User talk:JayBeeEll/Archives/2020/

“Tainted by sockpuppetry”

I’m not objecting to a note to the previous RfC. I’m objecting to that language, which is biased and was only raised by Aquillion, and Aquillion only, in a prior discussion. There is no widespread agreement on this from the others - it’s an attempt by Aquillion to delegitimize the previous RfC, which had over 30 participants. Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: What do you think is a non-biased way to describe the situation that an RfC was started by and features votes from a sock-puppets?

On a separate note, the seeming desperation by some editors to avoid discussing an issue that was obviously going to be re-litigated at some point is bizarre; just having the discussion on the merits would be better. There seems to be a reasonable likelihood that it will turn out the same way. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Most people don’t seem to see an issue, given the RfC had 30+ respondents and the decision was not determined by sock votes. The fact a handful of people on both sides were socks doesn’t dismiss the consensus that was created, and all it serves here is to try and make the previous RfC, which was extensively discussed, illegitimate - conveniently, this would benefit the RfC’s creator, who opposes the consensus. An impartial link would be sufficient for people to make up their own minds. Toa Nidhiki05 17:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: You have artfully dodged my question, so I will ask it again: What do you think is a non-biased way to describe the situation that an RfC was started by and featured votes from sock-puppets? Aquillion does not say the previous RfC was invalid or illegitimate, which would be a much stronger and less defensible claim. If you offer a reasonable alternative, I would be happy to request of Aquillion that they reword their comment.

Here is my analysis/advice: this RfC, like the previous one, is going to end with more people opposing inclusion than favoring it, possibly many more. In such a situation, the people who support inclusion are best served if the arguments for inclusion are clear and emphasize policy. The more that the RfC ends up looking like a squabbling shit-show, dominated by bludgeoning (a la Wikieditor19920) or trash arguments about process (a la Edit5001), the more likely it is that the numerical majority will rule. So I think that editors on "your side" would do well to stop picking fights about the stupid stuff and instead make clear, uncluttered, substantive arguments. (I also think it would be better if people on "my side" did that.) --JBL (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What's your issue with my edit?

At Christianity and Abortion, why are you removing "or approval" from the sentence I'm trying to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs)

Here is the article talk page; please learn how to use it. (I am not the first person to object to this edit.) --JBL (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

So I need to use the talk page to justify adding a single, uncontroversial word and you don't have to justify why you object to that word? Also, the previous person objected to a bigger edit, this was a smaller one. Edit5001 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) Read WP:BRD and seek to understand it. (2) Do not post here again unless required by Wikipedia policy. --JBL (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Beets

Thanks. I was reading about the health benefits of beets and it reminded me the way I usually eat them looks like an octant, but I couldn't find the answer myself to what they were.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

John Coleman (meteorologist)

Hi Joel.

Regarding your message "I can tell you in advance that attempts to write out of the article the fact that Coleman's views are way out of the mainstream of expert opinion are not going to work; see WP:FRINGE."

I merely summarized what Coleman's beliefs actually were which does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. The policy you referenced states:

"[A] Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources."

Stating what someone's beliefs are clearly does not violate this policy. It is an utter travesty that this section of the article on Coleman (entitled "Views on global warming", let me remind you) does not state what his views actually are (at the time of writing), but instead the contributors have engaged in character assassination. The claims made in this section are based on hyperbolic and sensationalistic journalism that surely any self-respecting mathematician would find highly offensive. Furthermore, the sources provided do not properly corroborate the statements made by contributors. Contributions I made were corroborated by primary source material and were factual. As a mathematician who values the truth (I hope), can you, in good conscience, sit by and let this stand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotdingo (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss the article is on the article talk page. --JBL (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Thanks for your comments on the RFC. Just to let you know, wrt this edit that the user you replied to has earned themselves a six month topic ban so won't be replying. -- Colin°^Talk 13:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin You’re welcome, and thanks for letting me know! —JBL (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Jimbo Wales

While I can understand why you did it (concrete examples to demonstrate a problem are often beneficial), I expressly asked people not to bring up specifics in the discussion on Jimbo's page. That page gets a great deal of attention, often from outsiders who don't understand all the workings of Wikipedia, and attracting further attention to a biography subject who has made clear by her own actions - after being improperly contacted by someone involved in the dispute - that she does not want her sexuality (whatever she considers that to be) to be a matter of public discourse, is exactly what I was trying to avoid. Going over the specifics of a particular case all over again in a place where nothing is going to be resolved regarding it isn't necessary, and given the visibility of Jimbo's talk page, could well result in outside media deciding that this will make a good story, thus adding to the subject's discomfort. It really shouldn't need specific examples to make a general case, and the problem seems to be much larger than this one (there are at least two others currently under discussion, and it takes little effort to find indications that there may be many more). Accordingly, I would ask you to delete that post, before it results in further unwanted attention to a subject who clearly doesn't deserve this sort of nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AndyTheGrump -- of course I read your request the first time I visited, but then had forgotten it by the time of my second visit (when I read only the newer posts) :-/. I have removed the post (which happily has not generated further discussion so far); sorry for the unnecessary bother. --JBL (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop harassment, hounding, disruptive editing, and campaigning to drive away productive contributors

Hello, I'm Ekpyros. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.

I am a novice editor, and you are systematically going through edits I've made and reverting them with comments such as "WTF?". This is the second time you have reverted several of my edits within minutes of each other; the last time, you reverted four edits in a row.

You've left instructions on my page: "Per WP:BRD, you are welcome to begin a discussion on any of the talk pages of the articles in question." However, you have not followed your own advice, but simply reverted my edits while failing to discuss a single one on any of the article Talk pages.

While I assume your sequential bulk deletions of my contributions are in good faith, I am concerned that you may be inadvertently WP:HOUNDING and WP:DISRUPT campaigning to drive away productive contributors, as while you "might not exhaust the general community's patience" your editing absolutely "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles"—namely, me.

At minimum, your behavior seems to go against what I understand to be an important guideline: "Please do not bite the newcomers".

I am asking that you please stop targeting, harassing, and hounding me. Thanks kindly, Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ekpyros: you respond to a comment five months later? What gives? El_C 00:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. I just had another two of my edits reverted by the same user. I am new to this and I didn't know how to respond to harassment after the first bulk reversion. And now it's even more clear that I'm being targeted. Can you explain the point of your comment? Is there only a certain amount of time I have to ask not to be hounded? Elle Kpyros (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to this comment, left on your user talk page on Sept. 29, 2019. El_C 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've addressed it below. Again, can you explain what your point is here or how this is helpful? Elle Kpyros (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Just registering my overall confusion. El_C 01:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: these two recent edits of mine will help clarify: [1] [2]. --JBL (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I see definite issues which pertain to a lack of neutrality and undue weight. El_C 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not really responsive to my polite request. It also doesn't explain why you deleted longstanding parts of the Charles Blow article that were there before my edits without discussing it first on the talk page, as you advised me to do. Elle Kpyros (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC

@Ekpyros: have you read the link WP:BRD? You seem confused about what it says.

Separately, it is not harassment to deal with genuine issues in someone's edits; as El_C has helpfully pointed out just above, such issues are extremely common in your edits. You are welcome at any point to follow the advice in my message from last year. --JBL (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need a secondary source for what the text actually says?

You reverted my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem I do not understand why we need a secondary source to show that someone knew the theorem 150 years ago... the primary source clearly shows that someone knew the theorem that far back. What kind of secondary source are you looking for? AristosM (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi AristosM, Thanks for your message. The relevant piece of policy is WP:PSTS. Poinsot's paper is the document that exhibits the fact of someone in the 19th century knowing this theorem. A proper secondary source for the statement "it was known 150 years ago" would be someone commenting on the fact that Poinsot wrote a paper in the 19th century that contained this theorem; for example, a piece of literature on the history of physics, or a physics textbook by a reputable scholar published through a conventional editorial process.

To understand why this matters, consider whether our article on the four color theorem should state that it was proved by Kempe in 1879; certainly, I can find a primary source that says it was (namely, the one written by Kempe in 1879), but all modern secondary sources agree that the proof was flawed and so allow us to comment on the subject with appropriate perspective.

A secondary source would also be helpful for clarifying whether Poinsot's work is correctly dated to 1834 or 1852: you changed it from 1834 to 1852 based on the image (a primary source), but it's quite possible that this was a republished version of an earlier work, or that the result was first shared in personal correspondence earlier, or one of many other things that could make the earlier date correct. To be clear, I have no idea if this is the case; but a good secondary source would settle the question. --JBL (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I see. That's a complicated piece of reasoning. Would the Veritaserum video count as such a secondary source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU See timestamp 4:48 through 5:10, where he discusses explicitly that the theorem published earlier is the same as the current theory. AristosM (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@AristosM: I think it is good (although it doesn't settle the question of the correct date); I will add it to the article. Thanks! --JBL (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The first printing was 1834: https://www.worldcat.org/title/theorie-nouvelle-de-la-rotation-des-corps/oclc/12744728 AristosM (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@AristosM: Thank you; I will change the date back. Would it be ok with you if I copied this discussion over to the article talk page, for the potential benefit of future editors of the page? --JBL (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That’s fine. The Wikipedia chat system is mind boggling to me. This was the only way I knew to reply to you. If there’s a better place to put it, please proceed. AristosM (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@AristosM: Thanks very much. This page (my user talk page) is the best way to reach me directly. But every Wikipedia article has an associated article talk page, which is the best place for discussions that focus on editing an article (since that way other potential editors can chime in or follow past discussions). The talk page for the tennis racket theorem is Talk:Tennis racket theorem and I will copy the salient parts of this discussion over in a moment. Thanks again for improving this article! --JBL (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Corrected archive-url

Thanks for your edit (diff) which corrected archive-url at Boris Tsirelson. Have you got any idea what went wrong with my archive link? I am certain that after saving my edit I checked that the archive-url worked by clicking it in the published article. Now, as you know, archive.org claims it does not have that archive. I'm wondering if you have seen this before or if you know that archive.org is flakey. I don't like the idea of using Archive.today because I saw the incredible spam attack they launched on Wikipedia but I might have to review that. Perhaps I should ask at WP:VPT or similar. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, I don't know, but I can describe my experience: I was going to leave a message at WP:AN asking for someone to protect Boris's user page, but the TAU site was down, so I tried the archive.org link and it said there was nothing there. After a bit the TAU site came back up, and I tried to archive it by following the instructions on the Wayback Machine. This resulted in angry messages from the TAU site instead of the desired page. I did see in the instructions for archiving a page here a note about "only available for sites that allow crawlers" -- could that be the issue? The archive link that I substituted was provided by BlackcurrantTea at AN. VPT can't possibly understand this less well than I do :). --JBL (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Right - I saw the same message JBL describes when I tried to save a copy to archive.org. (I've successfully saved pages in the past.) I don't see anything obvious in their robots.txt that would cause archiving to break; you might ask Cyberpower678 if he has ideas about it, and you could email the TAU people. There may be other archiving sites available, too; I've not looked for them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Saying goodbye to Boris

