815, there would be no reason whatsoever to qualify him as « Swiss » ! Yes, he did work elsewhere in Switzerland, but as a delegate in Bern of one of the two leading political parties of the republic of Geneva at that time: « les représentants » (the other one being « les négatifs »). Afterward he even became a deputy in parliament of the republic (« conseil des deux-cents »). And after that (as soon as 1773) he mostly lived in England. So if it is technically true he was Swiss for a short time in the 19th century, the precision « Swiss … of the 18th century » is definitively false .--Sapphorain (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big O notation

Ask yourself, did your repeated pressing of revert, and doing nothing else help here? Please do not contact me further. 89.107.6.68 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Frances Bavier: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. POLITANVM ^talk 21:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description at Metonic cycle

I agree totally. The 40-character limit on short descriptions usually results in something that at best is so terse as to be pointless and at worst, seriously misleading. I have tried but failed to challenge this asinine policy, see Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 9#Length – 40 or 90 characters??. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that trying to be concise can be a fruitful exercise, as long as the result is understandable. I gave a slightly shorter shortdesc than before (48 characters). --Sapphorain (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Citation needed]

When you tag articles as [citation needed], especially articles that have already recently passed a Good Article review, can you at least put some effort into making sure that the footnotes already present in the article, immediately following the claim you are unsure about in the same paragraph, do not already provide a reference for exactly the material that you are questioning? Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2022 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sapphorain reported by User:2804:248:F666:900:44BF:96AB:C7A9:2D03 (Result: ). Thank you. Mr Eat (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Man in the High Castle world map

Apparently the creator of the map made a website explaining it, it is down but fortunately there is an archived version:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191202005150/http://www.high-castle-world-map.com:80/

What's your opinion of it? -- 2804:248:f65c:9c00:e9a7:78b:55e8:dd75 (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see no more explanation here than with the map in Commons [15]. As I already said, what I think is that this minutely precise map is plain original research as it is almost entirely speculative. Most of what it shows is not described in the book (Antarctica is not even mentioned in the book for instance). So it is not admissible by wikipedia standards. --Sapphorain (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check the sections:

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21] -- 2804:248:f616:f300:8d49:23c3:3eef:a4cd (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean. The 6 new links you just provided link to exactly the same map you already provided, which is also exactly the same map that can be found in commons, and with no supplementary explanation whatsoever. These « reasons » 1 through 6 mentioned in the links just don’t appear in the archived version I can see. In any case, this is not so important. Because what the Wikipedia contributor lambda who devised this map has himself to say about it is not the issue. It is only what secondary sources, admissible by Wikipedia standards (books, newspapers, articles, radio or tv broadcasts, etc), have to say about it, that can decide whether or not this map is admissible. If there is one such source, it should not be so difficult to provide, without resorting to archived versions of personal blogs. --Sapphorain (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why they're not appearing then. -- 2804:248:f616:f300:71b9:1415:8cdf:e453 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Geneva

Regarding this edit, the Republic of Geneva ended in 1798 (with a very brief reestablishment in 1813-1815). This person was obviously known as a Swiss theologian, not as a Genevan Reublican theologian. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that he was (infamously) already known as a theologian and preacher before he became Swiss in 1815.--Sapphorain (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bring the Jubilee

"Bring the Jubilee" is a U.S.-topic article, so by MOS:ENGVAR the spelling "scrutinized" with a Z should be used, not "scrutinised" with a S. Also, as you can read in other sections of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, British punctuation practices are favored in that quote marks are in their "logical" positions (not reversed with other punctuation marks), but American punctuation practices are favored in that the outermost pair of quote marks is doubled ("..."), not single ('...'). It would probably be best to refrain from needless commentary unless your edits conform to Wikipedia policies. AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Fine. But, dear User talk:AnonMoos, what I originally did was simply to restore a missing "i" in your misspelling [22]. If I am right, « scrutnized » isn’t correct, and is quite a spectacular misspelling in any version of English, whether American, British or Volapük. I deeply apologise for my additional and unintentional substitution of a “z“ by an "s“ (and I must admit I couldn't care less about American or English outermost pairs of quote marks). --Sapphorain (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prime quadruplet

Sorry about that edit.. I am apparently not awake yet. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Swiss mountain climbers

