User talk:Sapphorain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

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)

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)

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)

… 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)

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)

Firouz Mirza Nosrat-ed-Dowleh Farman Farmaian III[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Clarification needed in Greatest common divisor[edit]

Could you take a look at this sentence? -- (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[edit]

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 [4][5][6][7] 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[edit]

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 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)
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)

Qajar dynasty[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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)

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 "" 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)
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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 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)


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)


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)

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)

March 2016[edit]

Information icon 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)

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)

Dubai Mall[edit]


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)

Four squares theorem[edit]

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)

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)

Infinity Symbol - Graphic design[edit]

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)

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)


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)

Salvador Dalí[edit]

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)

BC or BCE[edit]

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)

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)
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)

List of Prime Ministers of Iran[edit]

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)

Thank you[edit]

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)

"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)

Reversion in Legendre's three-square theorem[edit]

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)

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)
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/(4a × 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)
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)

Fermat's theorem on the sum of two squares[edit]

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)

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)
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)


Please, go to to understand who "really" is Vituzzu ( Vituzzu reverting BD for the 1000 time)...anyway thanks for your tentative to save information about Berytus, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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)
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)

Alfriston Revert[edit]

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)

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

Riemann zeta function[edit]

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)

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)

List of twin towns and sister cities in China[edit]

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.--xiliuheshuiMESSAGE BOARD 04:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

Reference spam on Switzerland[edit]

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)

Patrice Lumumba[edit]

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)

Swiss writers[edit]

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)

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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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.

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

Sister cities in Canada[edit]

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)

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


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)
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)