Re: this revert, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATsirel&type=revision&diff=942500205&oldid=942492707 is there a reason that I cannot say goodbye? I'd chat with Boris on WP, it seems like the appropriate place to say goodbye, as well. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You left a series of extremely bizarre talk-page messages yesterday ([3], [4], [5]) all of which I considered reverting. Writing "good-bye" in response to a death announcement struck me as fitting the pattern of bizarreness, and also in somewhat poor taste; and unlike the messages on Count Iblis's and Kbrown's talk pages, there is no longer an active user maintaining the page. Having said that, if you restore that message (or leave some other) I will not revert again. --JBL (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to understand what about any of these messages is "bizarre", except maybe about Kitaev. From what I could tell, S. Kitaev is an entire generation younger, and would therefore be unlikely to be writing letters of recommendation for post-docs. I was going to chime in that "Oh, Kitaev is quite famous", before doing a double-take and realizing that S. Kitaev is someone else; and then it occurred to me that perhaps others were also mistaken about the surname. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

As to "poor taste", would it have been better if I had taken a snapshot of some flowers and a Hallmark card, and posted that on his page? Wikipedia is not a physical space, one cannot just stand at some location and grieve, and leave behind some physical token or memento. One must do with words and photographs. Perhaps there is some memorial page, but I am not aware of it; certainly, on facebook, one can post last regards. At any rate, I had a half-finished conversation with Boris, and was preparing a reply. Unfortunately, I will never be able to deliver it. So a few short words on his final departure seemed entirely appropriate. It is what people do when they go to funerals: they stand up and say whatever it is that they need to say. I don't believe that such expressions should ever be considered to be bizarre or in poor taste -- grieving is a fundamental human emotion, and to hush up others in their grief is ... wrong. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You asked for my reasons and I gave them. It is not important to me that you accept my reasons as valid; since I have said that I do not intend to interfere with your edits I don't think it should be important to you that I renounce them. --JBL (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. I'm excitable and voluable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No apology necessary, I'm sure! (Also, sorry for the revert of your edit to your talk page just now -- I'm not exactly sure what happened.) --JBL (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere,

Thanks for the message -- I will look into this. As you can see from my history, I have (very) limited experience creating articles from scratch, none with speedy deletion, and what I would describe as moderate experience with AfD as a participant (none as a closer). If you had a moment, I would be interested in your sense of whether I am actually an appropriate candidate for this. (I am certainly competent to follow the detailed flowchart at WP:NPP!)

Thanks, JBL (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, I think you certainly could be. The notability guidelines need to be understood at a basic level, but so long as you know where to look, complete encyclopedic knowledge of all the guidelines isn't necessary. What's actually needed is a good head on your shoulders (and following the flowchart when you aren't sure). In any case, it is usually granted for a few months trial period first, where you can work to get a hang of the process. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks -- I'll give it a go! --JBL (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

re Uyarsky District redactions

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dr. Lewis? Quote "Because as far as I can tell it's just BS that you made up (TW)" (sic) . Can you please explain this term "BS" - thanx. Does this imply that you wish to have a discussion with me? All the best GerixAu (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC) No, I'd rather not explain. Likewise I have no desire to discuss anything with you here -- see WP:BRD for how you might proceed. --JBL (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Fair e'nuff too. Isn't it great how WP is improving steadily over the years as obviously stable, competent and balanced editors join the crew. GerixAu (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: [6] --JBL (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ISBN

While it is true that only 10 digit numbers were issued before 1 January, 2007, after 1 January, 2007, both 10 and 13 digit numbers were issued - quite a few books even contain both a 10 and a 13 digit ISBN. It is fairly straightforward to convert between 10 and 13 digit numbers - they are basically the same number, with different check digits appended plus the 13 digit version has the "bookland" prefix prepended to make it compatible with the EAN code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jost Riedel (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to future self: this seems to be about this. --JBL (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Mick Abel

Can we move Mick Abel to a draft space? Lucky7jrk (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lucky7jrk, I am not an administrator, so I can't do anything now that it's been deleted. But I think you should be able to request that it be returned to user or draft space at WP:REFUND. Hope this helps, JBL (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Temporary

Hi Joel B. Lewis. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

[7] --JBL (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Permanent

Hi Joel B. Lewis. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. qedk (t 心 c) 13:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

[8] --JBL (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Example of an applied mathematical reasoning in biomedicine

How do you view the example of use of mathematical reasoning re the reaching of the peak of spreading the recent disease by Michael Levitt based on some data re exponential growth of the number of cases of infected persons?--109.166.137.236 (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In this context I have been surprised to just notice an interesting biographical detail re the mathematician Daniel Bernoulli who studied medicine, not mathematics, (but still taking private math lessons from his father), especially in the context that in medicine education there isn't too much mathematical content, if any, perhaps in the guise of biostatistics, which many medical students do not really understand, being just a rather marginal discipline in the curriculum.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

JBL is a professional mathematician and would know what he's doing, but you're likely to get a more diverse array of responses if you post these questions at WP:RDMA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Jasper Deng! Of course I'm thinking as the next step to post also at the mentioned place. The answer by a professional mathematician like JBL has a great weight.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP,

You reference something Levitt has written (?) but only provide a link to his Wikipedia biography, so I don't really know what you're talking about. I think that epidemiological modelling is a great exercise for, say, an undergraduate course on mathematical modelling; it has been interesting to learn something about how it's done in the last few weeks, but I am not inclined to make any statements about it more definite than "in a certain basic model, here is how outputs depend on parameters". I personally would not use COVID-19 as an example of anything in a class with young students at present due to its potentially upsetting nature. (Maybe next year?)

About Bernoulli, my impression is the classification "mathematician" didn't exist in his era (as distinct from what we would now call "scientist"), and that specialized academic training of the modern variety got going in the 19th century. (My understanding is that the premed curriculum in US universities typically requires students take at least single-variable calculus, which was I guess not cutting-edge research during D. Bernoulli's time but was not that far off, either.) [Have I understood correctly the point you were making about Bernoulli? What you wrote about him was a massive run-on sentence, so difficult to parse.] --JBL (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting aspect re the US premed curriculum in contrast to the European systems. Also interesting the aspect re the distinction mathematician vs scientist in the time of Bernoulli. --109.166.129.82 (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Re Levitt, he seems to have been making a general analysis, or number crunching on the outputs - parameters relation and social distancing underlining at [9] .--109.166.129.82 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately that link doesn't work for me. --JBL (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Importance of proofs in math edu

Hi! In the context of the edit at Median (geometry) re mathematical proofs in elementary geometry I want to ask you about the level of importance of proofs in mathematics education which seems not to be sufficiently underlined in teaching. (I have been reading these days some books on teaching geometry and I have thought to check elementary geometry proofs (involving triangle congruences). I have also noticed in this context the lack of an article or perhaps a section re geometry education, where the necessity of proofs appears more often or explicitly than in algebra). Thanks!--109.166.130.189 (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, proofs are no less important in algebra. The answer to all your questions is that you need reliable sources that demonstrate notability of your proposed topics. Chances are that they exist for this particular topic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to ask about some sources/books in English about this topic, if encountered by JBL. The books I've been reading are NON-ENG sources.--109.166.130.189 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the proofs in algebra, they seem a bit easier on average than in geometry.--109.166.130.189 (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? Try proving the fundamental theorem of algebra.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This mentioned theorem of algebra seems to be an exception, some textbooks say it is accepted without proof.--109.166.130.189 (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Usually in teaching math, proven formulae, such as that for the solutions of the quadratic equation, after the teaching of the proof, are requested to be memorized by students, as a standalone objective. Such teaching habit affects the perception of math by average students who can memorize formulae and even entire proofs by hart, without seeing the connection between notions. Such use of memory can cause difficulties in solving rather simple problems as applications to the course. This presented aspect I have found in a foreword of a book of problems of Signals, Circuits and Systems (in electronics). Also I have encountered a criticism of usual memorization in math in a book titled The Psychology of Mathematical Activity.--109.166.130.189 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why this discussion is here? I have no great expertise in primary or secondary math education. If it's related to some edits one of us has made to some article, I don't know which ones. If you're just chatting: you said in your first post that you wanted to ask me a question, but then you didn't; clearer context would be helpful for me to formulate an answer. --JBL (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A concise question re a wikiedit: How do you view the insertion or citation in the article Median (geometry) of the mentioned link, Algebra.com, containing geometric proofs for the intersection of lines in triangles (medians, altitudes, angle and side bisectors)?--109.166.130.189 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems like an unremarkable, user-generated website with unclear editorial control or quality. There are a zillion “learn math here” websites; generally they are not appropriate for Wikipedia references or external links. —JBL (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A question with wider context: What can you say from your personal experience in math, what impression did you have when the first elementary geometric proofs were presented to you? What is your recollection re those moments?--109.166.130.189 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I doubt my personal experience is of much general applicability: I studied “high school geometry” at age 12 or so, but I had already had extensive exposure to geometry in other classes and through mathematics competitions, and generally loved mathematics. I know that I thought two column proofs were silly. —JBL (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your personal experience is very useful, especially in a comparative context.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that! --JBL (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A derived question from question 2: Based on your personal recolection on encountering the first geometric proofs, how would you stirr interest for and underline the importance of geometric proofs for a 6/7-th grader, who could easily underestimate such importance?--109.166.130.189 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think my answer to this is to agree with Lockhart’s Lament: formal, rigorous proof is important in mathematics, but it is not clear that proofs as they are introduced in “high school geometry” are good examples of this importance. (If you happen to read/have read LL: there is a proof presented there from one of his students, that any angle inscribed in a semicircle is right. The student is my younger brother.) —JBL (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point of view and author, whom I have just noticed. I see that there is a wikiarticle with the mentioned title Lockhart's lament.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

