User talk:Cblambert

Hello, Cblambert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all electrical engineering related articles.

We are just starting, so there are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; feel free to participate as much or as little as you like:

• Tag existing articles on their talk page with the {{WikiProject Electrical engineering}} template.
• Starting missing articles in the electrical engineering area.

You can use Outline of electrical engineering or Index of electrical engineering articles as a starting point.

• If you want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

SchreyP ^(messages) 21:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ads	file info – #246

Freshman404^Talk 10:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Welch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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) 10:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Transformer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QrTTf7fH -- QrTTf7fH (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sound good to me. I await your reaction.Cblambert (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reviewed and approved the article. You can check Talk:Transformer/GA1 for further details. Congratulations and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia QrTTf7fH (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The article Transformer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Transformer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QrTTf7fH -- QrTTf7fH (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is very nice. I will go over your Talk comments.Cblambert (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transformer, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the two basic transformer (pictured) constructions in common use today are based on designs described in patent applications from 1885? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transformer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! My name is Sunny and I am currently involved in a school project at Cornell University where we must edit a Wiki article with a group of students Kateheinle, Mzw3, The_Da_Crook, and myself. More information about the class as a whole can be found here. We had to choose a C-class level article and decided to choose Jack Welch. I just wanted to reach out to you as I noticed you had recently proposed a change for the page of Jack Welch. I agree that the "Opinions" section should be overturned and really liked the suggestions of making a "Legacy" section instead. So far, I have sources from various news articles and interviews from Welch himself regarding the controversial job number tweet, the future of GE, and the Jack Welch Institute. If you have time, please let me know what you think and if you have other ideas to improve the page overall. Thank you. Sjoo446 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I was wondering if you wanted to take a look at the updated Jack Welch page (especially the Legacy Section) for any suggestions on improvements? I liked the chart idea and was looking into it but found the patent list to not have much information, and opted for a different kind of legacy section instead. Sjoo446 (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Addition of Legacy section does indeed provides opportunity to characterized in more sober balanced manner. Proxy for innovation such as patents should ultimately be included. As retired electrical engineer, I nostalgically decry the flight of these former electrical manufacturing giants, GE and Westinghouse, to services including especially financial services. And, in Westinghouse's case, to near bankruptcy and irrelevancy. George Westinghouse and Charles Steinmetz must be rolling in their tombs in disgust. The new electrical manufacturing giants, Siemens, ABB, Toshiba, are all based in Europe or Japan and are all doing very well sticking to the electrical engineering/manufacturing knitting. Jack Welch made a lot of shareholders rich but he turned GE in a soulless organization. Pity.Cblambert (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for all your help and contributions! Sadly, we only have this week to make more changes to the page for our class project, but we will definitely consider all of your additional input. Sjoo446 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template: Transformer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template: Transformer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cblambert. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Template: Transformer".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you have been active in electrical engineering topics, including GA at Transformer and this article (which you have edited/removed advertising) heavily). Can you take a look at this article as I have a concern that I'm not knowledgeable enough to resolve?

My concern is that - probably quite unintentionally by its authors - the article tone comes over (on the surface) to be generally skewed towards promoting these devices, or making them sound desirable or a significant opportunity, rather than merely factual info about that topic. For example -

• Introduction: VFDs' global market penetration... is still relatively small. That lack of penetration highlights significant ... opportunities
• Benefits: In the United States, an estimated 60-65% of electrical energy is used to supply motors ... Eighteen percent of the energy used in the 40 million motors in the U.S. could be saved by ... improvement technologies such as VFDs
• Benefits: Only about 3% of the total installed base of AC motors are provided with AC drives. However, it is estimated that drive technology is adopted in as many as 30-40% of all newly installed motors.
• At that point there's a table - but it's not of VFD's specifically, but of general motor installations (presumably to show VFD conversion opportunity?)

