User talk:JayBeeEll

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
186		Harmonic number (talk)	Add sources
259		Root of unity (talk)	Add sources
211		The Bugs Bunny Show (talk)	Add sources
25		Bugs Bunny Rabbit Rampage (talk)	Add sources
35		You Ought to Be in Pictures (talk)	Add sources
41		The Porky Pig Show (talk)	Add sources
90		Elastic energy (talk)	Cleanup
302		Real analysis (talk)	Cleanup
5		Thomas Summers West (talk)	Cleanup
17,922		Twitter (talk)	Expand
3,711		Same-sex marriage (talk)	Expand
14		Chuck Amuck: The Movie (talk)	Expand
252		Criticism of Marxism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
432		Methods of computing square roots (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
324		Right-to-left script (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
189		Gravitational field (talk)	Merge
229		Social stigma of obesity (talk)	Merge
20		Atlanta Exposition Speech (talk)	Merge
30		National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (talk)	Wikify
157		The Sylvester & Tweety Mysteries (talk)	Wikify
1,857		Nicolás Maduro (talk)	Wikify
3		Greg Burel (talk)	Orphan
6		Redundancy principle (biology) (talk)	Orphan
4		Brendan Carr (physician) (talk)	Orphan
14		Bugs Bunny's Thanksgiving Diet (talk)	Stub
3		Dominique Hulin (talk)	Stub
16		The Bugs Bunny Mystery Special (talk)	Stub
129		Petkov Government (talk)	Stub
32		Tortoise Beats Hare (talk)	Stub
21		Bugs Bunny's Bustin' Out All Over (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

History of combinatorics

I noticed you like Combinatorics. I feel recent changes to History of combinatorics are pretty ridiculous. I thought you might consider working on that article. Thanks, Mhym (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mhym, you mean this edit from a couple days ago? I will try to find time to look it over. All the best, JBL (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See e.g. the last sentence. I seriously doubt that Stanley's impact is in Matroid Theory "and more". Mhym (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Spring break is just starting, I will sit down and take a good hard look. (The diff is too complicated to read at a glance, which is my usual editing approach.) --JBL (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mhym: oh it's really oddly focused on poset theory, isn't it? (Like, I'm happy to see Rota and Stanley get mentnioned, but no graph theory or Erdos? No connections to algebra or other fields? Very odd.) Well, I've started with the ancient stuff, but I'll definitely get to the contemporary section eventually and try to do something more comprehensive with that. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Help needed with Program synthesis

Hi! Since you recently helped settling a dispute at Ugly duckling theorem, I dare to ask you for similar kind of help at Program synthesis.

Here is (my version of) what happened:

• In Jun 2013, I started the section Program synthesis#The framework of Manna and Waldinger.
• In Dec 2018, an anonymous IP (2601:184:4081:1cbe:...) started adding critical comments to the article. Some of them indeed uncovered flaws of my presentation, which I subsequently tried to improve. However, the IP continued to edit article and talk page, and repeated comments on issues (I believed) I just had fixed.
• In Mar 2020, the article was protected to prevent further edits by the IP that were meanwhile considered disruptive, not just by me.
• In the same month, a new user "Mdaviscs" appeared, and seamlessly continued the work of the IP.
• In Jul 2020, he added a paragraph to the article which would better belong to the talk page. Since I was tired of the debate, I didn't react anymore.
• On 17 Aug 2021, he added another (similarly inadequate, imho) paragraph, and was reverted immediately; on the same day, I removed his Jul-2020 paragraph as "unsourced POV".

Apparently, the recent actions revived the debate. I would like you to help settle it. Many thanks in advance. (I admit that the "Manna and Waldinger" section meanwhile has undue weight within the article; however, I still hope other editors will contribute sections about other approaches sometimes in the future.) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jochen Burghardt, thanks for your message. I have taken a quick look at the situation. It is clear that Mdaviscs (who must also be the IP editor) is a single-purpose account who doesn't understand well how to edit Wikipedia. I am very far out of my depth here as far as assessing whether their contributions have any possibility of being eventually constructive (e.g., whether there are reliable sources that they have access to and that they could use to add content written in an encyclopedic style, or, instead, whether they are just some crank). It seems that there is at least one other editor (@Notfrompedro:) who is keeping an eye on the page and preventing too much direct damage to its content. I have been slightly disengaging myself from Wikipedia recently, and I don't think I want to get directly involved in this (sorry), but here is my advice:

1. If you think the user is just a crank with no real hope of contributing to the article: I would continue to revert their edits, and I would leave them appropriate warning templates from WP:Warnings (e.g., disruptive editing, something about editing the same page from an account and an IP address, ...) if they continue, and I would leave clear statements about why their edits have been reverted on their talk page or the article talk page or both. This will create a record of disruption, which will then make it easier to get the page protected and to have the editor blocked if the problem continues in the future.
2. If you think the user has potential to contribute to the article: I would try to teach them about the culture here. I would write them a personal note introducing yourself (either on their talk page or the article talk page or both) and helping explain basic features, like, comments about articles go on talk-pages and substantive edits to articles need to be supported by reliable sources, or asking them to help clarify which points are their opinion versus which are supported by publications in the literature, etc.

(Of course it is possible to switch from approach 2 to approach 1 if initial optimism is not supported by later events.) I hope this is helpful; sorry not to be able to get involved myself, and good luck! --JBL (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverting my edits?