In recent years I have noticed some other autors with points of view re the teaching of math like Morris Kline, Rozsa Peter, etc.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. (The original version is linked from there; I think the published version is somewhat extended.) It is an enjoyable read for a polemic :). Lockhart has also gone on to write a couple of textbooks (Measurement is the one relevant to geometry, I think) but I haven't read them yet. I don't know Péter, but Hungary has a long and interesting history of high-quality mathematics education. Lockhart is of course writing in a world that was transformed by the educational movement Kline was part of. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I have noticed that printed edition has 140 pages and the initial essay only 25 pages. So what you said in re to the 3rd question (geometric proofs at ages 12-14) is included in the 25 pages online link or in the 140 pages printed edition?--109.166.137.236 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The page count is somewhat misleading: the printed book has small pages and comfortable margins, as opposed to the dense typesetting of the original. Unfortunately my copy is in the office, not at home, so I can't check; but I think it is probably only expanded by perhaps 20%, not 500%. The section on geometry appears in both versions. --JBL (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have just remembered some other authors like the Russians Yaglom brothers, Isaak Yaglom and Akiva Yaglom, with their book Challenging (or nonelementary) Mathematical Problems with Elementary Solutions (in two English editions 1967, 1987).--109.166.137.236 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The book by the Russians Yaglom, as well as the book by Péter, The Game with Infinity there are in my library, in Romanian translation. The Romanian foreword for the first edition, written by Gheorghe Mihoc, mentions some disturbing aspect re math teaching and the status of highschool math teacher in that time noticed by Felix Klein at the begining of the 20th century in the foreword of his 1908 Elementarmathematik vom höheren Standpunkte aus. The foreword for the second Romanian edition, written by Yaglom brothers themselves in 1981, notices the transformation over 30 years both in mathematics itself and its teaching methods since the first 1954 Russian edition such as the thrive of combinatorics and probability theory as applicative value increase, allowing the Yaglom brothers to underline the importance of their results in practice, as well as noticing some elements included initially in recreational math being transfered to a branch with majors practical applications.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Some other authors I could mention in this context are Grigore Moisil (combinatorialist and mathematical logician), Solomon Marcus, Mircea Malița, Octav Onicescu (probabilist), Dan Barbilian, Lucian Blaga (a philosophical-mathematical essay The Experiment and the Mathematical Spirit), etc.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Another interesting mathematician, who illustrates the (willingness of) involvement of mathematicians (somewhat similar to way described by Yaglom to tackle challenging problems) in other fields (like physics and chemistry, etc) to apply mathematical proofs and style of research, is Thomas Hakon Gronwall.--109.166.137.236 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but again I am not sure what the point is that you're making. Certainly, these are interesting people, with many interesting ideas. So ...? --JBL (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've enumerated these persons and aspects in order to underline a context re the use and the joy of proofs (phrase encountered in a G.H. Hardy - B. Russell dialogue). Without these points of view from these persons the ordinary teaching of math at pre-highscool and highscool didn't seem too interesting to me. At those moments of pre-highschool math I did not figure it what was/is missing in the ordinary theaching of math and especially geometry to exercise the building elements of geometric proofs, especially the geometric auxillary constructions like the use of parallel lines to the sides of a triangle, use of perpendiculars, etc. An interesting moment in the first year of highschool was the explicit encounter of the subject matter/discipline of logic. The logic textbook had examples of geometric propositions both in the chapter re categorical propositions and the logic of predicates. A second interesting/enlighting moment was the encounter of combinatorics in the second year of highschool. A third and final moment in highschool math was the encounter of the study of (binary) operations and algebraic structures determined by then, the textbook having examples of geometric operations of symmetry. Retrospectively I was very dissapointed by not encountering the enumerated aspects and moments in books much earlier since the some elements of logic like the direct and the converse implications in theorem were presented in the first geometry textbook at the introduction of geometry based on reasoning, but not beeing correlated with some aspects of predicate schemes (open formulae as statements with at least a variable) introduced in the study of linear equations and not used in a geometric context applied to the relations between points and lines in a plane (parallel and intersecting lines) or points, lines and planes in spatial geometry.--109.166.132.175 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense. My experience as an educator is that many students are pleasantly surprised to discover that there are ideas in mathematics (that the things they've been learning as formal rules mean something, and that they are connected to each other by a logical structure that can be understood). I guess that is similar to what you're saying. Although I think that the formality of rigorous proof is not the best way for some students to see that there are interesting logical connections present. (I think that the curse of two-column proofs in geometry, for example, is that there can be so much emphasis on formal details that the connection with any ideas is lost. And in trying to teach students epsilon-delta proofs in single variable calculus, it is important to keep them away from just memorizing the individual structures for certain families of functions -- the proofs are not the best way to show the concepts.) --JBL (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that the logical connection of mathematical notions can be underlined in the context of the analysis of sphere/scope and content relations between those notions. Geometry provides many examples of sphere (and content) inclusion such as those re the types of triangles, quadrilaterals, etc. Also the geometric auxillary constructions provide additional info to that provided by the explicit premisses of a geometric problem, additional info which constitutes (as) additional propositions in the chain/sequence of (the) proof(s). These constructions are connected to the visual perception of the drawing of the geometric shapes involved in geometric problems. --109.166.129.82 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure -- the problem with proofs in geometry is in how it's typically taught, not something inherent. (The material is pretty good for introducing students to proofs.) --JBL (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

From the mentioned external link inserted initially at median (geometry) I have noticed an aspect involving negation used in connection to the intersection of 2 of the 3 medians in a triangle. Since they are not parallel (and also not identical) to one another, they must intersect as lines in a plane, there isn't other possibility. Therefore what remains to be proven is that the 3rd median (or altitude or angle bisector,..) is concurrent to the any other two medians(/..). --109.166.129.82 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Another logical aspect which can be difficult for beginners in geometry is the use of logical quantifiers, especially the universal quantifier. When a certain type of triangle (isosceles, equilateral triangle or right-angled triangle, etc) is drawn on the blackboard or on notebook sheet, it represents the set of ALL isosceles(/,...) triangles, which is rather difficult to perceive by average beginner. A property displayed by a particular drawn triangle of a certain types holds for ALL triangles from that set of particular triangles, not just the drawn triangle. Beginners are somewhat tied to concrete geometric shapes instead of the abstract concepts of triangle, quadrilateral, point, line, etc involved in reasonings/proofs.--109.166.129.82 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Or any field of mathematics. I think epsilon-delta proofs are a particularly challenging place because of the three quantifiers, for example. Real analysis has a sort of progression of increasing quantifier depth -- continuity, uniform continuity, equicontinuity, uniform equicontuity -- such that you can really only understand each one after you've grasped the previous one, and I think that quantifier depth is what makes them difficult to grok at first. --JBL (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Three quantifiers!!!! This would be very interesting/challenging/wonderful (explicit) exercise of Applied Logic!!!! (I'm kind of a Logic Maniac.)--109.166.129.82 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I remember about the epsilon-delta being present in an optional section of the calculus texbook, it wasn't requested as compulsory part of the curriculum. --109.166.129.82 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this varies a lot from course to course and teacher to teacher, at least within the US. (I do introduce students to it, but in a relatively conceptual way (so in particular I don't try to force them to write proofs).) --JBL (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It can be said that this conceptual of introduction way involves underlining key aspects like the presence/participation of the absolute values of differences of values of the function and the argument between the value of the function and the value of the limit and similarly for the argument and the point where the limit of the function is evaluated |f(x) - L|<epsilon, |x - x₀|<delta(epsilon). (Sometimes it is very easy to not notice the presence of the third quantifier, at least at a first reading of the epsilon delta definition of the limit, when the definition presented semisimbolically as block of text mixed with some symbols for some quantifiers.)--109.166.129.82 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It can be noticed that for the limit of a sequence only epsilon remains (/is required) from epsilon delta.--109.166.129.82 (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Some teachers may have a rather obsessive fondness for exercises with limits of sequences of special interest, trigonometric, exponential, logaritmic, etc.--109.166.129.82 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Re the memorization of the individual structures for certain families of functions, an example could be angle sum theorems for functions sine and cosine, which sometimes are overemphasized by some teachers as just formulae to be memorized, they do not underline the key steps in deriving the formulae (and not establish the connection to de Moivre formula). It seems that some/(many?) teachers of math treat the memorization of math formulae like those in other disciplines such as physics or especially (organic) chemistry where the deductive structure is less obvious, thus math is treated as if NON-math. This is a rather subtle trap for math teachers. Another overlooked aspect in teaching single variable calculus is the geometric aspect in the graphs of functions, the tangent lines and derivatives, asymptotes, etc.--109.166.129.82 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. --JBL (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Other connections that haven't been underlined are those between the binomial expansion and the limit definition of the number e and between the exponential function and the geometric progression, between finite difference, difference quotient and differential and derivative, etc.--109.166.129.82 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry-based learning in math and undergraduate research

Hi! I've encountered in Graph theorists category a researcher, Alison Marr, (just noticed she is also involved in math edu) who is a proponent of inquiry-based learning in math. In the context of the above discussion, how do view the practical ways to introduce this educational method on a large scale in the usual educational system, of course simultaneously with a less emphasis on memorization of math statements and formulae and a more emphasis on the formation of students abilities in undergraduate research? (Also in this context especially by enhancing the connection between math concepts and procedures and the so-called empirical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, ...)) --109.166.129.82 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Thanks, IP -- I guess you haven't been blocked for your completely inappropriate approaches to administrators yet? Oh, well. --JBL (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, as you know this topic area, race and intelligence, is under ArbCom sanctions. I really don’t want to report you to ArbCom enforcement because I just don’t like to resolve disputes that way. If you believe that I am misrepresenting the academic literature and Wikipedia policies then why can’t you have a productive discussion about sources and Wikipedia policies? It suggests that you can’t and instead can only resort to name calling and personal attacks to win your argument. Can you remove your personal insults from the topic area, I don’t think that is much to ask? Thanks--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: None of my comments are personal attacks. What you have written includes large amounts of bullshit, particularly of a racist or anti-anti-racist nature; but that is not a personal comment (and so in particular not a personal attack). The best way not to have your comments labelled racist bullshit is to make sure that your comments are not racist bullshit, e.g., by ceasing to embrace views like 'nothing I write is racist because I have acquaintances of other races' and 'anti-semitism has never masqueraded as philo-semitism' and 'Richard Lynn is a better representative of the mainstream than Stephen J Gould' and 'it is important to make sure white supremacist views are well-represented on wikipedia because otherwise people wanting their racist views validated might have to go elsewhere'.
FWIW, I also would prefer you not begin ArbCom proceedings -- it sounds like an awful waste of time and energy, especially in comparison to my suggestion. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and of my many thousands of edits I made zero edits to race and intelligence article until two months ago when I saw the article was up for deletion. I actually have little to no interest in the subject, except I take strong objection to the academic literature being misrepresented by shouting down opponents as being racists. All I did say about Jewish people was to mention that some researchers had found that Jewish and East Asians scored higher on intelligence tests than white Caucasians and other racial groups, that is not antisemitism, it is not my fault the datasets are what they are. Like every other subject I edit on, I follow the sources, that is what forms my editing opinions. Although it is actually none of your business I am actually a supporter of Israel and have never made a single edit on Wikipedia to justify a suggestion of antisemitism, so that is another personal attack I request you withdraw and apologise for. I came here to ask you not to personally attack me and you do so again on your talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

And in my many thousands of edits I have made zero edits to do with Jewish people or Judaism, there is no basis for that slur, it is totally inappropriate of you to just randomly accuse someone of antisemitism, one of the most poisonous evils in the world perpetrated by paranoid far right conspiracy theorists and the far left.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: I will repeat myself: None of my comments are personal attacks. What you have written includes large amounts of bullshit [...]; but that is not a personal comment (and so in particular not a personal attack). --JBL (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither of us are experts in genetics and intelligence to determine what is bullshit. Do me a favour, in your above post you put double quotations to imply they are direct verbatim quotes of things I wrote, which is incorrect obviously, so can you change the double quotes to single quotes, cheers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: I have swapped quotation marks. I don't think I used quotation marks on the other discussion, but if that's wrong let me know and I'd be happy to change them there, as well. --JBL (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

JBL: I met you in person a few times some years ago at some academic events, maybe 10 years ago the most recent. You seemed like a perfectly sane, decent guy. Had the order been reversed and I saw this Wikipedia stuff first, I would have kept a distance in person. The other characters at the RfC going tooth and nail is what it is -- they seem constitutionally unable to do anything else. The only effect of your "contributions" and the counter-comments they inevitably elicit is to make the RfC even more of a train wreck. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