Hi Sapphorain, no problem with your revert on Jacques Balmat and Horace Bénédict de Saussure, as I did not know the issues around their non-Swiss nationality. However, they sit inside "Category:Mountain climbers" (and not in any of its sub-categories, so others may made the same mistake I did. You might think about making a new sub-category of Mountain climbers, or, leaving a note beside the categories to remind future editors of their nationality status. thanks. 78.18.249.143 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seventy-Eight, thanks for the suggestions. It is probably not appropriate to create "Category:Mountain climbers from the Republic of Geneva", as poor de Saussure might very well end up to be all alone in it anyway. There might be more potential in a "Category:Mountain climbers from the Kingdom of Sardinia", as during the golden age of British alpinism around 1840-1865 the Chamonix valley was still in Sardinia (but of course most of these famous climbers were British, the Chamonix people who climbed mountains were usually mountain guides and rarely famous: we would need to locate at least 3 of them with a WP page in order to start a new category).--Sapphorain (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... I found two other appropriate candidates and created the "Category:Kingdom of Sardinia mountain climbers". This is a little short but there will probably be others in this category. I am still not too optimistic though regarding poor lonesome Horace Bénédict.--Sapphorain (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riemann hypothesis

You recently reverted an addition to the article Riemann hypothesis. You were probably right to do so, as the wording was unclear and the sourcing wasn't great. But I believe the formula is correct and can be made precise with an error term rather than ≈. The W is Lambert's W function. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the redaction of the article in reference is so lousy and lacking rigor is appears to be unusable as such in a WP article. The authors ideas are very interesting and deserve to be studied and mentioned, but unfortunately we probably have to wait a few years for another article on the same topic, by an author able to clean up the subject with correct mathematics and clear notation. Please see a recent addition to Riemann zeta function, as well as comments on its talk page, on the very same subject.--Sapphorain (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I posted there to the effect that the result is probably not WP-ready. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of external links noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

@Sapphorain: Hello. I've noticed you have been recently removing the Category:American Freemasons from a number of articles, with the edit summary explaining that they were unsourced. I've noticed that a number of the articles you've done this with do in fact source the claim of the subject of the article being a Freemason. For instance, on the article Ben H. Brown Jr., the fact is sourced with the link to the Political Graveyard. Same thing with the article Frederick M. Alger Jr. Is there something I'm missing here? RoundSquare (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the remark. For Brown I overlooked the reference you mention, which is correct. I reverted myself. As for Alger, which I had considered earlier, the link points to another family. And apparently one needs to have a personal account to browse over this site. --Sapphorain (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sapphorain: I see what happened, the website updated and the link changed. Think used to direct to the Alger family, now it redirects to a different family. Here is the site I initially linked to. Also, you should not need an account to look at the website. Thank you for pointing this out to me, I'll update the reference. RoundSquare (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Nowicki

Dear Friend, it is stressed in Wikipedia that information should not be deleted. In case of doubt it is better to ask for a footnote instead of deleting the category, twice to that! If you don't know something, it does not mean the person who was adding the information did not know what he/she was doing. The entry has been expanded by the information in the text with two footnotes.

Ivonna Nowicka (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor,

Thank you for the references you provided.

But no, it is not «  stressed in Wikipedia that information should not be deleted ». What is stressed is rather that if you want to insert new information you should back it by some reliable source.

And it is because, after my first deletion in which I already asked for a source, you simply repeated four month later your unproved assertion, that I deleted a second time.--Sapphorain (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protestants from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging

Category:Protestants from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you disagree [23] with the decision to close by @LaundryPizza03: and seem to dislike the short hand used in category discussions. However, the discussion was closed. You should not have modified it. You are welcome to make comments on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). @Marcocapelle: do you know what should be done in a situation like this? Mason (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I have moved the new comment directly under the closed discussion. I will also defer to Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03: I guess the best is to reopen the discussion at CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bankers from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for renaming

Category:Bankers from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philanthropists from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging

Category:Philanthropists from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geographers from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging

Category:Geographers from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Merchants from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging

Category:Merchants from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates from the Principality of Neuchâtel in Portugal has been nominated for merging

Category:Expatriates from the Principality of Neuchâtel in Portugal has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Explorers from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging

Category:Explorers from the Principality of Neuchâtel has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neuchatel

A wider discussion has opened on other Neuchatel categories. You may want to contribute to that one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (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. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jean-Pierre Pury. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source

https://www.lfm.ch/actualite/suisse/record-de-temperature-a-geneve-pour-un-mois-davril-plus-de-28/ 2A02:1210:5408:A000:F460:21DE:ABB9:F447 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The table of values is presently sourced by a reliable official source, the Federal Office of Meteorology. But this source badly needs updating, and you are welcome to update it. Providing a separate, not so reliable source (in this case an automatic release from a small radio station), for each separate new value is not a good idea.--Sapphorain (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but many other media reported the same info. By the way, the official agency reported it on X. https://x.com/meteosuisse/status/1779502949305123128?s=46&t=V_g7GWZ6Ydxf0uTKcxqBZg 2A02:1210:5408:A000:8C99:9C13:D2FF:6CB9 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but once again, you don’t want to stick one (or several) new sources every time one of the 150 odd entries of the table changes. It would very soon become a mess. The updating of this table must be done altogether, all entries and relevant sources. --Sapphorain (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de France records and statistics

You have just contradicted yourself in your edit summary Yes, yes, II very well know all that, but the one and only point here is: if the young riders classification had existed then with its actual rules, then he would have won it. No more, no less". He would not have won it at the time as the rules were you had to be a neo-professional and Merckx was no longer a neo-professional. It says "actual rules at the time" but there was no actual rules at the time and the nearest ones said "Any neo-professional (less than three years professional) competed in this classification" It wasn't until 1987 it became its current meaning.