I wonder whether these aspects of the topic can be better covered under a section "VFD market and adoption" - they are relevant to the topic, but placed as they are, it comes over as pushing this angle rather than providing encyclopedic coverage. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was accepted as a GA with this tone. I do not interpret the tone to be skewed or promoting in any special way. VFDs bring about inherently superior economical advantages over fixed-speed drives or mechanical drives, which the article needs to place in perspective the state of the art facts in the revolutionary on-going displacement of variable-frequency drives by many other types of drives. Cblambert (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to your edits in Expanded Leakage Factor Section (no longer called that). Seem to be without references. I presume that you have the reference. Perhaps you can look. Constant314 (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored multiple-equation derivation expressions along with Expanded Leakage Factor Ratio section. This section has two Hameyer 2001 citations and associated reference in Bibliography. I consider these restored multiple-equation derivation expressions and Hameyer citations to be deductively adequate. Hameyer reference used to be available online but his credentials are impressively authoritative .Cblambert (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually recalled section as Refined leakage flux ratio.Cblambert (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have lastly recalled section as Refined leakage factor.Cblambert (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two equations need a few words of explanation, I think

σ_P = Φ_P^σ/Φ_M

σ_S = Φ_S^σ'/Φ_M

Since Φ_M is a function of both primary and secondary currents, it would seem that σ_P and σ_S are dynamical variables. Perhaps is σ_P defined under the condition that the secondary is open circuited and σ_S defined under the condition that the primary is open circuited?

It has been a while. Let me reconstruct the crime before replying.Cblambert (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since, we say 'Therefore, even if the secondary winding current changes due to the load, ΦM does not change significantly. On the other hand, Φσ varies in proportion to the secondary winding current', Φ_M is considered to be a constant, and equations

σ_P = Φ_P^σ/Φ_M

σ_S = Φ_S^σ'/Φ_M

apply without, in my view, needing further comment.Cblambert (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question it, respectfully, on several points.

• The justifying sentence was only added recently by an IP editor today and based, I think, only on his intuition rather than on a reliable source. It did not come from you previously so I doubt that it came from Hameyer.
• Its not true. Φ_M is a sinusoidal varying quantity. Its RMS value may be relatively constant under normal conditions. At the very least, this needs to be clarified.
• The statement might be true, in the RMS sense, on a distribution transformer used under its intended load, but would not be true under heavy secondary loading or a short circuit.
• Even if Φ_M is relatively constant, σ_S = Φ_S^σ'/Φ_M is still a dynamic quantity and my impression is that σ_S is a design constant. By its very name, it is a factor which suggests that it is not a time dependent variable.
• Your previous form of these equations were this:

σ_P = Φ_P^σ/Φ_M = L_P^σ/L_M

σ_S = Φ_S^σ'/Φ_M = L_S^σ'/L_M

The rightmost form in each equation is a constant rather than a time or load dependent expression. However, it sort of makes sense if Φ_P^σ and Φ_M in the first equation are RMS values defined when the secondary current is zero (secondary open circuit) and Φ_S^σ' and Φ_M in the second equation are RMS values defined when the primary current is zero (primary open circuit).

I do not doubt the authority of Hameyer but I suggest that perhaps Hameyer had some definitions that would make this all make sense. Do you no longer have access to Hameyer? Constant314 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the drawing board. Hameyer had excellent treatment available online but I must have taken it off due to Wikipedia popularity or something. The Circle Diagram may provides similar insights. Leave it with me a bit more. Otherwise, may need to come up with other supporting references.Cblambert (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I don't see a problem, as we have at beginning the simplified derivation for leakage factor or Heyland factor given by,

${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {M^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}}}=1-k^{2}={\frac {L_{sc}}{L_{oc}}}={\frac {L_{sc}^{sec}}{L_{P}}}={\frac {L_{sc}^{pri}}{L_{S}}}={\frac {i_{oc}}{i_{sc}}}}$.

This simplified leakage factor can by definition be further derived to give the more refined result:

${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {M^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}}}=1-{\frac {a^{2}M^{2}}{L_{P}a^{2}L_{S}}}=1-{\frac {L_{M}^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}^{\prime }}}=1-{\frac {1}{{\frac {L_{P}}{L_{M}}}.{\frac {L_{S}^{\prime }}{L_{M}}}}}=1-{\frac {1}{(1+\sigma _{P})(1+\sigma _{S})}}}$.