IP 73 etc., if you'd like to make personal remarks, I invite you to send me an e-mail with your name attached to it, so that we may be in a symmetric position and I can share with you my views about whether you are sane, decent, etc., as well. Otherwise, please keep them to yourself. --JBL (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Zero interest. You made some remarks in the thread or edit explanations to "cut the bullshit" and I am doing the same here given the knowledge that you (unlike some of the others) are actually capable of that. That's it. I'm done here. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, your concerns are duly noted. --JBL (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

One way of another, it's probably inevitable that this issue will end up at arbitration. In this AE report there was a rough consensus of admins that an ArbCom case was needed, and I'm a little surprised no one has requested one yet. I agree with the list of parties that In actu suggested, although I think JBL also should be included. 2600:1004:B125:ADE2:A589:8ADE:3EF3:6B4A (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

IP 2600 etc., whatever discussion your comment is part of, it's not one that's taking place here. --JBL (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. – Erfan Talk☻ 09:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wording at Sierpinski number

enough
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi! I have seen your edit at Sierpinski number described as in connection to clarity/intelligibility. What exactly is unclear in my wording to see how to rephrase? Thanks!--109.166.129.57 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Hi 109.166.129.57, Thanks for the message. The structure of the lead is currently "A Sierpinski number is a number with [some property]. In 1960, Wacław Sierpiński proved that there are infinitely many odd integers k which have this property." Since there is only one property mentioned, the referent of "this" is 100% clear and unambiguous. You replaced the second sentence with "... which have this property of generating a sequence of composite numbers by the mentioned formula for the general term of the sequence." This is an extremely difficult to follow attempt to restate the same property; to the extent that I can parse it at all, I am not convinced it is correct (what is "the sequence" supposed to refer to?). Perhaps it would be better to start with this: what do you think is wrong with the current version that needs clarification? All the best, JBL (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC) I've seen your reply at talk:Sierpinski number to which I've added some specs re the explicit identification of these numbers as a sequence.--109.166.132.148 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC) I think in re to the needed clarification that explicitly using the word sequence is a clarification, not something pointless.--109.166.132.148 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC) There is nothing unclear about the current version. —JBL (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I have just noticed your paranthetical question (what is "the sequence" supposed to refer to?) in your edit from 10th of September 2019.--109.166.132.148 (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Good for you (?). Separately, please stop carrying on two parallel conversations with me -- the other article is on my watchlist. --JBL (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Full stops & quotes

As it clearly says, when using British English, use "logical quotes". Like I just did. American English uses the American Rule." Like I just did. But let us keep in mind this is a very trivial point. I have added this page to my watchlist if you would like to talk about this. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're reading, but it's not MOS:LQ, which begins On the English Wikipedia, use the "logical quotation" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. -JBL (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

S. Fred Singer

From reading the gentleman's obituary it was not clear he joined the navy. He may have been a civilian employee. Further, there is no reason to capitalize "armed forces," as it is not set in caps elsewhere in the article. It is in no way a proper noun. Finally, is the a reason to prefer cosmic rays to cosmic rays? the latter seems to have a better appearance. I certainly do no wish to engage in an edit war. Could you reconsider and perhaps revise your edits of this page? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph in question ends in a footnote; the reference in that footnote includes a link that I can click on, and takes me to a viewable page of a book with biographical details about Singer; among the statements there are "Singer then served in the armed forces during World War II ...". (This is also the source from which the phrase "electronic brain" is taken.) About the two links, see MOS:PIPE (in the subsection "Style"). I agree with you about the capitalization in "Armed Forces" -- I have a meeting beginning now so I cannot fix it, but if you haven't done so by the next time I log on, I will do so. --JBL (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That will be fine. I hope you can also see fit to do the cosmic ray thing. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The cosmic ray thing is what MOS:PIPE is about: "[[apple]]s displays as apples, and this is simpler and clearer than [[apple|apples]]." That is, the two are identical from the reader point of view, but the abbreviated form is simpler on the editor end. I have removed the unnecessary capital letters from "Armed Forces". All the best, JBL (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Abolish ICE

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hello,

I noticed that you have continued to revert an edit I made for no reason on the "Abolish ICE". My content added balance to the page by providing a different perspective on how the issue is viewed. I personally do not hold any real stance on the matter, but I feel it is important that people reading Wikipedia get a balanced view of what they are reading, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a political magazine. Originally I just assumed you were a vandal until I inspected your page more and found you have made plenty of good edits in your time in Wikipedia. However, I also found that you have been involved in several edit wars with people on review of the records. I am not looking to get into an edit war or start any sort of conflict, so I wanted to reach out to you.

Jedistormtrooper0625 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jedistormtrooper0625: If you had read the message I left on your talk page, you would know that the correct place to discuss edits to articles is on the article talk page. Also, per WP:NPA, personal comments about other editors are not welcome on Wikipedia and are liable to result in you being blocked, so I suggest you remove them here and everywhere else you've posted them. --JBL (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I never posted any personal comments here or anywhere else. Jedistormtrooper0625 (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Australian Federation Party

Hello Joel B. Lewis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Australian Federation Party, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: founded by and absorbed notable party. Thank you. SoWhy 07:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for your message and the feedback -- I am fairly new to speedy deletion and learning as I work on NPP. I will recalibrate! --JBL (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries. If you are interested, I collected some hopefully helpful advice at User:SoWhy/SDA. Regards SoWhy 12:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

Just realized that if you watchlist talk pages you get a notification everytime someone updates. I imagine a lot of my last days work was quite annoying. I will endeavour to be more expansive and less repetitive. AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi AlmostFrancis, thanks for the message. No harm done, to be sure! I often find myself doing the same thing, and I just thought it seemed like a clear case of an argument where the two of you weren't going to convince each other, but also that that wasn't necessary to reach an overall consensus. Thanks for your good work there. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

2019 Sydney stabbing attack

I saw the second edit you made--there's a bot (can't remember the name) that restores that kind of citation, so we don't have to worry about it. Nice, huh? Drmies (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies -- I think it's AnomieBOT or something like that, right? I am aware of it, but for whatever reason it slipped my mind in the moment. So thanks for the reminder! --JBL (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Prod

Hi mate,

Just curious why you think three times within my whole edit history is regular? Simmo86 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I also note that there is no policy that says I have to explain why I think a prod should be removed. Simmo86 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Simmo86: Because I looked at your last few edits and half of them were that, and then I looked at your edits to your talkpage and one of the most recent was ... removing a comment from someone complaining about it. So if it happens that I examined six of your edits and caught all three times you've ever done this and extrapolated improperly, you have my apologies.
Indeed, there is no policy about it; but it is a weak piece of evidence that deletion would be proper (since, otherwise, the person removing the prod would have given a reason, surely?). Also, frankly, it seems to me that it's just kind of rude (but YMMV). --JBL (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You would also notice that a blank everything on the talk page I don't discriminate against who or what posts on their. Also the reason for removing the prod is disagreeing for the reason that it was prod'd so I don't see the reason for writing out something that can already been seen. Simmo86 (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not good enough. It's vague. It tells us nothing. Sure, the rules don't forbid it, but this is a collaborative project, and that means you have to try and play nice, just like Joel and I do. You may be too young for Deee-Lite, but some of us remember this is the age of communication. Communication. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if its not good enough then I encourage you to ask for the rules to be changed. It's disappointing that another editor has decided to AFD an article in retaliation of removing a prod. Simmo86 (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Simmo86, there is also no rule that says that it is forbidden to chew noisily with your mouth open; nevertheless, it is widely regarded as rude and people who do so may find themselves chastised by others, as here.
Separately, no one is retaliating for anything. It does seem to be the case that, by your actions, you have inadvertently drawn the attention of people who dislike a certain kind of newsy page to the existence of several such pages. But there's no rule against that, either. --JBL (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! --JBL (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

... three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again, Gerda! I hope you and those close to you are doing well. --JBL (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, and I hope the same for you and yours? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Yes, same with us; we are hunkered down, I am trying not to read the news too much. Luckily mathematics is just as easy to do from home as anywhere else :). --JBL (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Beall's List

I have made changes to Beall's list that reflect the subjective nature of opinion and provide context surrounding the criteria usage and indeed current applicability of a now inactive listing. To my knowledge, my edit has not interfered with any direct quotes. The quote, which is cited is "account counter-feedback from the publishers themselves" while the text I added was "account counter-feedback from the publishers themselves". The full quote is: "Evaluating scholarly open-access publishers is a process that includes closely, cautiously, thoroughly, and at times skeptically examining the publisher's content, practices, and websites: contacting the publisher if necessary, reading statements from the publisher's authors about their experiences with the publisher, and determining whether the publisher commits any of the following practices (below) that are known to be committed by predatory publishers, examining any additional credible evidence about the publisher, compiling very important "back-channel" feedback from scholarly authors, and taking into account counter-feedback from the publishers themselves., and using a snippet of a quote, usually with [...] is perfectly acceptable usage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.115.238 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss your edits is the article talk page. On the specific question of altering a direct quotation: your problematic insertion is the words "and subjective opinion". However, this is not the only part of your edits to which I object, and therefore you should seek consensus for the individual additions (following the guidance at WP:BRD). --JBL (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes

Moved to Talk:Single-photon avalanche diode § InTechOpen as a source

 – JBL (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Song of the South edit and add permission.

Moved to Talk:Song of the South § Proposed edit

 – JBL (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes to future self: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honest Yusuf Cricket, User talk:94.36.52.42. --JBL (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Why on the Talk:Josip Pečarić did you revert the cross out of an account blocked for sockpuppeting? This was done for other blocked accounts on the same page. And is typically done for these kind of situations. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Because there is literally no advantage to doing it on a conversation that was over more than a year ago. No one goes around striking every comment ever made by a sock-puppet, because that would be an absurd waste of time -- what is typical is to do it on an active conversation, when understanding the status of the participant is relevant. --JBL (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. I had not payed attention to the age of the conversation. Was reading through and saw the account was blocked. However, why would it be worth reverting the strike through? How did it negatively impact the page? For consistency (and my OCD) sake may I return it? OyMosby (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the situation after Russ's edit. --JBL (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Binomial approximation

Hi Joel! I'm new around here. In looking up "who are these people undoing my edits" I found your profile on https://blogs.gwu.edu/jblewis/, and, found that we had the same advisor at MIT! Alex Postnikov, haha. He was my undergrad advisor so I didn't see him too much but I'm impressed by the coincidence. Also, I appreciate the pointer to Taylor's theorem, for both me and future generations of wayward idealistic physicists. I (minimally) updated my article to include it. Polozova (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Polozova,
Thanks for your message, and sorry for not leaving you one sooner. Indeed, small world! Alex was not a very hands-on PhD advisor, so I'm not surprised to hear that he wasn't a hands-on undergraduate advisor :). (In further small world phenomena, LinkedIn suggests that you went to high school not terribly far from where I'm living now.)
On the substance: I enjoyed your blog post a lot. Indeed, approximations are not very meaningful unless something can be said about their magnitude of error, and it was a shameful oversight that the WP article on binomial approximation had absolutely nothing concrete to say on the topic. (Honestly the whole article is a bit of a shambles!) I've tried to patch that gap a little bit, as you noticed (and thank you for fixing my broken equations); I will try to poke around a little to see if I can find a proper reference. (Unfortunately it is not covered in the first calculus book that comes to hand.)
In any case, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia -- I hope you'll continue!
All the best, JBL (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the archiving on 1+2+3+4...

