User talk:CyrilleDunant

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

A good mathematical resource is also WikiProject Mathematics and its talk page. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov 17:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Cholesky decomposition
Hello. I am a bit puzzled by your changes to Cholesky decomposition. Why do you want to write A = LLT instead of A = LL*? Indeed, if A is real then L is also real and the transpose is the same as the conjugate transpose, in which case I can see that you prefer the first expression. However, if A is complex then this is no longer true, and you have to use the conjugate transpose. Or am I missing something? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * well, technically, A has to be symetric positive. so "pure" Cholesky decomposition is really "real". But a section saying the concept is extensible in $$\mathbb{C}$$, using the conjugate transpose would be good. Also -- but this is nitpicking -- this is really useful in numerics, and though you can make calculations on complex, you avoid them as much as possible for performance reasons... CyrilleDunant 05:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean with "technically, A has to be symmetric positive"? Why not Hermitian and positive definite? I agree with your last comment, which is why I didn't complain when you replaced conjugate transpose with transpose in the section on solving equations. There may well be a pedagogical value in first assuming that A is real and then extending to the complex case, but it seems you have a different reason in mind. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I must confess I am seeing Cholesky decomposition from a very numerical point of view. Which means that for all practical purposes A _is_ real (and symmetric and positive defined (hmmm, doubt on the english term... I mean "all eigenvalues are strictly positive")). That it is extensible to $$\mathbb{C}$$ is obvious if you have seen once in your life a complex. So if you feel that the T version is in essence wrong, well, revert. I don't care much :)


 * Since you seem to be knowledgable, wouldn't it work also with quaternions? CyrilleDunant 05:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll check some books first, just to be sure. I have no idea whether it works with quaternions; I've never used those. By the way, I'm one of those rare people who do use complex numbers in numerical computations. The English term is "positive definite". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, don't you get quite a performance hit? what do you use them for ? My "specialty" is FEM for microstructures, and I'm always happy to learn new efficient techniques...

I'm solving ODEs with a parameter which takes complex values (in particular, I'm not using the Cholesky decomposition). Of course it's more expensive to use complex numbers instead of reals, and as you say, you try to avoid them, but if the problem has complex variables in it, you have to use complex arithmetic.

I did mention complex numbers again in the Cholesky decomposition article, but the stress is still on real matrices. I am wondering though whether the Cholesky decomposition is used outside numerical analysis. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the latest revision. I think it really makes sense this way.

Eurofighter
Thanks for catching that edit. I'm sure the person has a genuine objection but in that case I can't understand why they wouldn't create an account and discuss it! It's not perfect, but as I said in the edit summary they are reputable sources. Thanks again. Mark83 15:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, it is clearly stated that the numbers are somewhat speculative. So the current setup seemed to me accurate and honest. So I reverted :) CyrilleDunant 16:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BAE released there first formal report today since the deal (2005 Preliminary Report) and it says:
 * "It is... intended that Typhoon aircraft will replace Tornado Air Defence Variant aircraft and other aircraft in service with the Royal Saudi Air Force. The details of these arrangements are confidential."
 * So I think the current format is the best we're going to get for a while! Thanks again. Mark83 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

US/British English - Airbus A400M
What on earth are you doing changing Boeing Integrated Defense Systems to Boeing Integrated Defence Systems? It is wrong in every way. Primarily of course because the first article exists and the second does not! Not a very productive edit in that sense. Also it is a company registered in the United States, so you cant just change it to meet your preferences, they could register as Boeing Integrated Defennnnnnnnse Systems and we would still be obliged to link to it. Mark83 11:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooops sorry, knee-jerk reaction -- actually, I wondered. Should have checked...:)

Mediation
The announced mediation, concerning the Charlemagne article, will take place soon, you are invited to participate. See: Requests for mediation