The refined leakage factor end result could I suppose be explained but this is optional as it is after all an end result. Maybe we could come with an explanation filling the gap between refined leakage factor end result and refined factor end result explanation but a definition is simply that - a definition.Cblambert (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are commenting on the incorrect page. You need to put any further comments about this GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1. Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1 is out of process and actually should not exist, I have nominated it for deletion. I probably should have CSD'ed it, but couldn't quite figure out which category to put it in. Shearonink (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to withdraw my MFD for the Wikipedia TALK page, the GAR discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transformer/1. Please stop posting on the WP Talk page. Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I restored the original spelling here as the combined terms are a proper way to spell them (including on their Wikipedia articles). If I'm missing something please let me know.

Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Reverso does not recognize sandplain or steamboat but I am ok with combining.Cblambert (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cblambert. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Giffard de Moncel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autheuil (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) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C, and thanks for your attention to the Perche article. I noticed you changed my correction back on Comte/Comté. Just wanted to make sure you knew the difference between the two terms; that comte means count or earl, while comté means county or earldom (or tasty cheese) -- (see defs here). I thought I was fixing a typo when I made my change, because I thought it read better with a count governing a region rather than a county doing so. Eric ^talk 22:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, maintenant je comprends! Vous vous êtes révélé en tant que francophone d'origine! Donc je vous rappelle: le français actuel veut dire anglais current ou modern-day. Et une question, si je peux me permettre, concernant vos résumés de modification: Qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire en écrivant "show as"? Eric ^talk 00:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show as = ~ reads.

Mes ancêtres percherons qui ont émigré vers le Canada au XVIIe siècle comprennent:

• l'ancêtre Lambert (de mon père) né à Tourouvre au Perche
• l'ancêtre Trudel (de ma mère) né à Parfondeval au Perche
• l'ancêtre Garnier (de mon arrière-grandmère paternelle) né à Saint-Cosme-de-Vair au Maine aux confins du Perche
• l'ancêtre Gosselin (de ma grandmère maternelle) né à Combray en Normandie, auj. dans le département du Calvados
• l'ancêtre Berard (de mes arrière-grandmère & arrière-arrière-grandmère maternelles) né à Château-du-Loir au Maine, dans le département de la Sarthe
• plus de 30 autres ancêtres direct percherons.Cblambert (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, je soupçonnais un lien avec le Perche! A propos de l'émigration vers le Canada: Avez-vous rencontré le nom de famille Pontbriand? Je crois que c'est un nom plutôt québecois, maintenant assez rare en France, mais d'origine du nord-ouest. J'en connais quelques-uns du nord-ouest des États-Unis dont les ancêtres venaient du Québec. J'espère voir le Perche de plus proche un de ces quatres. Eric ^talk 12:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cblambert. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cblambert: I noticed the file TREQCCT.jpg made by you on the page Transformer has a confusing symbol Is in the diagram. Please look at the talk page Talk:Transformer. I have made a correction to your drawing, but have not been able to download it to Commons. What to do? Madyno (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TREQCCT.jpg diagram is ok as shown, I<prime> denoting referred to the primary. Hence, I<prime> = Is/a. See Ideal transformer equations box which says that "the superscript ' denoting referred to the primary.Cblambert (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. The primary current is ${\displaystyle I_{p}}$, the secondary current is commonly denoted as ${\displaystyle I_{s}}$, just as in the box with Ideal transformer equations. The backwards transformed quantities are denoted with a prime, like ${\displaystyle X'_{s}=a^{2}X_{s}}$ and ${\displaystyle R'_{s}=a^{2}R_{s}}$. For some reason the secondary current itself is not indicated in the diagram. Yet it would be more consistent and less confusing to denote the backwards transformed secondary current with ${\displaystyle I'_{s}=I_{s}/a}$. The remark that the prime refers to the primary circuit, means the primed quantities are to be considered as part of the primary circuit (in the equivalent circuit), and hence exactly that the indicated current ${\displaystyle I_{s}}$ should be written as ${\displaystyle I'_{s}}$. Madyno (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TREQCCT.jpg diagram is ok as shown. There is a big difference between 'prime refers to the primary circuit' and 'the superscript ' denoting referred to the primary'.Cblambert (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Cblambert- I'm curious to learn where you found your definition for saltus. I don't see it in the sources you provide, nor elsewhere in various searches. I think the simpler description I put reads better and is less speculative. Also, I'm curious to know what you mean in your edit summaries with "show as". Is it maybe a translation of a common French expression? Eric ^talk 22:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric,

