User talk:Sbb1413/Archive02

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sbb1413. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1861, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander II (check to confirm | 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) 11:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

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:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Senator2029 “Talk” 08:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Avoid birth and death date templates for Julian or Roman dates

Most, if not all, of the templates for birth and death dates emit metadata in the ISO 8601 format, which is always the Gregorian calendar. Thus these templates should not be used if the date is from the Julian or Roman calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm Path slopu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. PATH SLOPU 11:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

BC vs BCE

It is generally preferred to use BCE ("Before Common Era") instead of BC ("Before Christ"). The former is neutral, while the latter is obviously based on the beliefs of Christian religions. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi's post is not in harmony with the "Years and longer periods" section of the "Manual of Style" and the "Era style" section of the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" for the relevant Wikipedia guidance. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Those links do not contradict what I wrote. Moreover the second one says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In the context of a Wikipedia user talk page, statements would often be interpreted as advice on how to write Wikipedia articles, especially in the absence of any information about why the statement was made. In Wikipedia, it is not generally preferred to use BCE instead of BC (or vice versa). One or the other might be more suitable for particular topics. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

6.022 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 6.022. Since you had some involvement with the 6.022 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Roman numerals

Sorry but I had to rever your edits to the "rare variants" section. There is a big difference between the additive notation like XVIIII or LXXXXVI and the other "rare variants", The former have always been generally accepted as valid, from Roman times to this day, and occur in all kinds of contexts, from Caesar's books to modern clock faces. The latter occur(ed) only in very specific contexts (numbers of two Roman legions, books from Central Europe in the 1600s, etc.) and probably have been regared as "wrong" even by people who used "XVIIII". There is even one anecdote of a Roman stonecutter "correcting" IIXX to XVIII.
Moreover, "IIXX" for 22 is not a use of subtractive notation, but a non-standard case of additive notation.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my misunderstanding of Roman numerals. I want to say something:

Before I read this article, I thought that the modern Roman numerals would have a significant rule of writing any number. In my childhood, I wrote XXXX for 40 instead of XL. I also wrote

{\tfrac {I}{II}}

or I.V for

{\tfrac {1}{2}}

or 1.5 instead of S.

Once again, thank you! 😊

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 05:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi - we seem to have a little misunderstanding about the inscription on the north entrance to the Saint Louis Art Museum - which renders "1903" as "MDCDIII" nstead of "MCMIII" - the strange part of this numeral is the "DCD" bit - which means (in words) five hundred plus four hundred - a very strange way of writing "nine hundred", and well outside the "normal" way of writing Roman numerals (in so far as there IS a "normal" way of writing them). Multiples of "9" in RNs (9, 90, 900) follow the same pattern (IX, XC, CM). The footnote points out that the Saint Louis Art Museum peoples' version of "900" is equivalent to them writing "IX" as "VIV". If this is not clear - then perhaps we need to put it differently? Thanks for your interest in this article, but do try to master the subject matter before making changes, even if they seem to be purely grammatical. Best wishes! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

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:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 18:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not use the "edit summary" field (except Saturn I SA-1, Saturn I SA-2 &c.). From here, I will use that field!

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 04:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Mesoamerican Long Count Calender

The spellings you changed were correct. I have no idea why you changed them as you aren't using edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too lazy to do that!

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 04:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Then I would consider becoming less lazy as a service to your fellow editors. You have made a very large number of small but, on net, quite substantive edits on spaceflight-related articles lately, and they are much harder to review without edit summaries giving a view into what you were intending to accomplish.

Just leaving this here to encourage you to consider the entire community that is trying to improve Wikipedia articles as the encyclopedia of all human knowledge. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC) cc: User:Doug Weller

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Marcus Caelius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Centurio

Zarya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pirs

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Words with Ligatures – Edit Reversion

I have undone both of your most recent edits to List of words that may be spelled with a ligature (again), because they were, as noted the last time i had to remove 'pœm', wrong. Please check the factual accuracy of the information you are contributing before you commit your edits—it even says on that page, before the table, that aer from ἀήρ doesn't use an æsc! BenYaMan (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orbiter (simulator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries, you said you would

It's not that hard. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty please. Especially when you do a whole lot of minor edits in one go - makes a lot of extra work for whoever has to go in and clear up after you. A lot of people would just revert everything without a summary, but we want to be polite and supportive. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