Rex 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
... for your kind words on my talk page, says Str1977 (smile back) 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for personal attacks and removing warnings for a duration of 24 hours#. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Will unblocked you after discussion here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Question
I saw some of your edits on other wikipedia pages. Just curious, what country are you from? Wacki 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "I am from Europe, and yourself ? CyrilleDunant 22:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)" I'm from the US. But seriously, what country (not continent) are you from? Wacki 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mayo
Yeah, you're right about the "properly" being POV, at least in one sense of its use. I was thinking more along the lines of it meaning "suitably" or "correctly" but now that you've changed it there's no question but that your version is better. In any case, homemade mayo is *great*! Bon appetit! Hayford Peirce 18:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Franz Liszt's article
Hi there, just wanted to say that was the correct flag for the Austrian Empire that you added, and my comment referred to the previous edit. I still want to keep it changed though, because many other people born in the Hungarian part of the Empire at that time are described as being born in Hungary, rather than the Empire, See Bela Bartok for example. Thanks for contributing to the article though. If Liszt or the article is of interest to you I'd like to know your opinion about the debates at the moment. If you were just doing a bit of maintanance that's fine too ;). All the best, M A Mason 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Veganism
Regarding the Crown Shakur case, I have edited the additions made to the Veganism article to hopefully provide a more NPOV. Madeleine 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a funny thing to be comparing. I don't mean to defend any POV in the article and I do think referenced nutritional concerns are a legitimate issue to address. Both this and the vegetarianism article attract all sorts of claims and POV statements from both sides, it's hard to keep it all neutral but demanding references helps some. Madeleine 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Tags
Without addressing whether or not the Veganism is POV or Misleading, it is considered bad form to remove another editor's template on an article, provided that editor is still a registered wiki editor and is available to remove the tag themselves.

In general, template tags are based on personal opinion, whether that opinion accurately reflects the facts or not is unimportant. If you disagree with a template, and cannot reach a compromise or solution with the other editor, there are a number of other methods which you can pursue for dispute resolution.

Revert warring will generally only make matters worse and ultimately end up with the article protected or with one or more editors being blocked.

If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

Peace in God. Lsi john 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Eurofighter Typhoon. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KTC 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lift controversy
Rather than edit war over the IP's additions (malformed as they are), would you mind joining the discussion on the talk page that I'm trying to get started on the subject? Thanks.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Steam House
A tag has been placed on The Steam House requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hammer1980 ·talk 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand your logic behind it, but there simply seems to be little information. The article needs more content and references. I cannot see a problem regarding notability. Hammer1980 ·talk 14:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding human embryonic stem cell research
Actually you have a valid point. You didn't undo my name section change, which is the part that was under discussion.

The rest I added as well as doing the name change which could be construed as an interruption to the equilibrium of the article. However the main point (but not the only one) that needs to made in this section is that not all stem cell research carries with it the inherent moral objections that are caused by the destruction of an embryo in embryonic stem cell research. I feel that the information I have added to the section fits well with the section and gives a reader a better understanding of the productiveness of embryonic stem cell research VS adult stem cell research. I am open to changing the wording if you are open to discussion of the changes. --Logiboy123 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN and Treaty of Lisbon
You do not own articles. Please do not revert edits to articles without discussing them on the talk page. -- Cat chi? 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits
CyrilleDunant, Why are you marking all of your changes as Minor Edits? As the Help page says:


 * A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit marked as minor appears on the right of a lower case, bolded "m" character (m) in the history.


 * By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word, for example, the addition or removal of "not", which can vastly change the meaning of a sentence, paragraph, section or article....


 * Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text.

Nbauman (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My major edits are marked major, my minor, minor. And reverts, minor, because they amount to no change at all.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From your user contribution page, it seems that all of your edits are marked minor, even though many of them are reverts or remove text.


 * But the rule is:


 * A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.


 * If you and I dispute an edit, it is clearly not a minor edit. And I do dispute your edit to Oncogene.


 * The help page also says:


 * Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule.


 * You've reverted many pages, and marked them minor edits. I don't understand your thinking. It seems to me that the rule clearly states that disputed edits and reverts are not minor edits. this edit is a revert and is the subject of a dispute between you and me. How can that be minor?


 * Help:Minor_edit also says:


 * Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text....


 * If you accidentally mark an edit as minor when it was in fact a major edit, you should make a second edit, or dummy edit, noting that the previous edit was major in the edit summary.


 * How can your changes to Oncogene be minor edits? Shouldn't you make a dummy edit and mark it as major? Nbauman (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because I have not altered the state of a page, simply maintained the status quo. If nothing changed, then certainly, no major edit happened. Reverts of vandalisms, I mark minor, because that way other users can filter them.


 * For oncogene, this is different, and if my second-to-last edit was marked minor, this was an oversight -- sorry. I still disagree with you though: it is for me more important to be correct than simple. And "DNA" is acceptable, I have no idea why "deregulate" isn't. (of course, technically, it really ought to be "disorderly upregulation of function" ;) ). Aside from that, you have repeatedly duplicated content in the page, which is a bit sloppy.CyrilleDunant (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow you. Since you want to be so precise,


 * First, the help page says,


 * A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.