Many of my edits that was reverted contains different OEIS entry. Why you're reverting my edits with commenting "non-notable junk" or "nonnotable OR", ... instead of citing something? OEIS is a published source that finds some sequences about something. 176.88.28.90 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The edit summaries are self-explanatory. There is nothing encyclopedic about uninteresting intersections of random sequences with the prime numbers, whether or not they have an OEIS entry. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Mean US Population Centroid Calculation-- 2020 Estimate

I contend that my estimated 2020 US population centroid determination is a "Routine Calculation", and is therefore not subject to Wikipedia's "Original Research" prohibitions. I am using the same method I used to successfully predict the 2010 centroid. The publication of my result in Wikipedia a decade ago gave a "head's-up" to the locality concerned, and seemed to be appreciated. How can I best share my spreadsheet with you and other concerned editors so as to gain approval for the publication of its results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.57.2 (talk)

Hi Alex.zakrewsky, thanks for your message. Your calculations are unquestionably not routine in the sense of WP:CALC. One way to confirm this is to observe that the paragraph on routine calculations specifically indicates the importance of consensus on the routineness —- so multiple objections (as here) is pretty much a guarantee that it’s not. Another is that your argument for the value of adding this rests very heavily on the fact that it is not trivial to duplicate. If you want to try to generate a consensus for your point of view (which you are welcome to do, though I will argue against it) you could try either the talk-page of the article (where there has been some earlier discussion) or this noticeboard. —JBL (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello JayBeeEll,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Plato, MO

I am eager and excited to share my calculated 2020 US Centroid with those interested. An uncited entry is improper and prohibited. A cited entry raises accusations of self-promotion. How do I get out of this catch-22? Alex.zakrewsky (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP Essay: Pearl-clutching

I'm inviting you to give feedback on a WP essay of mine about pearl-clutching. I've seen you participate at ANI and would like your thoughts on whether you support or oppose such an essay. No obligation to review it, but thank you for your time if you do. ––FormalDude talk 12:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi FormalDude, thanks for your message (even if I've seen you participate at ANI has the air of a backhanded compliment ;) ). I had a quick look and made some minor copy-edits. Substantively, my first impression of the lead and the section "True civility" is positive, but I found the section "In practice" hard to follow and I gave up without ever wrapping my head around what it was saying. (In my defense: it's Sunday morning and I'm doing this in my pajamas before breakfast.) I realize that this is not very constructive feedback, but I hope it is of some use to you! --JBL (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL, I'll take what I can get! Appreciate it. I'm trying to make it more concise. ––FormalDude talk 05:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Derangement

Thanks for the edit to Derangement. I just coded up the formula in Python, and it certainly seems to give good results for the first few values of n (up to the limits of double precision floats), so it's definitely not implausible. However, a cite to a high-quality source (preferably with a proof) would be great. I've just added a cite to Wolfram for the mention in the lede section, which certainly counts as a WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Anome, thanks for your message. The conversation has advanced, so let me just say that I agree with David Eppstein that Mathworld is not a great reference and that adding a citation is unlikely to solve the crazy vandalism problem, but I am happy with the present state of the article. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derangement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big O.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of governors of Texas by age for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of governors of Texas by age is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of governors of Texas by age until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@OCNative: when you use the afd-notice template, per its documentation, please be sure to substitute it. But also, what does this have to do with me? --JBL (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, sorry about failing to subst it. I was notifying you because you had participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity. OCNative (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I see; thanks. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia over the years! Cable10291 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but

Indeed, [1], but I don't see a difference between $$F_{n}=F_{n-1}+F_{n-2}$$ and the standard way of writing equations

$F_{n}=F_{n-1}+F_{n-2}.$

Do you see a difference? I reasoned that there's no need for the "display=block". - DVdm (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: the "display=block" stuff happened here. Before that (partly bad [2]) edit, we had

$F_{n}=F_{n-1}+F_{n-2}.$

So, what was the use of the "display=block"? - DVdm (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@DVdm: please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Using_LaTeX_markup — the colon present an accessibility issue for some readers. JBL (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: ha, thanks for that. Having been around here for 16.5 years and having hundreds of math and physics articles on my watchlist, I wasn't aware of this. It's only since recently that I noticed editors doing this. And indeed it looks like it's less than a year ago since user Jonesey95 made this change to the MOS. Perhaps a bot should take care of this all over the place. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@DVdm: There have been a few discussions of the implementation of display=block at WT:WPM over the past six years (1 2 3), but I think it would have been easy to miss. The most involved discussion was at the MOS:MATH talk page so very easy to miss for non-MOS obsessives. I agree that in principle it should be something a bot could fix all at once (with a small error percentage) but I don't know anything about doing that and I don't know if it would get consensus if someone tried to propose it. (My personal attitude is: if I'm making some other edit and I happen to notice equations indented using colons then I often change them to display = block -- and perhaps if other people do the same then in a decade or two this will result in most displayed equations being typeset with display=block.) All the best, JBL (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the easiest thing to do by the technicians, would be to make sure that the colon generates proper html in the first place, so I'll leave it all to them and gladly continue to accept colons . Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Your Disruptive And Unexplained Edit

You recently just completely deleted my edits to Oberlain College and gave no justification, just putting no thanks in the field. People are left to assume only that you must have a personal connection or something or some type of personal reason why you don’t want the edit other than that you don’t think that it falls within the guidelines or is contributing to Wikipedia. In the future, please follow the proper rules and/or norms concerning giving a reason for your edit. What was the reason to completely delete this by the way? No thanks doesn’t explain anything. If you don’t like something I don’t have a cause for it maybe it should be in the talk page for the article. Bagofscrews (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are the relevant rules and norms: WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, I reverted, and now (if you like) you may start a discussion on the article talk-page, and I would be happy to explain to you there the multiple reasons your addition was inappropriate and made the article worse. --JBL (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No you should be willing to tell the public when you completely delete an edit why you think it’s a problem and what if any policies or violated other than your subjective opinion that it makes the article worse. You shouldn’t be instead thinking that you can just delete anything I put there and then revert me to the talk page. This pattern of behavior seems to be common on the account here. Bagofscrews (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust and Genocide Studies

@JayBeeEll: Hi there, I am not sure I quite understand your comment here, "Making an inapposite and rather offensive comparison is like what Hitler did to the Jews. --JBL (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)"

I am a Jewish, and also have earned a Masters in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, so I was just hoping to understand this statement, as I do not feel my statement was even remotely like what Hitler said about us. Th78blue (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Personally, I am an omniscient being composed of pure light, eternal and omnipresent. My advice to you is to read for understanding, and to forsake the life of a troll. Note to my future self: this is about this. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Implicitly referred to you at ANI

And so the following is I guess obligatory:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Darylprasad & Platonic solids. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Template problem at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 21