I'd tried various combinations and couldn't seem to get it to work. Thanks for getting it right. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Swordfish Happy to help! --JBL (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at George Floyd protests. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Cryptic 13:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Thanks. (I was actually in the process of drafting a WP:AN3 report against both of us when this happened.) I will sit out the block, as my behavior was obviously problematic. If you care to take the time, it would be helpful to have an uninvolved administrator look into the absurd OR going on w.r.t. the deaths section and associated infobox entry (the latter of which is completely unsubstantiated by any source). --JBL (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm deliberately staying far away from content matters in this subject area, since there don't seem to be many admins paying attention here at times when I'm active. (Plus, being an administrator doesn't grant you the wisdom of Solomon, and this is the exact opposite of the kind of article I usually work with.) —Cryptic 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough! --JBL (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Cryptic: You know, it strikes me that this is the sort of thing that WP:PB was made for ;) *hint hint*. None of my business, I know, but. ——Serial ^# 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hah, well, I could probably use the break from WP :). --JBL (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Cryptic, I didn't count JBL's reverts, but I think leniency here is warranted: their opponent was so obviously editing against various guidelines and pretty obviously also against consensus on the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Drmies and SN. Since pblocks have been instituted, I've seen edit warring editors get pblocked from the article page but not the talk page, to encourage them to use the talk page instead of edit warring. That seems to be the preferred way to use blocks to handle edit warring, and part of the reason the community supported pblocks in the first place. Preventative, not punitive, and all that. (This applies to the other editor who was blocked as well.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Thanks for weighing in. I did not count, either, but I'm pretty sure it was a lot more than 3. I am content that the competent among us have weighed in on the substantive issue; probably I should be spending my time assembling my tenure file instead of on Wikipedia. I'm sure I'll be back tomorrow (although probably not on this particular article). P.S. It's always nice to be recognized for my contributions to the auditory sciences. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I still haven't gone up for full since the very thought of all that fucking paperwork is so discouraging. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! As long as none of the external referees are Wikipedia editors, I'm cautiously optimistic :). (Oh, I guess also I should condition on universities still being solvent a year from now.) --JBL (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FFS

@TheMemeMonarch: Good job, you've now reinserted information into the article that is not supported by any source nor by the article body. (I suppose that's better than also reverting the article to include information directly contradicted by the citing sources, but the day is young!) --JBL (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If anything, the deaths are being under-reported. I have seen many reports of people being killed on social media that authorities have been unable to confirm yet, such as the man who burned to death at Minnehaha Lake Liquor. There were several independent witnesses to such events.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheMemeMonarch: Thankfully, WP has a higher standard of quality control than "here is this thing I heard somewhere". Including an unsourced death count is a clear-cut violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and you should self-revert. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Good thing I didn't include those deaths. However, I would feel it fair to add a plus to the number.TheMemeMonarch (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheMemeMonarch: Your comment is incoherent. You've restored to the infobox a count that is not supported by any source, nor by the body text of the article. This is a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You should self-revert. What you think is correct is completely irrelevant, as is the fact that you could have made even worse edits to the article. (On a separate note, this is my talk page, you do not need to ping me here, I get a notification automatically.) --JBL (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Take it up with the other editors. I did not come up with the number, I reverted your edit warring. The New York times says that the number is 5 confirmed (a little outdated), but also that there are several deaths that are potentially related. Eitherway, you need a consensus to make disputed edit and no consensus was found on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMemeMonarch (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheMemeMonarch: Take some responsibility for your editing: you made a shit edit, it is objectively unjustifiable (and that's why you're not trying to justify it), you should undo it. Trying to push off responsibility to others is pathetic. --JBL (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: apparently (?) one can't use the "Thanks" tool while blocked, so: thanks for spelling it out nice and clear. --JBL (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

OMFG I can't even. --JBL (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Addendum: it's good to know that someone cares that unsourceable synth uses the correct linking character. --JBL (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You're blocked, you shouldn't be trying to proxy edit. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, he is not trying to proxy edit. He is thanking me. I did not make that edit (or any edit) at anyone's behest and we've had no communication about it except for JBL's "thanks" above and my response here, both of which came after I made my edit. Also, it's clear to me JBL isn't thanking me for the edit, but for the edit summary ("thanks for spelling it out nice and clear"). (You're welcome JBL.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: there you go with all that tendentious rhetoricking again. (By the way, I saw someone refer to your NFOOTY crusade in the past tense; have you given up? If so, a shame, though understandable.) [I would use the FBDB template here, but, um.] --JBL (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

When other people do it, it's called "building an encyclopedia". When I do it, it's called a "crusade". Yeah, I gave up on NFOOTY a while ago. It was a series of realizations to blame. After the six months of AFD tracking, someone suggested random sampling of all footballer bios created on particular days. I started going through that and realized for the first time that there were a few editors (including at least one admin) creating literally thousands and thousands of stubs using a script that just dumped stats from a statistics website like Worldfootball.net. I had participated in hundreds of footballer AFDs and like for every one that was deleted, 1,000 were being created in its place. Participating in and later watching the portal fiasco and the arbcom case that came of it made me appreciate the "playground theory" of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is so big, and anyone can edit, so it's inevitable that people will use various "corners" of Wikipedia as their own personal playground. It's too big and too difficult (given the ease of tag-teaming in various ways) to manage or control. A relatively-small group of likeminded editors was able to prevent the mass deletion of automatically-created portals, able to obstruct the manual review and deletion of portals, and ultimately able to remove editors who disagreed with them from the topic area. The same thing happens in NFOOTY: all proposals to revise the SNG fail because of consistent opposition from a core group of editors, and it took an inordinate amount of effort just to move the needle a little bit in the AFD arena. Ultimately, I realized that even if we deleted all 150,000 or so footballer BLPs (something I do not support of course), that would still reduce the size of the encyclopedia by one quarter of one percent. I was spending dozens of hours fighting over one quarter of one percent of the pages, while someone else was spending half the time creating thousands of new pages.

I've since convinced myself to instead focus exclusively on the "encyclopedia within Wikipedia" -- ignore the 6,000,000 articles and focus only on those articles that are actually read by people (with daily page views in the tens or hundreds of thousands). Instead of running Huggle and patroling all recent changes or just BLP recent changes, I've (with help from others) created custom recent changes lists that show only vital articles (links on my userpage if you're interested), and when I want to patrol for vandalism, I just patrol those pages.

Nevertheless, I still find myself routinely being chased out of topic areas. NFOOTY is where I went to get away from PIA, which is where I went to get away from US elections. After that lovely "Levivich is tendentious because he apologizes too much" ANI, I left Joe Biden articles (which I went to after leaving Race and intelligence) and started working on George Floyd. Of course, as this thread demonstrates, that's been just as frustrating as any of the other DS areas. It's a cruel truth that the most important parts of Wikipedia are also the most difficult. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that turned out to be a much longer response than you probably wanted to read :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, no worries. I think the diagnosis in your first paragraph is spot-on; it is a constant source of amazement to me how large Wikipedia is and how much of it is maintained by a tiny handful of people. (An example currently being discussed in the corner of WP that I frequent: here. And I love this AfD for an article that still doesn't have any appropriate sources.) Your new approach makes a lot of sense, but I think it's not for me: I try not to worry too much about importance because it leads to a utilitarian rabbit hole (if I'm going to spend my time doing the really important things, then why aren't I out protesting myself, instead of inside fooling around on Wikipedia?), but also I'm just not so good at this Wikipedia thing (here I am using it to blow off some steam by fighting with a pair of dimwits over an infobox entry ...). More power to you, though. Not that you need my advice, but: you might try circling back to things a month or two later. Race and intelligence is in much better shape than it was, and a few editors have been slowly improving the article now that most of the drama is over. PIA and IPA are and always will be hopeless, of course, but George Floyd will probably be calm enough in a month that lingering nonsense can be cleaned up. --JBL (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Doug Weller: With all due respect, that's a ridiculous characterization of what I'm doing; in particular, I did not solicit Levivich or anyone else to make any edits on my behalf. I suppose that you may say: whatever I'm doing, it's not filing unblock requests, which is what talk-page access is for while blocked. And if so, fine, I can stop it if you feel it's disruptive. (But what I'm doing is not trying to edit by proxy.) --JBL (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your first post in this thread is about an edit. It's the sort of thing you'd probably post to the talk page if you could. Perhaps I should have said something like "affect the article" or "influence editing"? I don't think what I said was ridiculous although it might not have been clear enough. @Levivich: I wasn't referring to you in any way. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You placed your comment directly under my thanks to Levivich, indented as a response to that comment, so I think confusion was inevitable if that was not your referent. To be tediously pedantic, this is the kind of comment I would have posted on TheMemeMonarch's talk page, if I could, because it's about their poor edit. Anyhow, I'll stop pinging people here while blocked; is that satisfactory? --JBL (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

JayBeeEll/Archives/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wasn't going to file one of these because (1) well obviously I was edit-warring fairly aggressively and the 24 hour block is totally appropriate and (2) I thought I could edit pages in my own user-space while blocked; but apparently I was wrong about (2). So: I have removed the article George Floyd protests from my watch-list and have no intention of editing it or its talk-page in the immediate future, nor of edit-warring with anyone else anywhere else. I will also make an effort not to use Wikipedia as a venue for letting off steam. Thanks for your consideration. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural close: seeing as the block has expired, there is no need to unblock. No comment on the merits. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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

@Cryptic and DougWeller: TBH, I have a doubt after skimming this talk page. George Floyd protests may just be the tip of the iceberg. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'm not sure what that could mean, but perhaps you should take a look at the comments of Drmies, Serial Number 54129, and Levivich above? (See also.) There was an extremely narrow substantive locus of this dispute (namely: some people were making an edit in egregious violation of core policies), and I behaved in an aggressive and inappropriate way in response, and I am committing not to revisit the article where the dispute occurred nor engage in the same behavior on other articles. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just being thorough. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I have to go get dinner ready, so that edit to User:Joel_B._Lewis/Affine_symmetric_group may have to wait until tomorrow in any case. --JBL (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you or any other admin wants to unblock, or convert to a partial block or whatever, I - as always - won't stop you. I can take being reverted. —Cryptic 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your WikiJSci nomination of Affine symmetric group

Hello, The User:Joel_B._Lewis/Affine_symmetric_group article has been imported to v:WikiJournal_Preprints/Affine_symmetric_group. Whenever you're ready to proceed:

1. Fill in the "article info" template at the top (often easiest in VisualEditor)
2. When you're ready to submit it, just fill in the authorship declaration form

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Miraculous plague cure of 1522

The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, NightHeron, I'll comment there. -JBL (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Had a peep at your contribs history after you pulled WWN-sourced content from Marilyn Monroe's pink dress, and I just wanted to thank you for your efforts in yanking unreliable crap from WP. It pains me to see that it had been cited so many times :| ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Thank you, that's very kind of you! (In fact, this is the first time anyone has given me a barnstar in 8 years of editing, so it is a double pleasure.) It was quite a shock when I stumbled across WWN being used as a source; luckily it was "only" cited 100 or so times, so I was able to clean it up myself. (I'm reasonably confident that the remaining mentions are all legitimate, with one exception: I ran out of steam when I got to Barbara Stager and just tag-bombed it.) So, anyhow, thanks again! --JBL (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Note to self

