User Talk: Sławomir Biały

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:Sławomir Biały/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 400K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}
<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->

Pedantic and argumentative

Hi Sławomir Biały, I'm moving this discussion here to keep the original on topic. Coping over from the discussion ↗:
{{tqb|1=I promise I'm not trying to be argumentative. It was a genuine question. I'm trying to be productive.
To me, the word comes off as redundant (or even outright confusing), like the other examples I gave above. So I removed the word.
I was then asked to start a discussion about the removal of an individual word. When I did so, I'm now being called pedantic and argumentative when (I feel) I asked a question directly related to the topic?
"Is 'Geometrical' redundant?" and "Do shapes have properties outside of their geometry?" seem almost equivalent. I honestly don't understand what was wrong with that question. Is there a better way I could have asked that? <span class="nowrap">– Farkle Griffen (talk)</span> 16:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
}}
If there is something I did to offend you, I would like to correct it. <span class="nowrap">– Farkle Griffen (talk)</span> 17:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Circle group ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central extension ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration ↗

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Circle group ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Group algebra ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Obivious alterations

Independent of it, it is obvious Wikipedia recommends being more precise. You are taking an article of a subfield of mathematics and generalizing it to the most general field. It is ridiculous; with that, you could remove the template and make the same with article being more precise too.

Again, order theory or concepts are used in the entire mathematics just because mathematics is using order theory. So, for example, a problem of mathematics has order theory, and order theory has subfields (cyclic order, set order, and so on). QuantumNinus (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

: I don't know what you mean. The first sentence of the article is supposed to be read by a ''general reader''. Typically that means it will be ''less precise''. That is what WP:TECHNICAL ↗ recommends, for example. In this case a ''general reader'' will probably never have even heard of order theory, but they will have heard of mathematics. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span> (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Methods of matrix inversion ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Methods of matrix inversion ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because '''it needs more sources to establish notability''' and '''you are experienced enough that you know we require sources'''.
I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

AfC ↗ notification: Draft:Methods of matrix inversion ↗ has a new comment

<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Methods of matrix inversion ↗. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC) </div>

Citizen Vigilante

Which conservative source "panned" the film? R. Bardghji (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

: The version you just deleted referenced ''The National Review ↗'', a long-running conservative publication of record. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span> (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)