User talk:St.nerol/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia 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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jesus, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I found an entire article here on Wikipedia, about Jesus' original name Yeshua, and its pronounciation(s). It's quite well-sourced. Perhaps we can just let the name link to the article? –−St.nerol (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not cite itself, however you can start a discussion on the articles talk page and seek cosensus. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lambert of Maastricht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Lambert's Cathedral ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Lambert_of_Maastricht check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Lambert_of_Maastricht?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zero-based numbering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 0th ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Zero-based_numbering check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Zero-based_numbering?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Undo
What part of my edit do you not agree with? Ythlev (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should've left an edit summary. I'll write on the discussion page. St.nerol (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Alcohol
The article was correct before. Percent is hundreds; permillage is thousands. If you look at the cited source, it will give detail. MartinezMD (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on HEK 293 cells; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I twice added a "citation needed"-tag on a statement. Strangely, the first tag was removed with the motivation that it failed verifiability! –St.nerol (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got my diffs muddled. I agree that the failed-verifiability stuff is suspect. Hopefully this is now improved. Happy New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, you too! St.nerol (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Sushant Singh Rajput does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Diff:  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a friendly reminder to always use an edit summary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Togolese female singers


A tag has been placed on Category:Togolese female singers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A digression about (affine) permutations
Please forgive the following navel-gazing digression from our discussion at Talk:Permutation. I wrote the [first version of the] article Affine symmetric group. Like the symmetric group, the affine symmetric group can be defined as an abstract group, as a set of bijections from a discrete set to itself, as a certain set of words, and as a geometric object (matrices = linear transformations = geometry). In the literature, people dealing with only a subset of these notions choose a convenient-at-the-moment set of conventions to pass between them, but these conventions are not globally consistent (and sometimes the same authors are not consistent between their different papers). In writing the article I spent a really long time working out a set of conventions that would be simultaneously consistent with all these different representations. It was a lot of work for something that doesn't actually matters, and I ended up writing a short section Affine symmetric group about "switching sides". (Where, I notice, I used the words "active" and "passive" in a way consistent with how you used them in the other discussion -- so maybe there is something for me to rethink somewhere.) I think the article Permutation is also globally consistent, but it might benefit from a clearer discussion of what the alternative conventions are. --JBL (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Oh, and two further not-really-related points: I appreciate you pinging me, but I do check my watchlist regularly and the article Permutation is on it, so it's not necessary. And, if you get tired of interacting just with me, I suggest asking for a third opinion from WT:WPM. --JBL (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But I should ping you here, right? Thanks for the message, I appreciate it, and also the partial recognition that I'm not totally confused about passive and active! Now, I don't know which words to use for these things. But I would appreciate to discuss it a bit further once I have time to sort my thougts out. You have convinced me that there is no direct inconsistency in the article. There might still be something that's arguably wrong, or misleading, or contrary to what should be expected by common convention. I'll get back about it – if you bear with me. –St.nerol (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I am very happy to bear with you :). --JBL (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)