 * and


 * Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor.


 * When you "revert a page back to the status quo," you're reverting, and "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances." So none of the reverts that you've done should be marked minor. Why isn't this so?


 * Second, the help page also says,


 * A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.


 * I dispute your edits. I think they violate WP:MTAA.


 * Furthermore, you've made lots of large deletions which could obviously be the subject of a dispute, like this one. The person who originally added it thought it was a useful contribution. You think it isn't. That's a dispute. You could be right or wrong, but it's still a dispute. Nbauman (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Stem cell
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You've been around for a few years, so I won't template you. But I'll ask you to re-read WP:3RR, WP:EW, and WP:CON. You're skating on thin ice. I will not hesitate to make a report at WP:ANI if you continue, even after 24 hours. Cresix (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Childhood's End
I've never seen the setting of Childhood's End referred to as "mid" twentieth century, only late as it takes place in the post-World War II era. What part of the book were you talking about in regard to the 1960s? Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Do you have an interest in helping improve the article?  There's some open tasks on the talk page that needs work, in particular the information about the themes, characters, technology, and the derivative works.  Let me know if you have any time to discuss it.  As a convenience, I've added most of the sources to the references and further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-nuclear movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fusion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for noticing my exoplanet updates (don't forget barnstars, I'd love one!). I'm working through a new system that should make it possible to update more frequently.  — Aldaron • T/C 22:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  10:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Explain
The reason will be an edit conflict type of situation. Note that there is less than a minute between the two edits on that page. Nothing subversive about it. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except, a mere user like me would have had to drop to edit, whereas an admin did not need to. If we are going to be extremely keen on admins not abusing rights, we should be consistent. In any case, I don't think the intervention will have had quite the effect its author thought, so...CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I fear you do not understand what happened. It is a technical thing and does occur from time to time. If it matters, it will be dealt with. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think this was intentional. I don't know either way. I should add that without looking at the database logs, neither do you. As an admin, sowhy might not even be aware of what happened, as his edit would not have been affected by the protection. Suggesting it's an edit conflict is taking me for an idiot, however.


 * But assuming what people know or not has been a recurring theme these last days. Also recurring is the addition of qualifiers somehow supposed to mask the insulting nature of the thoughts expressed. sowhy could have just intervened and said 'oops, sorry, remove the edit if you thing it's a problem' (which it's not), but no, making up excuses was preferred... In fact, that's what he did! CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop
If you think that I am harassing someone] then please report it at WP:ANI and let the community look into it. Otherwise, stop making what sound to me very much like personal attacks. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm only pointing out that according to your very own words what you are doing would be harassment/stalking were it not for the purpose of fixing articles. This indicates that you are aware that what you are doing is unpleasant for the recipient.CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you are doing more than that and I am fed up of it. You have come out of nowhere to support your mate Rama and are effectively acting as a WP:SPA in that regard/ You're entitled to comment but you're actually casting the same sort of aspersions, by manipulating things, as Rama was arguably doing during the case. It has to stop. If you have proof of me harassing Jesswade88, Rama or indeed anyone else then take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise, shut it before I take you there. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's another one of the non-threats? Even this arbcom, you'll have noticed, did not find that Rama was casting aspersions... You apparently are very angry that someone would quote you. But see, I have provided the link, and if anyone disagrees with my interpretation, then this is fair, equally if they do agree. Obviously you think that this quote of yours is damaging, and perhaps you could reflect on that. CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not harassing anyone. If you have the fucking evidence then I have told you where to take it. You haven't even read my above comment about aspersions correctly - I said "arguably" for a reason. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are so angry. You won your case against Rama after all, so you have obviously been vindicated. Of course many silly things were written... As for how Wade perceives the scrutiny of her work, I believe her more than anybody else, for who else can fell what she feels. So seems somewhat unhappy.CyrilleDunant (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

concrete microstructure specialist
which article? I will re-review it, but note that no one person can hold an article in draft, as any other review can decideto accept it. Most of us do not review the same article twice, precisely to prevent inadvertant bias and ohe mistakes.  DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Karen Scrivener. I can't very well touch the article because I know her personally... But it's a pretty shocking example of rules applied haphazardly (unlike the contentious article which started the latest arbcom, which is genuinely of debatable importance, IMHO)CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)