Regarding this, I think the problem is that the equals sign makes the software interpret the text preceding it as the name of a template parameter, i.e. |nobody can argue that 5 x 3 =. I have encountered the same problem myself, and this is my best guess. TompaDompa (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: oh yes of course you're right -- I went scanning for special symbols but forgot that = is one of them in templates. Thank you! --JBL (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Chapeau

I smiled. Kudos. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! :). And thanks also for general level-headedness and for trying to convince RC to tone down their volume of contributions a bit. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

jbl making a smiley face? wtf? hell hath frozen over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.230.182 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I see at least three places above on this page where I've written ":)" and about a dozen in the most recent archive of this page so I think it's not that unusual. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Affine symmetric group

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Affine symmetric group 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 Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Affine symmetric group

The article Affine symmetric group you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Affine symmetric group for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Birthday Paradox

The Birthday Paradox is that the probability of at least two people in a group sharing a birthday often surpasses 50% when the group size is less than 23 people. If each day of the year were equally likely to be a birthday, the probability would surpass 50% when the group size were equal to 23 people. That's the apparent paradox, and that is why I'd like to change the introduction. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Three comments: (1) this should be on the article talk-page, not on my personal talk-page. (2) The straightforward facts in the first 2.5 sentences of your message bear no obvious relationship to the important phrase ("that is why I'd like to change the introduction"), nor to the edits in question. To explain why a change would be good, one should identify a problem in what exists or do a comparison between an existing and potentially-existing version. (3) Have you read the second paragraph of the lead section? (But please, per (1), don't answer this here -- bring discussion to the article talk-page.) --JBL (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Cranks

If you're so convinced no editor could possibly find 10 editors to nominate for RFA, how will a random process successfully do so? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@力: Sorry, I must not have been very clear. I am sure that I could find 10 plausible candidates to nominate to RfA tomorrow. But if I approach a bunch of people and say "Listen, I have this great plan, I'm going to nominate a group of 10 plausible candidates to RfA, and you're one of them -- will you accept?" people will rightly tell me that I sound like a crazy person. It'd be like AD repeatedly asking the question about usernames at RfAs -- it's possible for a person to do it, but only an eccentric person would do it, and therefore it can't have any systemic impact. By making it a system, you remove the problematic aspect ("only a crazy person would think this is a good way to get people to run for admin") and replace it with a much more positive aspect ("this is a community-endorsed process for selecting people to run for admin"). --JBL (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, you're clear, I just think you're wrong. You would be much better off sending that message than going through a convoluted and mystical process, complete with random selection and community blessings. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. But what does You would be much better off sending that message mean? --JBL (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

approach a bunch of people and say "Listen, I have this great plan, I'm going to nominate a group of 10 plausible candidates to RfA, and you're one of them -- will you accept?" User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ha! --JBL (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

navier-stokes equation and kelvin-stokes/stokes' theorem

hi,

so i may sound lazy by asking this and not hunkering down and figuring it out myself, but i was a little surprised to see that stokes' theorem is mention a total of one time across the NS equation/existence pages.

my question is: aren't they intimately related? if one has a proper realisation of the KS theorem, applies it to a dataset that encapsulates 'nature' and gets a result that reflects the nature of the phenomenon under investigation, aren't NS solved?

i don't understand why the following hypothetical wouldn't be considered solving the NS existence:

1. mathematician emerges claiming to solve important (non-mathematical) problem on data from a mechanism that has perplexed scientific-field-at-large for multiple decades.

2. mathematician figures out, after many years, s/he has demonstrated the fundamental theorem of calculus on said-data.

3. mathematician spends many more years researching the result, trying to understand just why it is so good, only to find themselves narrowing in on areas that are apparently the key to the NS equations/existence (Geometric measure theory, for example).

i guess the weirder thing is someone demonstrating the fundamental theorem of calculus ("if that's even possible").

either way, what i'm asking is whether a 'realisation' of the fundamental theorem of calculus would be equivalent to solving the NS equations, assuming the dataset reflecting nature is generated by an appropriate mechanism (say, nuclear magnetic resonance) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.206.184 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not have any particular expertise relating to your questions, sorry. You might try the reference desk or Math StackExchange. --JBL (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

sall good homie, after a bit of googling it seems our fellow countryman Mssr. Tao has answered my question in the affirmative

A key role in our treatment here will be played by the fundamental theorem of calculus (in various forms and variations). Roughly speaking, this theorem, and its variants, allow us to recast differential equations (such as (1) or (4)) as integral equations. Such integral equations are less tractable algebraically than their differential counterparts (for instance, they are not ideal for verifying conservation laws), but are significantly more convenient for well-posedness theory, basically because integration tends to increase the regularity of a function, while differentiation reduces it. (Indeed, the problem of “losing derivatives”, or more precisely “losing regularity”, is a key obstacle that one often has to address when trying to establish well-posedness for PDE, particularly those that are quite nonlinear and with rough initial data, though for nonlinear parabolic equations such as Navier-Stokes the obstacle is not as serious as it is for some other PDE, due to the smoothing effects of the heat equation.)

many mathematicians get irritated by my 'style', but as i've maintained throughout: it's all been done before, man.

case-and-point is right above. i find the fundamental theorem of calculus much more interesting than the navier-stokes equations.

i'm watching your edits on the affine symmetric group page, fam. hold it down! 75.152.206.184 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Apology

Hello, I wanted to apologize for mentioning 'editors' rather than focusing on the conent. Ironically, I was upset that a different editor, not you, had made some improvements and said, in their edit summary, that I had contributed weasel words. I felt that assumed bad faith and was a personal attack. I then responded emotionally. I should have set up a talk section before editing. I did not realize that 1RR also referred to re-wording a section. Knowing that, I apologize for editing your revert edit. And, I will be very cautious of that in the future.