If you change the wording to "...existed with its current rules..." then I would have no issue. Paulpat99 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. « Actual » means « Existing at the present time » (Webster’s). Nevertheless, in order to avoid any possible confusion I interverted «  with its actual rules » and « at the time ».--Sapphorain (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Victor Constant de Rebecque

Hi Sapphorain, I just saw that you corrected the article name of Jean Victor Constant de Rebecque. I think there is a clash of sources on how to name the article. The Dutch National Archives names him "de Constant Rebecque". In Dutch historiography his last name is also spelled this way. I also found a contemporary document to provide clarity, his elevation in the Legion d'Honneur also writes his name as "de Constant Rebecque". Mathijsloo (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, it is true that various spelling for members of this family can be found all over Europe. However this article of the HDS [24] about the Constant family (Swiss from French origin, and not Dutch) clearly shows that the correct spelling is Constant de Rebecque (« Constant of the Rebecque estate »); the version «  de Constant Rebecque » probably comes from a misunderstanding of the original meaning of the name. It is very common but nevertheless erroneous. The HDS contains 6 entries on members of this family, all spelled « Constant de Rebecque ».--Sapphorain (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that originally the correct spelling of the name in Switzerland was Constant de Rebecque, but that does not rule out that members of the family themselves have started to write their name differently over time, causing the prefix "de" to move to a different place. The historical documents, such as those I have just shown, clearly show that in the case of Jean Victor his name was written as "de Constant Rebecque". In this way a new correct spelling of the name has been created over time. I understand the validity of the DHS, but you can't let it dominate when 1. existing historiography clearly writes a different name and 2. historical documents also write the name "de Constant Rebecque".

At least, both ways of spelling, could be included in the article. Mathijsloo (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in Geneva, and thus the spelling « Jean-Victor Constant de Rebecque » chosen by the DHS must be as usual that of his birth certificate, which if available should always be the reference for an entry on an individual. This can be checked, as all the documents of the old Republic of Geneva have been recently numerized and made available online (although not that easily since this type of documents was very far from being centralized at the time). I’ll check that when I get time.

But of course the other attested spellings should be mentioned in the article. --Sapphorain (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I was able to visit the Dutch Nationaal Archief, which helds the archives of the Dutch family members of Constant Rebecque. Between the archival documents I have found an extract of the birth registry in Geneva of Jean Victor de Constant Rebecque and this is exactly the way his name is spelled on this archival record. I have uploaded a picture of it to my personal Flickr. Mathijsloo (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Well, that's surprising. It would be interesting to know what the official documents say concerning the 5 others C. de R. that have an entry in the HDS, Adrien (1806-1816), Jacob (1645-1732), Samuel (1676-1756), Charles (1762-1835) and Samuel (1729-1800), as well as for Benjamin Constant de Rebecque, who shortened his name to Benjamin Constant (and not to Benjamin de Constant…). Except for Charles, who was born in Genève as Jean-Victor, all were born in Lausanne. --Sapphorain (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Davanloo

Hi @Sapphorain:, firstly, I have restored my edit to Habib Davanloo with one minor tweak – I have removed April 18 as a death date and instead put "c. April 2024" in the field for death. You claimed that he died in October/November 2023, but unless you have a source that states this it's original research and cannot go against the one source we have. "Recently deceased" also isn't appropriate as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, both as a style and because it violates "avoid statements that will date". Secondly, please abide by WP:CIVILITY. Your tone on the reversion of my original edit was rude and unnecessary. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jkaharper:. Sorry for being rude. I was a slightly bored by contributors (in other languages also) who repeatedly published the date of his death without any source. If you go into the history of the page you will see that the death is announced as being 14 November 2023. It so happen it is approximately true (maybe even exactly true), I know for personal reasons he died in November (but I have no source to prove it). However, you have no source either to prove it was "circa April 2024", so I replaced by "before April 2024", and removed also the category Deaths in 2024, for which you have no source either. --Sapphorain (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José Segundo Decoud

Hello Sapphorain, thanks for the heads up in José Segundo Decoud! Is there some directive or something else I can read about what categories need to be explicitly mentioned in an article's text and which ones don't? Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coeusin. Categories are parts of WP:MAINSPACE, and as such any category in which a page is placed should be verifiable within the page: a reader should not have to search elsewhere in order to ascertain the information is correct. Cheers,--Sapphorain (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]