Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 22 March 2016

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)

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

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)

Joseph-Louis Lagrange

Did you even read the talk page after I reverted you again? Ten Pound Hammer • 07:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

April 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Publius Sittius is mentioned in ],<ref>Caesar Alexandrian, African and Spanish Wars, with an english translation by A.G. Way, M.A.,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• source|reason=the reference given is a preprint that was never published in a peer reviewed journal)|Date=July 2014}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Numerous sources disagree with you SpinningSpark 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

... 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)

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)

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)

Sapphorain, on Misplaced Pages 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)

In the English language, "vandalism" means "malicious or ignorant destruction" (Webster's). I was not aware that on Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please do not add inline icons in articles. The relevant MoS guideline is WP:NOICONS. --John (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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 20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 20:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 21:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 21:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 21:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, because of the enormous exposure they get here, much more than on any other language version of Misplaced Pages, exposure that in turn moves their websites closer to the top in Google searches. Thomas.W 22:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)