On a separate note, my husband is a mathematician. I had a new appreciation for you folks after he and I met at university. I'm a sociologist and political scientist so I rely on him all the time to explain them numbers to me! :) SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn: Thanks for your message and apology. Communication on the internet is hard -- I'm happy to see you treating this situation in a positive and constructive way. If your husband gets into wikipedia editing, send him over to WP:WPM, it's always good to have more math editors around :). Happy editing, JBL (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, JBL. :) I appreciate it and the amicable outcome.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Forty-Eighters

You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Sure, done. --JBL (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Question re. conspiracy theory at ArbCom

I appreciate you stating what should have been obvious to one and all, that the conspiracy theorizing over on the ArbCom talk page is highly inappropriate [3]. I wonder if you have any thoughts on why it's being allowed to stand unopposed by admins and arbs when the IP editor who originally posted it was quickly sanctioned with a t-ban [4] and later blocked from a user talk page for posting about it there [5]. Is it just that people are focused on the ArbCom election? I'm concerned that the editor who's posting this nonsense might view the silence as tacit endorsement of their behavior –– or of the content of their conspiracy theory –– and that perhaps others may come away with that impression as well. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Generalrelative, thanks for your message. On the specific question you raise ("why it's being allowed to stand") I don't think I have any real insight to offer. (E.g., I don't know if "people are focused on the ArbCom election" is a plausible explanation of anything at all, being only peripherally aware of it.) That said, I have one or two observations. The pages where it's appeared have mostly been low-traffic, and when the issue was brought to a noticeboard it did result in appropriate action. I think it's possible (though not certain) that a well-constructed ANI report could address some of the WP:SPA R&I accounts, with this particular issue part of the evidence. (I will not personally have time to get involved in any such effort in more than a passing way for at least several weeks.) I think it's unfortunate that JzG is not currently around to advise further.

Finally, about the concern expressed at the end of your message: I think your concerns are misplaced. If the various problematic SPAs are chatting about WP:OUTING and conspiracies, that's good: life is better when people who are NOTHERE establish a clear problematic record. (Explaining why a vandal should be blocked is easy; explaining why a civil POV pusher should be blocked is much harder.) Moreover, we're talking about a group of people who are wandering around to every odd corner of WP (the arbcom talk page? VPP? RSN? and on and on) trying and failing to get someone to take them seriously, when they can't even formulate a proper RfC -- they're not exactly wiki-masterminds. --JBL (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You are not welcome here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Generalrelative: Since I'm being mentioned by name here, I assume that I'm allowed to respond, and there is an answer to this question that JBL hasn't mentioned. Approximately a year ago, I sent an email to ArbCom explaining most of what I know about this issue, including details that cannot be posted in public per WP:OUTING, and some non-public information that ArbCom could independently verify. The associated public discussion is here. However, ArbCom's procedure with respect to private communications appears to be that aside from a very limited set of circumstances, they they cannot act on this type of information outside of a public arbitration request. As is apparent from the linked discussion, all they could do was file it for future reference. In the time since I sent them this information, the arbitrators have refused to make any comment either affirming or rejecting the veracity of it. (In reply to the private correspondence, they thanked me for the information but said nothing else.) Their lack of response to Gardenofaleph is a further example of the same pattern. You can make what you like of ArbCom's silence on this matter for the past year, but my interpretation is that they have decided to not say anything further about it until and unless someone requests a full case. 2600:1004:B165:4DC7:244A:AD4F:1D5D:84B9 (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply, JBL, and apologies for having drawn the t-ban violating IP to your doorstep. I'll be happy to discuss a possible ANI report should the POV pushing not subside in the next several weeks, and if no one else decides to pursue it in the meantime (Aquillion suggested something similar recently at FTN [6]). In any case, your input here is very much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Another thing I might suggest is more (carefully-worded and specific) RFCs to close any holes left by the last one - obviously, this assumes you can come up with RFC questions that are both capable of resolving key underlying questions and which can reach a clear consensus at WP:FRINGEN or some similar venue. Part of the purpose of the previous RFC is to prevent the same basic questions from coming up over and over again and consuming community time; the reality is that despite all the ink poured over it, Race and Intelligence and most related articles are actually fairly stable, which suggests that there is a pretty clear and stable consensus - there's just some editors who will always disagree with it and refuse to accept it, which is currently wasting a lot of community time and effort on circular discussions that invariably go nowhere. If it's reached a point where nobody is making any actual new points, just shouting the same things at each other over and over (and I think that that's definitely the case here), hold an RFC and end it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: you're very welcome. @Aquillion: my read of the situation is that first, you're right that there's a stable consensus here, and second, that another RfC won't help because the SPAs all understand that there's a stable consensus and are trying to find a procedural loophole to avoid that (rather than editing through it). That's why the past few months have seen posts by one or another of them at a half-dozen or more different noticeboards, policy pages, ... -- they're looking for someone to wave a magic wand and make the previous RfCs go away. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Freezing the thread "Query for not monotonically increasing infinite asymptotics"

I do not at all object your freezing the thread "Query for not monotonically increasing infinite asymptotics"
However, I would like to mention that on 12:27, 25 November 2021 I've made some proposals for improving the article which I would have liked to discuss with the current partner. Unfortunately, this was immediately interrupted by the subsequent  Comment: and later resumed only on extremely small scale.
But you are absolutely right: consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, I am thinking of implementing the 12:27-proposals. –Nomen4Omen (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Because you have already been engaged in a dispute between us I would like to ask you politely to have a look at the thread Talk:Splay tree#Referring to your „terrific“ post in Talk:Big O Notation. (This talk has a tiny relationship with the above post regarding Talk:Big_O_notation.) I am unable to understand, why he insists in placing his dubious O(entropy) into the InfoBox of Splay tree, although there is a suitable, convincing alternative established by top sources. –Nomen4Omen (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nomen4Omen: Thanks for your message. Yes, I have noticed that dispute. I do not know enough about the topic area to have an independent opinion about what would be the best way to convey the relevant information, and so I do not care to get involved; sorry.

If I may give some unsolicited advice: obviously your disputes with DE are not entirely based on substantive questions. You would almost certainly have more luck convincing people of the substantive merits of your ideas if you adopted a less abrasive / alienating style. It seems to me that in the dispute at Talk:Big_O_notation, you adopted approach towards "I don't understand what you've written" that was more akin to "there is something wrong with what you've written" than to "I would like to understand your point of view better". I don't always agree with DE, but it's rare that his view isn't worthy of consideration. --JBL (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. Maybe that my questions have been not absolutely substantive. What I am sure, however, that I do a lot easier in giving in. Especially when the response is transmitted in an objective manner.