Apparently this was my 11⁴th edit; probably could have used it better. Next up, 2¹⁶. --JBL (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello JayBeeEll/Archives/2020,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(Note to future self: [10].) --JBL (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

mathematics not in liberal arts

That it was vandalism didn even occur to me, or only in passing. It is not cognitively dissonant that mathematics could be held to not be in "liberal arts" since in reality, at least in the US, "liberal arts major" and by extension the thing itself are easy peasey things the people who can't hack math go for. Also there's the fact that it's liberal arts and sciences and there are very serious people who don't think mathematics is a part of science and would also have trouble calling it an art. For these reasons, even if I had suspected it was vandalism I would have at first at least tagged it so whoever put it could elaborate (as I've just done). For the record I have a BA, but was a math major. I do accept it as vandalism or ineptitude now, there seems to be a comment to that effect now on the talk page. If you check my edit history you'll see tag reduction is a good portion of it. Lycurgus (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

My comment was a mildly snippy way of pointing out the following thing: if one comes across an obvious and glaring inconsistency in a Wikipedia article, it is natural to check the article history to determine how that happened. In the particular case in question, it was very easy to determine, because the inconsistency had been introduced by a drive-by IP vandal a few days before, in the last edit to the article. (Perhaps I should have found a less snippy way to convey this.) I don't have anything interesting to say about the question of whether math is part of the liberal arts, except to observe that I am a member of a mathematics department that belongs to a college of liberal arts.
Separately, I concur with Drmies and the comments on your talk page: you should stop switching back and forth between logged-in and logged-out editing.
(Note to future self: this is about [11].) --JBL (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hindemburg Melão Jr.

Hi. Thanks for the correction. English is not my native language. Dennui (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dennui, you're welcome. (It's a somewhat complicated sentence structure. The second half (it ...) can stand alone, but the first half (Dubbed ...) is a sentence fragment without the second half.) --JBL (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Btw, should I translate the titles of his articles? Dennui (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea about whether that's usual or not, sorry. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Dennui (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes there. Could you check my English? Dennui (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. I love the astronomy popular science articles he writes for free. Dennui (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could try to convince him to change his astrophotos to public domain, like NASA does... They could illustrate Wikipedia's articles, being uploaded to the Commons? Dennui (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For being a good editor. ^^ Dennui (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Edits

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The fact you've scored the above barnstar from a sockpuppet may be indicative. (1) Please do not close the discussions of other editors prematurely, and certainly not on the flimsiest of person opinions. (2) If you have an issue with a page tag, do not revert the page. Take your dispute to the Talk page where, as per procedure, a discussion had been opened. (3) Prematurely closing the discussion of another editor on a board, and then also reverting an unassociated page they had edited, is indictive of stalking. Please properly acquaint yourself on Wikipedia's policy on harassment at WP:HOUND. ClearBreeze (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Denier discussion

I am following up on your talk page as I don't want to get too far off topic at the Willie Soon denial discussion. Before I make my point, I recognize your name as an editor but I don't recall whether we've ever interacted (and I'm too lazy to look at the interaction tool). I took a quick glance at your user page and talk page and thought I'd comment on a couple items:

1. I don't call myself a mathematician, but I have a BS degree in math. I'm active in OTRS, and a common complaint is that the mathematics articles (in general) in Wikipedia are too difficult for the layperson to follow. In some cases, e.g. User:Joel B. Lewis/Affine symmetric group that might be too tough a challenge, but I am sure that there are a number of mathematical topics that could be written in a way to be more accessible to a layperson. I've idly considered whether I ought to try tackling this. At the moment, my plate is full with other things, but if you agree that it's an issue and had any interest in collaborating, let me know.
2. In real life, I'm president of a local land trust and have a lot of interest in maps for our properties. I've dabbled in open street map a little bit. if you consider yourself an expert I might ask if I could lean on your expertise, because there are some things I'm interested in working on that are beyond my current knowledge.
3. On many occasions I find myself writing something and thinking I have covered everything, but revisit it months or years later and realize I should've included some useful links. I like the construction, "note to future self" followed by a link, and I might steal that phrase.

On to the main point. You took issue with my statement "Thanks for conceding that deniers are hated. While it probably wasn't your intention, I'm not (generally) in favor of taking actions that increase hate. Why do you support this?". Maybe not my finest moment but I seriously think that "deniers are hated" logically follows from what Hob Gadling said. As a mathematician you clearly understand syllogisms, and the only thing short of being a perfect syllogism is my assumption that "they" (as in "They are hated") refers back to "deniers" in the prior sentence. I can't imagine any other conclusion. Were you disagreeing with this assumption or are you making a different point? This is core to my overall point. I object to the use of "deniers" because the term itself is inflammatory, and I think Wikipedia should avoid the use of inflammatory terms as much as possible. I will not say absolutely avoid anything inflammatory, because I don't want to dance around descriptions of Hitler and insist that nothing inflammatory be written, but I don't think the biography of a scientist, even one who makes mistakes and appears to be misguided on important issues, deserves this inflammatory name-calling. I seriously think Hob Gadling (probably accidentally) conceded that deniers are hated and this seems like a good argument for removal of the term.

Please let me know if you see it differently.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick,
Thanks for your message. My experience has been that comments here that include the phrase "I took a quick glance at your talk page" are usually hostile and unpleasant to deal with, but this was a pleasant counter-example. I spent a few minutes looking at the interaction tool and it seems that we edit some of the same pages from time to time but have never genuinely interacted before. (Unless this counts.) Let me respond to the points you raised in order:

1. I agree with you that this is a genuine problem. I have also idly considered trying to fix some part of it, but always get discouraged by the scope of the problem. I also have real-world obligations, but if you were interested in picking a small corner (say, one or two articles) to start in then I would be up for trying to do something collaboratively.
2. That's neat. Unfortunately, I am very far from an expert: many years ago (when it was much less developed than it is now) I was able to make some minor additions in the neighborhood that I lived in, but I never went beyond that and haven't actively contributed to it in a long time. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
3. Please be my guest! (I'm sure it is not original to me, but I did not leave a note to my future self that explains where I picked it up, so I no longer recall.)

Finally, on the original point: about the core questions raised in the discussion (the meaning of the word "denier", its emotional salience, whether to apply it to Soon) I have opinions, of course; if I decide they're worth writing up I'll put them on the article talk page, so let me pass over the parts of your comment that would require them. I parse your question as "Why do you support [actions that increase hate]?" I think it's probably safe to say that, whether or not HG agrees with the rest of your statement, they disagree that they support increasing hate. (For example, I think a person could simultaneously hold the views "deniers are hated" and "identifying someone as a denier is descriptive and does not increase hate" without disappearing in a puff of logic.) My request/suggestion/whatever is to reword in a way that doesn't take as a hypothesis that HG supports increasing hate. (FWIW, I don't plan on pursuing this any further than I already have.)
All the best, JBL (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I considered removing my statement (you made a good point), but I've preferred, with a nod to transparency, to go with strikethrough. One challenge is that the use of strikethrough can be used in two ways. One is to identify that something ought not to be there anymore but leave it visible for historical reasons, while I notice many pundits use it to leave the impression I'm not really saying this but it's there hint, hint. My attention was the former but I worry that it might come across as the latter. I'll be happy to go back and fully remove it if you think that would be better. I understand you'd like to close that issue out so no need to respond. I'm creating a new section to separate that discussion form our discussion of mathematical articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, both for striking and for separating the two discussions. (I think striking was probably better than removing.) --JBL (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Tea in the United Kingdom

Let's talk for a while, in regards to article Tea in the United Kingdom, and your recent edit reversions.
Let me start by making up a hypothetical situation related to ARTICLE, to be as broad as possible. Let's say for instance, that someone was to perform several edits to ARTICLE in one sweep, and they're good edits however minor. Perhaps in that edit there was one tiny thing inconsistent... perhaps a simple mistake due to information the editor had received that was incorrect, but appeared correct when it was utilized. What should happen in such a circumstance, is if that editor doesn't catch the error, another editor comes along, and corrects that mistake, either specifically, or they perform a partial undo—using the undo command, and comparing the changes between the two edits, they correct only the one thing that's wrong, and not all the work that was done in the previous edit, removing all good edits in the process.

Using the undo command unprejudicely just pisses off editors, and discourages good faith edits. It hinders the very purpose of Wikipedia. I have performed partial-undo's to leave the good part of an edit alone in the past; this sometimes takes a little more effort, but it's worthwhile.

With that aside, let's go back over the Tea in the United Kingdom, article, because I do have a lingering question in regard to the reference that is anchored within the reference section (and thus, doesn't appear in preview mode for checking the edit prior to publishing). I've read your reason given for reverting my edit to the List of scientific journals § Agriculture, and I thank you most kindly, as you did not simply undo, but also corrected the redirect issue, thus resolving that problem entirely.

Using the information provided with your List of scientific journals undo, I believe I have re-applied the cleanup to the reference template, while also satisfying the problem of the red text. As mentioned in the edit Reason, I had performed a search for that journal matched with that author's name, which is how I determined it's the same article using a different (newer) name. If this is an incorrect assessment, then as far as I can tell, that journal's article and/or an associated article mentioning said journal does not exist, and in that circumstance, the correct edit to apply would be to remove the double-brackets linking the journal parameter from the cited reference. Wikipedia discourages red text (linking to non existent articles). I try not to remove them if I suspect that such an article may be created in the near future, but we generally avoid linking to articles that don't exist.