• See Centre Généalogique de l'Orne et du Perche - De la préhistoire aux invasions Normandes : « Le sens précis de saltus est "région montueuse et boisée... retraite de bêtes fauves" (Dict. latin-français de Riemann et Goelzer) »
• See also article's Note d : According to Sarah Fourcade citing Pierre Toubert in « Frontière et frontières : un objet historique », p. 14 : « . . . la frontière constitue une zone de développement. Certes, avant d’être mise en valeur et de devenir rentable, la frontière n’est qu’un ‘’saltus’’, une zone où peut s’observer « le phénomène inverse de désertification frontière », avec cette image tenace jusqu'au XIe siècle. . . », Sarah Fourcade (2018). ["Frontière et marche, société et noblesse de frontière en péninsule Ibérique"Cblambert (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S.: See finally : Robert Giguère, which article cites CGOP reference shown in first bullet above.Cblambert (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S.S. See Mauves sur Huisne - Epoque Gauloise : « Chez les romains, on retrouve le nom de Saltus Perticus, qui semble avoir la même origine que Pertica avec une précision Saltus qui ajoute une notion de sauvage, indépendante. »
• P.S.S.S. See Saltus : Saltus meaning "wooded area" or "wilderness," as in: . . .Cblambert (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That CGOP site is a good, direct source. Why don't we cite that for the definition in place of the Fourcade/Toubert one? Eric ^talk 11:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CGOP is citing a source which is not available and possibly somewhat obsolete compared to new topomyny sources whereas Fourcade is citing a recent title that includes the terms frontier & frontiers that is written by a well known historian who specializes in Middle Ages. Both sources should be included.Cblambert (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cblambert- Thanks for your continued work on Perche. Again, what are you trying to convey in your edit summaries with "Show as"? Eric ^talk 11:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Show as means edited to read so and so.Cblambert (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Well, no anglophone will understand that. You could put "changed wording to _______". If it's a wording change, I usually just put "wording" or "copyedit", without putting the change itself into the summary. Eric ^talk 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing this for years without other 'anglophone' questioning this article summary practice. I have 18 years of anglophone education, including 2 years for which I was granted a post-graduate degree, under my belt. I will continue to show as so and so. Thanks.Cblambert (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself, I was just trying to help. Eric ^talk 00:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Cblambert (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Scott (Orangeman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riel. 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) 06:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are on Wikipedia since 2014, and seem not to know that per WP:BRD you should, when reverted and the revert wasn't vandalism, NEVER revert back even if you are 100% sure you are right. Louis Riel: I tried to follow the edit history, but without edit summaries it's difficult, and you seem to edit war against two users whom I know as trustworthy. You better stop that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ps: sources that hav "blog" in their name are certainly not acceptable, but even others may not be good enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Refer to Louis Riel Talk section Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba which shows that all the citations in question that Moxy has deleted using foul language are acceptable, formal Government of Manitoba documents supporting the assertion that Louis Riel is a Founding Father of Manitoba that reflects longstanding Government policy.Cblambert (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that you discuss. The article history was confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: have asked for full protection of Louis Riel because off ongoing issues .....dont care what version ....just need all to talk.Moxy- 23:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

curprev 01:49, 24 December 2021‎ Nikkimaria talk contribs‎ 74,284 bytes −1,317‎ see talk undothank Tag: Manual revert!

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Riel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Louis Riel instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Louis Riel (historiography) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Louis Riel (historiography), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cblambert! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:

I am not seeing enough content here to justify spinning out another article. Until and unless the current section gets too long for the Louis Riel page, this should be added there. There may very well be enough historiography for its own page, but creating one preemptively with just two quotes on it seems premature. Also, as Bkissin said, if this article is to work as a stand-alone it needs context.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Louis Riel (historiography) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Louis Riel (historiography), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

David.moreno72 05:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Louis Riel into Draft:Louis Riel (historiography). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the "Judicial Murder" one - I was having trouble figuring out what it was, and the version of the article from yesterday just said "Thomas. Judicial Murder". I didn't appreciate that it was a conference paper. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Variable-frequency drive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of Louis Riel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cblambert. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Louis Riel (historiography), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cblambert. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Louis Riel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transformer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]