Another small problem I see that he does not hesitate to try to demoralize people who express a different opinion. I saw that also with other partners and there especially in his "edit summaries".

I fully admit that I have seen contributions of his which are good or OK. But at least some of the ones about mathematical limits look very questionable to me. And limits are a central construct of big-O in both contexts.

I understand that you do not want to get involved. Nevertheless, many thanx and best regards, –Nomen4Omen (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you please freeze the thread "Referring to your „terrific“ post in Talk:Big O Notation​" in Talk:Splay tree as well. It shows heavy disagreement about the Infobox in the article which is considered off-topic by its author DE. –Nomen4Omen (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I really have no interest in getting dragged into a fight on a subject I don't know much about, even in a peripheral role. No one posted in that thread for more than 12 hours before your request here, and no one has posted there in the 30 hours since; if you do not post again in that thread, it seems unlikely that anyone else will. So I suggest simply not posting there any more, and it will be exactly the same effect as if someone put a purple box around it. --JBL (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Although it is only marginally the subject, it is more the emotions. To my (very simple) question 3 everybody is drawn who has a look at his entries in the Infobox. Already this look is labeled off-topic by him.
In any case: Thanks so far, –Nomen4Omen (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I need to acquire this knowledge

I brought this to your talk page because I feel that the after-discussion happening at ANI is getting sidetracked from ANI's purpose.

Hey, JBL! I saw you reverted my second closure, and I agree, per WP:CLOSE I was directly involved and it wasn't in my power. However, you said in your edit summary that you also included "a criticism of my earlier closing behavior"; I re-read your responses to me, and I can't interpret what I did wrong the first time around. Could you please clarify for me? I've been having a good time at ANI and most of my contributions have been looked positively on (I got a couple of thank you alerts). I think if I was doing more harm than good I would've been shooed off by now because I've been leaving a lot of bold notes over these past two days. I did have one slipup, but it was a simple mistake. I would also like to mention that while I have only been here for about a year and a half, I have a lot of content creation under my belt and want to experience something new. I would be grateful for your advice, and any other "before you begin" knowledge I should know! Panini!^🥪 01:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and that note I responded with after you commented after the first archive; I hope that didn't appear passive aggressive or instigative in some way. I have a dry/sarcastic form of humor every once in a while (and that urge to help people out, as I specified in ANI). Panini!^🥪 01:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Pascal_triangle_compositions.svg

Hi JayBeeEll, Re your reversion of this image, what other issues are there besides the size of the blobs? I can make the blobs larger. Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi cmglee, thanks for your message. Here were the reasons I reverted:

• It was very difficult to tell (even when the image was expanded) the difference between adjacent dots in separate blobs versus adjacent dots in the same blob.
• The word "partitions" is wrong: one might refer to the parts or blocks or ... of a composition, but not to its partitions.

Much less importantly (i.e., this didn't have anything to do with my reversion, but I might as well complain about it while you're here), I find the choice of a sans serif font and the cramped spacing around the = sign in the axis labels unattractive -- compare with the choices made by LaTeX and the {{math}} template. --JBL (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've used "parts".
• I've increased the whitespace betweeen "parts".
• I've changed it to Times and increased whitespace around plus signs (I presume you meant "+"). I don't have as much precise control over SVG formatting as in LaTeX.

Redrawn

Thanks for your clear actionable points. I've updated it as on the right and addressed the points in your response above. Is it ok now? (Can you please ping me in your reply?) Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 21:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cmglee:, I've moved your bulleted responses outside of my comment, I hope you don't mind. When I expand the image to full size, it's now completely clear which dots go together and which don't. When it's unexpanded, it's much better now than it was before, although I still have to squint a bit at some of them. Thanks also for changing the wording and font! All the best, JBL (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem, JBL. I'll restore the images. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

The ANI was getting ugly. I just proposed a block on me from editing for the rest of the year. I am trying to own up to my mistakes. In the closing that imposed the topic ban the imposer included this statement 'There was some concern that such a topic ban would be over-reaching, which was addressed with one comment "This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits."' I was thinkiung that going back any trying to revert these edits would help, but with one person accusing me of starting this whole kerfuffle in the first place by using a sock-puppet (which I did not do, and is the craziest proposal I have ever seen) I am not thinking that people are willing to forgive. The fact that the state legislator is not in any religion related category, is not being much considered either. The other two I literally only focused on the lead, and was trying to follow the Wikipedia biographies manual of style guidelines on full name references where it was put William Henry Gates and not William Henry "Bill" Gates. I have come across others that I quickly saw were bishops, and avoided such edits. I thought I was being careful, but in these cases I was too quick. I was not trying to evade the topic ban at all. I am really sorry about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I think it is a real shame that so many people are happy to reward the troll and drag the ANI on in this stupid way, despite the innocuous nature of your edits and your completely plausible explanation for them and thoughtful apology. I hope that you are able to find something enjoyable and relaxing to do with the last days of 2021. --JBL (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou. I wish there were more cases of positive communication in Wikipedia. Too many people only ever talk to others to tell them they are doing things wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why is it OK for people to use words like "abuser" to describe my actions in this case in ANI, or to baselessly accuse me of being the person who orchestrated this? I have apologized for my actions and admitted I was wrong, but people are using extremely harsh, hurtful and attacking language against me. The fact that people can be so rude in their language and combative, and seemingly be treated with impunity and not at all asked to speak about other editors who are actual people in a civil and kind manner is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert: My advice to you as a fellow human being is to log off Wikipedia for a day or two and not follow the discussion -- I doubt very much that anything you contribute at this point will affect the eventual outcome, and it's hard to see any benefit in being aware of whatever weird hyperbole people find to apply to this situation. (Sorry I don't have something more constructive to offer. Go for a walk? Read a book? I went to the zoo for an hour this morning and it was very restful.) --JBL (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am going to try my hardest to stay off from now to at least the morning. It is about 4:30 here. I have not actually directly commented on the discussion for over 5 hours. I figure there is nothing more I can say. I do hope that they do decided not to block me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I glanced at that ANI again. Some of the comments have truly gone off left field. I have not checked the discussion for over a day until just now and am shocked it is still going on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Revising Topic ban