So, have a look at that last edit to Tea in the United Kingdom revision 969612392, and verify that is the same journal being referenced. If not, then either one of us, or another editor entirely, should not just return it to reading "Journal of Dairy Research", but also remove the double-brackets that link it to an article that doesn't exist. But please, don't undo everything if that's the only thing wrong.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Christopher, Sheridan, OR, thanks for your message. About your first and second paragraphs, as well as your final sentence: I am aware that being reverted is frustrating, and I apologize for that. I have a personal rule of thumb that if I see a complicated edit and I object to one piece of it, I change that one piece, but if I object to two or more independent pieces, then I revert. As you can see from my edit summary, there are two independent things about your edit to which I objected. I realize that rule of thumb may still be annoying to other editors, and I very much appreciate your willingness to respond by discussion and by breaking your edit into smaller pieces.
On the substantive question: the citation includes a DOI link. Clicking on that link takes one to this website, which is the page on the website of Cambridge University Press for the article in question, published in the Journal of Dairy Research in 1933. I doubt very much it is the same journal as the Journal of Dairy Science, which is published by the American Dairy Science Association, possibly in partnership with Elsevier. (FWIW, I did not know any of this before I saw your edit.) It is not clear to me what search you did to conclude that they were the same, but it would not be surprising if authors who published in one of these two journals also published in the other. So I think this is an error on your part and should be reverted.
With respect to the discussion of red text, the relevant guideline is WP:Red link. (I mistakenly linked to a different guideline in my edit summary; my apologies.) It reads, in relevant part: In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject .... In my opinion, an academic journal that has been publishing at least since 1933 and is published by a major academic publisher like CUP could plausibly sustain an article if anyone cared to try to write it. So unless you have a particular reason to believe I'm wrong about this, I request that you restore the journal name, with redlink.
Thanks again for your cool-headed approach to this discussion, JBL (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mathematics articles

Joel B. Lewis, Would you take a glance at User:Sphilbrick/sandbox, which includes a link to User:Sphilbrick/Mathematics articles. My intention is to post it on the talk page of Polynomial to get reactions, then implement, then do something similar for the multiplication example. I'm interested in your thoughts. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Oh you are going to run into so much pushback :). (The WT:WPM line on this is going to revolve around NOTTEXTBOOK, probably.) Let me make a specific rhetorical suggestion to not tie the individual improvements to a broad argument about the badness of mathematics articles, as I think it generates defensiveness among regular math editors. (I may even be speaking about myself in the third person somewhat there.) As far as the example on User:Sphilbrick/Mathematics articles is concerned, I don't care for it, but that has more to do with the (non-)use of words in the extended version than with an objection to the level of detail; in a sufficiently low-level article I could see including that much detail. I think your edit to Polynomial was good, I will tweak it and add a comment on the talk-page. I also think the newer example at User:Sphilbrick/sandbox is good, although again I will tweak how the text and equations interact.
Separately from the specific first few changes, I would be interested in your sense of how to make this work as a collaborative effort (for example, what kinds of input from me would be most helpful). All the best, JBL (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, Thanks for your thoughts. I'll mull them over and respond in more detail tomorrow.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Having now looked more carefully at that section of Polynomial, let me say: christ it is a trainwreck: it's got unique factorization domains up the wazoo and random bullet points instead of paragraphs, but doesn't say anything substantive about division with remainder? Oy. --JBL (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis,

You raise a number of interesting points. First, I did take a glance further down the page of polynomial and remember thinking "yikes!". I didn't read it for comprehension but it looked challenging.

I concur that NOTTEXTBOOK is an issue, and I might be treading close to the line. I had a whole host of thoughts that I'll try to briefly summarize. Determining the right scope of Wikipedia has been an interesting exercise. We declare that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and create a sister project Wiktionary. we declare that Wikipedia is not a repository of images, and create Commons. We declare that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and create Wikivoyage. We declare that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual but we don't create a sister project. (Maybe [WikiHow was already established?)

We declare that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and arguably point people to Wikibooks. However, unlike some other sister projects, I don't have a warm and and fuzzy feeling about wiki books, but I'll avoid sweeping generalities because I spent so little time there. I did take a quick glance at polynomials and was distinctly unimpressed. It may be worth discussing how to define the dividing line between appropriate material for encyclopedia versus appropriate content for a textbook. My off the top of the head reactions are that we expect textbooks to have problems for students to solve and we wouldn't expect that in an encyclopedia (I wonder if that common in wiki books). I remember my DiffE class felt like a cookbook, and maybe that suggests that techniques for solving differential equations aren't appropriate in Wikipedia but I'm not fully convinced. I think it's appropriate to show the reader how to multiply two polynomials together in an encyclopedia. If I then go on to say, "but of course, we shouldn't show them how to factor polynomials", I'm struggling to find the rationale that explains why the first is acceptable but the second is not. However, I am firmly convinced that if we make a factual statement that doesn't impart understanding to the reader, we have failed.

As I mentioned, I haven't spent a lot of time on mathematics articles, so maybe some of this has all been sussed out elsewhere, and I'll follow the established practice if it makes sense.

You asked how we might collaborate. I've had some successful collaborations in biographies, but the one case that comes to mind involves one of Wikipedia's better writers (SandyGeorgia) and I let her take the lead on writing prose while I did research on relevant references, while offering tweaks to the wording. That model doesn't translate well to mathematics. My initial plan was to throw together a proposed edit in the sandbox, ask you to tweak it, then one of us could post the tweaked edit to the article. However, not knowing your editing schedule and being a little too impatient (sorry) I didn't give you much time and I was anxious to try making the edit so I went ahead without waiting for you. I do think the expansion of the multiplication example is an improvement (although may be skirting the edge of textbook) and won't go ahead until I have more feedback from you. It sounds like you will looking ahead to other issues in that article, and I would be happy to discuss them with you. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting comments about sister projects, which I hadn't thought about before. You're certainly right about the Wikibooks section on polynomials. And I also think our article Polynomial can be moved a long way in the direction you're headed without being overly pedagogical. In terms of where this has been discussed before, people do bring complaints to WT:WPM, frequently enough that there's an FAQ at the top of the page that addresses six different versions of "Math articles here are too high-level" :).
Your proposed model sounds good to me. I would describe my editing schedule as erratic and unpredictable (except that you can be pretty sure I won't make any edits between 0400 and 1100 UTC), but if you keep putting proposed edits in your sandbox, I will keep looking at/tweaking/commenting on them. (And I may do the same, if you are okay with that.) Specifically about the multiplication example, I agree with you both that it's an improvement and that it's on the edge of textbooky; I think you should go ahead and implement it. I did glance further ahead and noticed some major issues, I'll detail some of them later.
Separately, I expect that my rate of editing will slow significantly come September, so I may end up bailing out on you then. (Teaching online seems like much more work, at least to me.) --JBL (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll try moving the multiplication example in, and yes I do recognize I'm skirting close to the border. As an aside, is an almost perfect solution, which would be to use collapsible selections for intermediate steps. Unfortunately, not perfection because we have strong guidelines against using collapsible elements in main text. I wonder if this could qualify as an acceptable exception, but that's a discussion for another time and place S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Up early, here are some notes:

• The bullet point about products of polys being polys should be unbulletedand put with the discussion of products.
• Composition is only mentioned once, in a bullet; that should be expanded to a short paragraph, perhaps with an example.
• Division is a mess, barely explained at all, and in multiple places. There also may be subtleties in this discussion about multivariable polynomials. Also I didn't see links to Factor theorem, Synthetic division, Ruffini's rule.
• What would you think of three or four subsections of Arithmetic? For example: #Addition, multiplication, and composition; #Division and factoring; #Calculus.
• The Applications#Algebra section begins as if there hasn't already been a long section on polynomial functions just before it.

This is not comprehensive, just things I noticed. Feedback welcome. Also I neglected to ping in my last comment, so in case you are not watching: @Sphilbrick:. --JBL (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I did take a look at the rest of the arithmetic section and it was pretty discouraging. I didn't look closely enough to see whether anything was actually wrong, but it felt like an almost random collection of facts about the subject matter without any clear structure, organization, or motivation. Your thoughts about how to organize that are encouraging. thanks also for your comments about your editing schedule. We are both volunteers which means we get to work on this when we want, so if this works out great if it doesn't that's okay too. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#A_discussion_about_collapsible_elements_in_mathematics_articles S Philbrick(Talk) 19:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Arithmetic section

(This is largely motivated by your observations, but is written as a potential comment to the article talk page.) I once worked with a colleague who argued that writing a article should always start with an outline. I didn't always follow that advice, but sometimes looking at existing prose in the context of an outline helps illustrate problems. If we look at the arithmetic section, and summarize it in an outline, we see:

Arithmetic

1 Addition of polynomials (Implied not explicitly stated)

A Statement about addition of polynomials

B Example of addition of polynomials

C Another statement about addition of polynomials

2 Product of polynomials (Implied not explicitly stated)

A Statement about product of polynomials

B Example of product of polynomials

So far so good.

However the very next statement:

Polynomial evaluation can be used to compute the remainder of polynomial division by a polynomial of degree one, because the remainder of the division of f(x) by (x - a) is f(a); see the polynomial remainder theorem. This is more efficient than the usual algorithm of division when the quotient is not needed.

While arguably about division of polynomials, which would seem like the next natural subject, it isn't a very basic point, it's a fairly specific point. Seems like there ought to be a more general comment about division and then potentially this particular point.

The very next entry:

A product of polynomials is a polynomial.

Is back to discussing products and it's a bullet point for no apparent reason. One simple suggestion is to move it up to the end of the section about products and leave it as text not a bullet point.

Then we have a bullet point about composition:

A composition of two polynomials is a polynomial, which is obtained by substituting a variable of the first polynomial by the second polynomial.

Again why a bullet point? We talked about addition, multiplication and division. While arguably composition is a logical step in the progression it's a bit of a big step and maybe deserves a little transition.

Then the next sentence:

As for the integers, two kinds of divisions are considered for the polynomials

Is back to discussing division.

Can we agree that it would make sense to discuss in order:

• addition
• multiplication
• division
• composition

There's more in the section but that's as far as I've reviewed so far. It may be that I need to have a complete grasp of those sections before reorganizing the early material but I do think it would make sense to organize it as I just discussed. Any disagreement?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Yes, the current order of information is terrible. I have a minor point of disagreement, in that I think composition is conceptually easier than division for polynomials: since every polynomial is built from addition, multiplication, and integer powers (= repeated multiplication), composing one polynomial by another only requires that one understand how to add and multiply polynomials. So my inclination would be to put composition before division. However, once things are made more coherent, it should be easier to adjust the order than it is now. Let me try putting something in my sandbox. --JBL (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok here's a thing, with composition first. The division part is really ugly. --JBL (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, You make a fair point that compositional polynomials is conceptually easier than division. I guess I was just thinking about the usual progression of arithmetic with:

• addition
• subtraction
• multiplication
• division

And thinking of those is the basic topics, with composition a somewhat more complicated concept, but yes in practice division of polynomials is not trivial and composition could be argued as longing between multiplication and division.

That said, it isn't necessarily true that subjects should be strictly handled in order of complication. I note that the section heading is arithmetic.

I note that our article on arithmetic identifies those operations, then throws in some others such as exponentiation, so I see some potential value in reserving the section on arithmetic to arithmetic concepts and maybe we need a new section heading. Calculus is a subsection within arithmetic and arguably doesn't belong there.

Just thinking off the top my head what if there was a break at the end of arithmetic, with a section called advanced topics which might cover composition and calculus. Again off the top my head that might not be the best approach. I think we both identified problems in the organization and the right solution isn't immediately obvious. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, I posted a quick response before realizing that you included a link to a potential structure. Let me absorb that and I'll follow up with more comments. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think once the two parts are sorted out and rewritten in a coherent way, it will be easy to swap the order either way, since there's no logical dependence between them. JBL (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Having looked closer, I like the structure of the arithmetic section in your sandbox very much. Instead of wrestling with whether division or composition should be addressed first, having section headings pretty much eliminates that concern.

I started thinking about subtraction, but it led me down a rabbit hole. Very briefly, did you ever program in APL? I mention that because they did a nice job of distinguishing between functions and operators. Rather than use the - to indicate a negative value they had a different symbol. I just took a glance, the article doesn't seem to cover it which surprises me because I thought it was a key feature. I started to make the assertion that subtraction could be thought of as having a negative which meant that subtraction was associative in APL (or may be nonexistent) and then I decided I was getting way off track and not on solid ground. Long story short, I support nuking the subtraction (at least for now).