More Roman Numerals

Putting this in a new section so it doesn't get lost - if you want to change the presentation of Roman numerals in the article then PLEASE bring it up on the talk page first - the template has been used for twenty years or more (long predating my editing Wikipedia) and has very seldom been questioned (and then on the grounds that it "makes editing the article awkward"). There has never been any question but that it makes the article easier to read, by making the Roman numerals stand out from the other characters. Not that this is "set in stone" - but it is a major change of a long-standing consensus, and should not be done without consulting other editors.
The other edit of yours is the "self-updating" template for the "current year" numeral. This is best left as it was (although, again, you are welcome to discuss this on the talk page for the article). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Soundofmusicals: - I've blocked this editor for 31 hours. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for failure to work well with others, ignoring requests and warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to do the right thing, but gradually failed! 😞 Not only here, but also on other places as well. I hope that, in the near future, I shall always do the right thing. For now, let me clear my brain.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sbb1413 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Douglas, I realized what I did wrong! I have understood my fault. For now, I will discuss major changes in the talk page. —Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block will only last another 14 hours. Once it expires, you will be free to edit again. Just keep in mind the reasoning behind why the block was issued in the first place. Sasquatch t|c 05:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

June 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Infobox unit/doc. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. It's possible that some of the changes are appropriate. I didn't investigate fully, as you added the removed "dimension = " parameter to the examples. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on! That is just an example to demonstrate the Infobox.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Your example fails, in a number of respects. As I noted, the "dimension = " parameter is no longer in the template or the documentation.

After some discussion, the name of unit is to be capitalized only if the word would be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Therefore

kilogram, not Kilogram

Hertz, not hertz (no, that was wrong both before and after your edit)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Why the parameter is removed in /doc? Is this obsolete?

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox unit#Deleting "Dimension" parameter. It was removed from the template, so it should also be removed from the doc. I'm not sure it was so removed, but it's gone now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please answer my question, why the parameter is removed in /doc? Is this obsolete?

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Infobox unit/doc; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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.
I'm sure you've read WP:BOLD. That does not apply to infrastructure edits, which is what you are doing in Template:Infobox unit/doc. Please stop immediately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Other errors you've made in both Template:Infobox unit/doc and in kilogram include:

The unit parameter refers to systems of units; U.S. customary, rather than avoirdupois (which, by the way,should not be capitalized)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions about how to use infoboxes. I have used a few while working on an India wikiproject and give you some tips/pointers if you have any issues using them in the future. Michepman (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Asian ancestry Wikipedians

A tag has been placed on Category:Asian ancestry Wikipedians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No more contribution

Currently I am deciding not to contribute for a week and discuss any changes in the talk pages.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Bible links in items related to Judaism

Soumya, I hope you will come back. We need people willing to contribute.

In general, in articles on subjects related to Judaism, we have preferred to use external links to the Mechon Mamre website, for two reasons:

We like people to have access to the original Hebrew alongside the English.
The translation used is the public-domain Jewish Publication Society of America Version from 1917, so it's a translation with a Jewish provenance. In many cases, that does not matter much. But in rare cases, it matters a lot, so we try to be consistent.

Wikisource has a full English version of the JPS 1917 translation (at s:Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917)), but only a spotty version of the bilingual Mechon Mamre project (at s:Bible (Mechon Mamre)). So if you feel the link must be to a version housed at Wikisource, please use one of those when editing a Jewish topic, and not the "World English" version. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought that Hebrew Bible means the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. Now I realized that is not always the case.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please leave edit summaries (as many others have already asked)

Hello. You have been asked multiple times already on this page, but I am going to ask again; please leave helpful edit summaries for your fellow editors. Having to review every un-summarised edit by a user one does not recognize and trust (most of the many millions) is a huge waste of time and effort. Just a short note about what you did would prove most helpful in watchlists and page histories. Please consider the fact that you've been asked to do this multiple times a good indication that it matters. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I sometimes have no idea what to leave in edit summary? However, I am trying to leave an edit summary.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for giving the issue some consideration :) The Help:Edit summary page is quite short and contains guidance on what to write, what not to write and why we should or shouldn't write it.

A simple rule of thumb is to accurately describe what you did in the most succinct way possible. A few examples:

After creating links to other Wikipedia articles: "wikilinking" or "wikilinked some articles" is plenty
After removing something dubious, marked as needing citation for many years, or similar sketchy content: "removed dubious/unreferenced content" perhaps briefly stating the specific concern by continuing with something like " regarding [the subject] and [how the subject is covered] in respect of [the concern]"
After removing or changing something in respect of a Wikipedia policy or guideline: "removed/changed/added/clarified [brief description of the specific content] in respect of [[WP:POLICYNAME]]" is good

Don't overthink it; a short note describing what you did is better than nothing. It is however important to be accurate and truthful; say less if saying more might prove contradictory or confusing. You can always add a link (in the edit summary) to a talk page discussion—which you can start—if the work you're doing to an article is too complex to describe in the summary and therefore might be contentious.

An easy way to train yourself into doing this habitually, is to visit Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and check/tick the box labeled "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary"; by this mechanic, we cannot forget to leave a summary.

Please feel free to ask about anything you're unsure of and I will be happy to help you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox rocket launch/stage

Template:Infobox rocket launch/stage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.