After the recent ANI, I was wondering what process I would go about to try and get the topic ban at least revised so it is not so insanely broad and all encompassing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnpacklambert, a four-part response. First, I have down-graded this to a subsection of the previous section, I hope you don't mind. Second, I was happy to see the ANI report closed with no action taken; I hope this will discourage the troll. Third, your concrete question is procedural one; I believe (but am not entirely certain) that, because your topic ban was imposed as the result of a community discussion, the only way it can be reversed is via a similar community discussion (e.g., an appeal at WP:AN). Finally, it seems to me that actually pursuing such an appeal would be a terrible idea at the present moment, far more likely to end up with you being indefinitely blocked than with the ban being lifted. The issue of how to deal with its breadth was mentioned in the original ban discussion close; I see there the suggestion that you should check the categories of articles you're editing for any religious markers. I realize that this is not super constructive. You might consider asking Ritchie333 (or with Floquenbeam) if they have any more concrete advice. Good luck! --JBL (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if you think I was uncivil

I'm not sure whether you thought me templating you was WP:UNCIVIL or condescending (per WP:DTR). If so, I'm very sorry and I apologize. I was hoping to reduce the temperature -- there's more than one experienced editor who is involved (at this point), and I'm sure we'll come to a good conclusion. Don't feel like you have to carry the burden yourself -- IMO, that's not good for you or WP. That's all I was trying to say. Sorry again if I offended you. — hike395 (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thanks for your kind message. You're right of course that I should have stopped one revert earlier than I did. I'm sure no offense was meant, and none was taken -- I was just a bit grouchy :). Separately, thanks for linking the multiple past discussions at RSN -- it will be convenient to have them mentioned in one place, rather than on separate article talk-pages. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

For having to do this. Because of this and then this.

I have dealt with it here. He's already responded here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, Thanks, I understand. I appreciate the effort you devoted to the review. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My mods re falling factorials.

I do think that the lead is too purely technical and thus hospitable only to those who are fairly sophisticated mathematically. This is Wikipedia, not a college text. That's why I believe that such a simple example is appropriate in the lead to illustrate and to motivate the topic. I can live with its being down where you've moved it, but think it would be better back up in the lead. And compare this lead to the one about factorials. Thoughts?

As to why I changed the variable from x to m in one paragraph (only), it's because of the essentially universal convention that variable names near the end of the alphabet are reals (or complex), and integers are represented by letters from the middle of the alphabet. That one paragraph is entirely about integers, so it calls for a conventionally integer-looking variable name.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Invisible Oranges at RSN

Hi, you asked me why I needed Invisible_Oranges accepted as reliable source. Could you have a look at my answer and maybe help me with that. many th in advance.

here's the link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Invisible_Oranges

H8eternal (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded there. --JBL (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dot Product

I agree with your revert.

I guess its inconsistent to use the triple equal sign for some math articles and not others and put arrows over vectors.

Is that why you reverted my edit?

I have not edited any math articles until now so it would be nice to know your thoughts on this matter. ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Thanks for your message. Since you initiated the discussion at WT:WPM and I responded there (and now several other people have as well), may I suggest to continue it there? (My thoughts are captured by XOR'easter's comment.) --JBL (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello JayBeeEll

I left a message at Talk:Kirin (chess) for you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISaveNewspapers (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Affine symmetric group

The article Affine symmetric group you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Affine symmetric group for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiHow revert

Why did you revert my edits for the page 'WikiHow'? I was intending to make it such that if you click on it, it takes you to WikiHow, already signed in to your Wikimedia account. Can you please make a link so it works instead of reverting my edits? Username142857 (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. dwc lr (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note to future self: this was about [7]. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

I am sorry but this message is unhelpful and is worsening the situation.

I haven't said anything that wasnt warranted. It is absolutely correct to call out the distortion done by this user because gazillions of explanations dedicated to his edits haven't worked and he is making false claims such as "source states that the RNU is banned in 4 municipalities of the 20,000+ in Russia" as if the source mentions his "20,000" figure or claims the group was ever registered. But he is only doubling down with his poor comprehension skills.

You can already see the wall of texts being dumped by this user only to defy WP:RS, WP:OR and his rampant falsification of sources. He admits he is here for settling social media scores than building encyclopedia, yet he has the nerve to claim that I am engaging in agenda pushing.

That's why I think you should remove this message as it can be deemed as supportive of his disruption by him and encourage him to double down further. TolWol56 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@TolWol56: What is worsening the situation is that both of you are making personal attacks. It is not warranted, it is a straightforward violation of WP:NPA. You should stop. They should stop. You should discuss what sources say, and what are the best sources; so should they. If you are finding them frustrating (understandable!) then you should spend 24 hours doing something less frustrating and respond later, in a deliberate and non-personalized way. There is no rush (particularly with the article locked). Behave better; in the best case, they will behave better also and you can constructively improve the article, and in the worst case, they will continue behaving badly and it will be really obvious to administrators which of you needs to be blocked. --JBL (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. TolWol56 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Deescalation

I'm pretty angry right now. That's unusual. I don't know why your stupid edits annoyed me so much, but as it is, I'm looking for an apology. Dan88888 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This comment of yours at ANI made me giggle: Your comment is, like, the Platonic ideal of looking for reasons to relitigate a discussion whose outcome you didn't like. Curbon7 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Hey thanks! Sometimes all one can do is laugh .... --JBL (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikispecies comment

Hello, I was wondering if you would care to retract your pot & kettle comment, for instance:

• if the vernacular name is "not a thing", are you saying that about 3/4 of the length of wikispecies:Panthera tigris is made up of things that do not exist?
• if the vernacular name is "not a thing", would you say the body of Japanese mammalogists who produced doi:10.11238/mammalianscience.58.S1, under the auspices of the Mammal Society of Japan spent their time doing something that does not exist, and that all Japanese (and indeed many English) wiki pages have as their titles things that do not exist?
• how is having page names and taxonomy that use solely scientific names "trying to set up a system around" something else?

Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not know if your difficulty understanding my comment stems from the inherent ambiguity of language, limitations in your grasp of English, or simply your unwillingness to listen to people who disagree with you, but in any case your approach is sufficiently abrasive that I have no desire to discuss it further with you. —JBL (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfect Euler Brick

I am wondering what was wrong with the proof that a perfect Euler brick does not exist article I cited. ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ResearchGate is basically Facebook — anyone can post anything there. To support the claim that someone has solved a long-standing open problem, there should be a publication with verification by other mathematicians and experts, or good-quality secondary sources writing about it. —JBL (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Belovedeagle / User:JayBeeEll. Thank you. Belovedeagle (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was stupid. —JBL (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Binomial theorem edit

Good evening. I saw that you edited my correction on the binomial theorem. Currently it is incorrect. For complex numbers you need to implement the generalization of the combinatory number through the Euler's Gamma function (basically how I corrected it). The paragraph indicates complex exponentials, but you are only considering natural exponentials... Which is not either Newton's theorem (or a generalization for what matters). His contribution was to extend it to complex numbers. Saks (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the current version is correct, and is (obviously) defined for all complex numbers r. Your version was also correct for most values of r (namely r not a negative integer) and in those cases reduces to the much clearer version in the article. Note in particular that the formula does not include the expression $r!$, which is where potential problems arise. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Weyl's tile argument

Thanks for redoing the math formatting at Weyl's tile argument. Somehow, I missed that page when trying to clean up the cluster of oddities around digital physics last year (discussion). I'd known of the idea, but I hadn't thought to check if we had an article devoted to it until people were yelling at me over at Talk:Planck units. (Personal insults over mathematical esoterica? Must be a day ending in -y....) It's not even that much related, since the people who talk about distance losing meaning below the Planck scale say that spacetime is foamy rather than gridlike. But whatever — at least another stub has gotten attention! XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome -- editing on my phone is very difficult, but something like that just about occupies a subway ride. I get a kick out of browsing WP:ANI to see what ridiculous and obscure things people can have huge years-long fights about (music genres! professional wrestling! train car specifications!) but it's decidedly less fun to be involved in it. I removed one of the personal attacks at Talk:Planck units, as well as some other ranting that may not strictly have violated WP:NPA but certainly had no part in any constructive conversation. --JBL (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated!

ANI is a bizarre place. In addition to the amazingly niche subject matter of the quarrels, the arguments are so often couched in quasi-legalistic jargon. The prosecutor is whoever is angriest, and the defense is whoever happens to show up. Very entertaining to watch, far less so to participate in. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Starbucks union petitions in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oakland, Pennsylvania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your work on the Starbucks union articles!

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: Thanks! Adding to the list is a perfect procrastination activity :). -- JBL (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

RfA comment

You recently commented "Which part of WP:NPOV (a policy that concerns the content of encyclopedia articles) would you say is relevant to this discussion?". I believe any response to the affirmative is called "the Signpost letter precedent".

This is obviously a joke, but I am posting it here because I know people at the RfA generally will see the joke through the clouded eyes of contentious argument. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Ha, yes, thanks -- a reminder that no matter how stupid things are, they can always get stupider! --JBL (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

To further add to your point, consider the frontflip 🙂🙃🙂🛹 — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IP edits

Hey JBL, I hope all is well. This is mildly awkward since you don't have email enabled and I don't want to be too public about it, but is it possible that you (very) recently logged out by accident? I came across an IP with a handful of edits that shares page overlap and some edit summary similarities with you, and I figured I'd say something in case you need to reach out to an oversighter (or in case someone is trying to joe-job you). Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs, thanks for your message. As well as can be expected while in the midst of final exam grading :). Yes, you're right, that was me. "By accident" is not precisely accurate -- I've been trying to cut back on my WP usage during certain hours and have installed a script that auto-logs me out; but then I still find myself wanting to do things during those hours and can only do them logged out :/. I don't personally feel strongly about having them oversighted, but if you think that's good practice, can you point me in the direction of a list of such people? Thanks again for checking, and sorry for wasting some of your time this way. (I do think your message should help motivate me to stop cheating on myself, so that's a win, hopefully.) JBL (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether you want to get rid of the IP edits depends on your threat model; IP disclosure generally gives away your ISP and rough (~city-level, possibly less accurate depending on country and connection type) geolocation, and not much more, although that can of course contribute to people figuring out more about who you are in real life, or to them trying to do dodgy stuff with your computer (although that's a very marginal risk). If you don't care about that, then there's probably nothing to do. If you do care about that, WP:RFO has guidance for contacting oversighters. One thing to consider either way is that the socking policy generally prohibits editing the same pages with undisclosed alts (and by extension undisclosed IPs) – people tend to view that as particularly problematic in internal discussions. I obviously don't think you made these edits with the intention of evading scrutiny, but in the interest of avoiding accidental drama, I would recommend either always disclosing your account when editing logged-out (assuming you don't care about making the connection to your IP) or switching from the logout script to something like this browser add-on, which still provides an additional hurdle to editing, but mitigates the potential privacy and policy risks of logging out. Good luck with the grading – and the cutting back. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thank you very much for your further thoughts. I've gone ahead and belatedly claimed the one edit in discussion space, in order to avoid the impression of evading scrutiny. I'll think about the oversight question. I already use (and circumvent) a similar browser add-on; I'll take a look at that one to see if it might lock me down better. Grading finished (finally) this afternoon -- and boy am I ever ready for summer break :). Hope all's well with you. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Gerda Arendt, thank you for the reminder that I am no longer young ;). Kind regards and happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Show Me the Source if You Please?

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I did not see any reliable source for that assertion, and you do? 69.112.129.186 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) You added a bunch of garbage tags on cited sentences. If you think the citation at the end of the sentence doesn't support the sentence, there are tags that are appropriate to that ({{fv}}, {{better source?}}, etc.); but your edit summary (and your behavior elsewhere) was pretty clear that you were not making such a claim. JBL (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Thanks. Although that was not what I asked for your attitude shows that you might not be impartial to this situation, the topic I was asking about hasn't been addressed, you have focused and targeted me on my other edits - seemingly. The sentence that we should be focusing on includes words like "suspected" and " ... According to rumours at the time, which persisted for many years, Henry VI was killed by a blow to the back of the head ..." which seemingly on their face indicate the lack of documentation/references. The words "suspected" and "rumours" are part of the article - does that need to be in the article? Wouldn't the execution of King Henry - if it can be proven, require an act, an order, or a death warrant issued by the new king, and would that be what we should be making our focus? Sorry if this seems unreasonably pedantic. This is justified in that here the page shows a lack of documentation and the particular sentence is surely an opinion. My tag is not the only tag stating that. 69.112.129.186 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC) That you think the tag you used is appropriate for this situation is a clear indication that you lack competence to be tagging articles. Your other recent edits show similar but worse problems. Since you began this by announcing your unwillingness to accept anything I have to say on the matter, I'm not going to waste my time in a detailed dissection of your confusion; but let me invite you to go somewhere like WP:TEAHOUSE and have some other people tell you what they think of your edit. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Big of you. Thanks for the wonderful invitation. Keep up the good work. I'm sure I appreciate the effort. I'm so unwilling, and that's interesting how you managed to perceive this through the computer. I made that announcement, and you brilliantly refused to waste any time on it. Hope you learn a little patience though, I would think that could be of help to anyone. I'll go on my merry way, though, I'm not waiting for you. 69.112.129.186 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense redirects

Hello, JayBeeEll,

I saw your comment at a recent RFD discussion about some nonsense redirects created by blocked editor Xayahrainie43. You mentioned that their other redirects should be nominated for deletion and I saw at Special:Contributions/Xayahrainie43 that they created quite a few more if you wanted to tag them and bring them to RFD. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, according to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 11#Unicode 0, some of these redirect might be useful. I don't know enough about Unicode to be able distinguish useful from nonsense redirects, maybe you do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello JayBeeEll,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 803 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 855 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Closure (topology) notation

Thanks for reverting me here. The overbar notation for "closure" appears to be less established (on Wikipedia, at least) than I had thought (it wasn't even listed on overline). IpseCustos (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@IpseCustos: Thanks for your message. I'm surprised it wasn't listed at overline, thanks for adding it. I personally think that this is one of those notations that's extremely common in particular contexts -- certainly if I were in a topology seminar and someone put a line over a set, that's what I would expect it to mean -- but since the same symbols are used with other meanings (and because Wikipedia has a more general audience than a topology seminar) it's important to set the context. Of course it may end up being a moot point, depending how the AfD goes! -- JBL (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, and thanks for removing the multiplicative inverse as one interpretation of overline! I think that it is important to avoid "canonicalizing" ad-hoc or overly specialist definitions on Wikipedia, which I grudgingly admit applies to the (unlinkable) overline-as-closure notation just as much as it does, say, to Knuth's usage of the overline to indicate negation of a digit in balanced ternary. IpseCustos (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

ARS

There are a zillion editors identified as members of ARS is FUD. I'd be surprised if there were 7 regulars who follow the board, including anti-ARS members like MrsSnoozyTurtle. ARS really is a favorite boogeyman and distraction from the core issue: Following the 80/20 Rule (which holds everywhere on Wikipedia), we can say that probably 20% of the users at AfD are creating 80% of the AfDs. And of those 20%, the 80/20 Rule also holds, so you end up with a small number of users creating a large percentage of AfDs. Perhaps the top 10 users creating a significant percentage of all AfDs. Who are these users? Are they doing a good job deciding? That's a more important question the community is not addressing. Instead there is fixating on ARS which maybe is involved in 1 out of every 500 AfDs and has a Keep success rate of maybe 50% involving a handful of editors. ARS was always a teaching tool and demonstration of proper BEFORE, it does not have a material impact on the flood of AfDs. -- GreenC 18:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should have read to the end of the sentence that you quoted! --JBL (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrats

The article currently presents no source to back this up. Rather than revert me, I suggest you find a source for it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A cn tag for a sky-is-blue claim like this is the stupidest of all possible outcomes (certainly stupider than just removing the unnecessary infobox line, for example). If you want to propose some non-stupid alternative, I would be happy to consider it. --JBL (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Rather than calling me an idiot, you could just do something productive with your day. Toa Nidhiki05 20:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously JBL was discourteous; but equally obviously, that is pretty much a sky-is-blue matter. The Dixiecrats were the hard-core racists, the unregenerate white supremacists defiant against a nation which was slowly getting conscious of these matters. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That they were exceedingly racist is beyond dispute. That they are far of the far-right is not, and should be easily findable if it's so apparent. There is no harm in asking for citations. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not call you an idiot. (And, for the avoidance of doubt: I do not think that you are an idiot.) I think that having a cn tag on an obviously true statement is an incredibly stupid situation and therefore I think putting the tag on was ill-advised (and therefore I reverted). If you put forward a proposal to remove the "ideology" entry on the infobox until such time as it is explicitly supported by a citation, I will support that. If you put forward a proposal to change "far right" to something that is already supported by a citation, I will probably support that, too. (Separately, I think attaching your argument to the inane ravings of the IP is a poor strategy if you hope to convince anyone of anything.) --JBL (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrat

[8] I think this editor may want or require an RfC. I've listed citations and evidence but no consensus has been reached. Would you be up to helping us on this? DN (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I'll try to take a look some time this week. --JBL (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

[9] We have some comments now changing the hatted discussion. I do not know if editors are purposefully ignoring the the indicators that show how Dixiecrats fall into the Far Right political spectrum or if it is truly just lack of attention to these facts. Either way I am trying to AGF. DN (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello JayBeeEll,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13676 articles, as of 22:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Why the jump to RFC

I started up the RFC, as it appeared (at Monarchy of Canada) we were heading towards changing 1 of the 14 redirects. That would've caused a potential mess, so I figured it would be best to go forward & get as wide as possible input, for all 14 redirects. Keeping in mind, that the succession is the same in the UK & the 14 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've aborted it. There seems to be confusion at the Canadian monarchy page. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello JayBeeEll,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)