I see that you saw my comment on "thus". Not yet sure what the best treatment is. however, while investigating it I came across two troubling observations about the article:

• statements begging for a reference to a reliable source that didn't have one
• Statements with a reference to a reliable source that doesn't backup the claim

My current thinking is to urge you to go ahead and make changes as suggested in your sandbox. I realize that doesn't leave us complete as you have some internal notes about issues that still need to be resolved, but I'm in favor of taking some baby steps, giving other readers a chance to absorb and then we can tackle some of the other issues.

For what it's worth I'm enjoying this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are enjoying it, I am as well. And it does seem to have the effect of making the article better :).
That's very interesting about APL (which I was not familiar with). Subtraction is a setting in which the mathematician approach (maybe particularly the algebraist approach) is really, really different from the layperson approach: for me, if I'm using the word "addition" then the operation always has additive inverses, and subtraction is just a convenient notation for adding the additive inverse, not a separate operation. But this perspective can be very confusing to people meeting it for the first time.
I implemented most of the changes from the sandbox to the article. The issue of properly sourcing the claims about the sum and product again being polynomials is very frustrating: my abstract algebra and linear algebra books have statements that are equivalent to that, or that imply it, but none of them are written in a way that would be transparent to someone just learning about polynomials for the first time. --JBL (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I've had a first go at division. Your thoughts are welcome. (I am troubled by the lack of sources, obviously.) What do you think of my idea of sticking the high-level algebraic details (what kind of algebraic object the coefficients come from) into a footnote? I did it while looking forward to the factoring section, which currently begins All polynomials with coefficients in a unique factorization domain ... and thereby loses all potential audiencemembers who haven't studied commutative algebra. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, Looking now. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, You said:

called rational fractions or rational functions depending on context.

Then followed up with an example of a rational fraction. I was expecting a follow-up example illustrating a rational function. Maybe not necessary but that's what I was expecting.

I see your sandbox also includes factorization and calculus. I stopped at the end of the division section which I think looks fine (subject to the possibility that an example of a rational function might help.) I did find one reference. I'm looking for something related to Ruffini's rule.

I can't argue against discussion of composition in the context of multiple variables, except it starts to get complicated. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, I added a reference for Ruffini's rule. One thing I like about it is that it emphasizes that the rule is not the same as synthetic division but a special case of Ruffini's rule, exactly supporting your assertion. Please treat both references and suggestions; take them or leave them as you desire. Alternatively, if you don't feel comfortable taking responsibility for them, and your text yourself and I will add the references. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I had mixed feelings about how best to handle subtraction. I have a feeling a new reader is going to wonder at the absence, strongly suggest something should be said but for similar reasons to your comments, I'm concerned about handling it casually and handling it properly might be less than helpful. There's got to be something but it's not occurring to me at the moment.

FYI, I'm using some add-in code to semi-automatically handle replies. It automatically includes a ping, although arguably it should be smart enough to know not to include a ping when on your talk page. I sometimes manually remove it but I forgot a couple of times so sorry it looks like a newbie error but it's not quite that. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked for sources saying that the sum of polynomials is a polynomial and not surprising, it wasn't easy. Lots of sources say the set of polynomials is closed with respect to addition, some thinking maybe we need to bring the mountain to Mohammed. we do have coverage of Closure (mathematics), so we could briefly explain closure and then make the statement. I'll try something. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thanks for your response. About rational fraction versus rational function: this is the problem (spread throughout the whole article) of the question of whether polynomials are functions or just algebraic objects. When the coefficients come from a field of characteristic 0 (the real numbers, etc.) then there is a one-to-one correspondence: every polynomial function corresponds to a unique algebraic polynomial. But this is not true over other fields, and this problem descends to the rational functions. So, when we're talking about real coefficients, there actually is no difference between the appearance of a rational fraction and the appearance of a rational function: they are both just one real-valued polynomial divided by another. Maybe that means the wording needs to be clarified somehow? (To be continued....) --JBL (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Further comments: Yeah, composition with multiple variables does get complicated. Also it's sort of besides the point (I mean, it's an interesting property of polynomials that if you have a multivariate polynomial and you substitute other polynomials for all the variables, then you get a polynomial; but I don't think it's in the top three interesting things about polynomial composition). So let me skip that for now.
Thanks for the two sources. The one about division is better than nothing, but still leaves something lacking in the sentence -- it confirms what the sentence says about integers, but it doesn't actually make the connection with polynomials. So even with the source there is something still needed there. One thing it makes me realize is I've been looking at the books I have on-hand, which are mostly higher-level texts. But there are some decent lower-level books that might be more promising; I'll have a look through OpenStax Algebra and see if that yields anything helpful. --JBL (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I have moved the division section from my sandbox into the article. Onwards to factoring, I guess. Oh, and: don't worry about the extra pings, they don't bother me at all! Do you care whether or not I ping you when I respond to you here? --JBL (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, I like being pinged, except on my own talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Order of operations.

Moved to Talk:Order of operations § Division, subtraction, etc.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First I don't edit wiki much but the order of operations is already a confusing topic for many learners. This article is littered with inaccuracy. Primary due to the multiple usages of negative examples. For the Mnemonic section, there is an example of addition/subtraction. When working the order of operations there is 2 ways to go about it. Either work left to right or use Additive inverse and Mixed division and multiplication. The to keep things simple if you think of Addition and Subtraction as the exact same thing and Division and multiplication as the exact same thing you don't have to get confused. The steps even put these on the same step for that reason. Mnemonics Mnemonics are often used to help students remember the rules, involving the first letters of words representing various operations. Different mnemonics are in use in different countries.[8][10][11] In the United States, the acronym PEMDAS is common.[12] It stands for Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction.[12] PEMDAS is often expanded to the mnemonic "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally".[7] Canada and New Zealand use BEDMAS, standing for Brackets, Exponents, Division/Multiplication, Addition/Subtraction.[12] Most common in the UK, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Australia[13] and some other English-speaking countries is BODMAS meaning either Brackets, Order, Division/Multiplication, Addition/Subtraction or Brackets, Of/Division/Multiplication, Addition/Subtraction.[d][14][15] Nigeria and some other West African countries also use BODMAS. Similarly in the UK, BIDMAS is also used, standing for Brackets, Indices, Division/Multiplication, Addition/Subtraction. These mnemonics may be misleading when written this way.[7] For example, misinterpreting any of the above rules to mean "addition first, subtraction afterward" would incorrectly evaluate the expression[7] 10 − 3 + 2. The correct value is 9 (not 5, as would be the case if you added the 3 and the 2 before subtracting from the 10). There is no reason to have this part in bold it only confuses people by creating a negative example. If they want to put bad math in the article maybe make a section for "Common Mistakes" or "Common misconception". The equation 10-3+2 is exactly the same as 10 + (-3) + 2 and if you do the math there is no difference left to right or right to left. The problem is people who remove the negative. You could also read the problem as 10 -1 x 3 + 2 and in this case you again have the number -3. If you treat the problem as 10 - (3 + 2) using the distributive property the problem is now 10-3-2 this is a completely different equation. I would love to just remove this. It is caused by incorrect application of the commutative property and a misunderstanding of numbers in general.. Next... Serial division A similar ambiguity exists in the case of serial division, for example, the expression 10 ÷ 5 ÷ 2 can either be interpreted as[citation needed] 10 ÷ ( 5 ÷ 2 ) = 4 or as ( 10 ÷ 5 ) ÷ 2 = 1 The left-to-right operation convention would resolve the ambiguity in favor of the last expression. Further, the mathematical habit of combining factors and representing division as multiplication by a reciprocal both greatly reduce the frequency of ambiguous division. This is just wrong again... Both of these sections should be removed to prevent continued misunderstanding or spreading misinformation on how to calculate using the Order of operation. I moved them to Common Mistakes as a compromise to fully removing them. But explaining these mistakes is to much and I have little formatting knowledge. They should just be removed but I will not keep fighting over this and repeat editing. You can adjust the new section if you think it could be formatted better or worded better if we are not going to agree on removing negative examples I hope we can agree on moving them to their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.184.65 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Hi IP user, I strongly encourage you to take a look at the guideline WP:BRD, which describes the correct procedure for this. In particular, there is the talk-page Talk:Order of operations whose purpose is for discussing changes to the article, and that's where this discussion should happen. I am copying your comment there. --JBL (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks -- I am terribly busy at the moment but I will try to take a look. All the best, JBL (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No prob, there are a lot more vital things in the world today NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks again for alerting me. I had a peek -- that is quite a comprehensive case you built! It looks like the discussion is heading in a productive direction, and I don't think I have anything to say that will help it along. (The tiff on the ref desk is characteristic of how deeply annoying they are in discussion. Probably it was not my finest moment overall, although (to pat myself on the back) I do think "performative rambling" was a good turn of phrase.) All the best, JBL (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it was! Have you released that expression under a creative commons license, or do you require credit next time I borrow it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha, please consider it public domain :). --JBL (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

New Way Forward Act

She and the other I've listed are cosponsors on Congress.gov. I can't see how you can revert a sourced statement, she openly supports the bill. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The bill says that immigrants can still receive asylum with any crime which has less than a five year sentence. This snopes fact check which is known to reliable says: What's True The bill would remove low-level drug crimes as deportable offenses and would require that certain criminal convictions come with a prison sentence of at least five years in order to form the basis of a deportation order. The bill would also allow immigration judges to decline, on humanitarian grounds, to issue a deportation order for an immigrant who has a criminal conviction.

What's False The headline of Carlson's article risked giving some readers the mistaken impression that the New Way Forward Act would entirely protect immigrants who violate U.S. criminal law from deportation, which was not the case. I am not the one showing politic bias here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Christ I don't have time for this idiocy, but when someone points to three separate objections (DUE, NPOV, and misrepresenting sources) maybe in the future you shouldn't just edit-war like an ass? It's not like WP:BRD is a thing. --JBL (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD the onus is on you not me. I've added reliable sources and they openly support this. This is not controversial. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You've been here 15 years and you don't know how BRD works? Indeed it is not controversial, it's in the f-ing name: you made bold edits (terrible ones, but bold); they were reverted; then comes discuss. (Read it if you don't believe me, it's not like it's written down clearly or anything.) If you don't start self-reverting I will escalate. --JBL (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have BRD does not apply here. Discuss this not revert. 21:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The level of incompetence in your behavior is really shocking. --JBL (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

How so? I've added sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Success

I'm going to declare our collaboration at polynomials a success. I don't think you think the article is in fine shape overall, I think we made improvements to at least the beginning, and frankly, I'm not going to be able to contribute to later sections without a serious refresher. Besides, I'm distracted by another shiny abject. Notice that articles such as 6 is severely deficient in referencing, and there is a lot of low hanging fruit, so I may work on that for a bit.

I will throw one minor item that bugs me a little bit and see what you think. I very much like the existence of the grass illustrating polynomials. However, they are created by different people with slightly different styles, and I think it would be better if they were all in the same style (thickness of line, axes numbered, etc.] I think a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop is likely to turn up a volunteer who could do this easily. However, I'm torn whether the existing graphs should simply be converted into a consistent style, continuing to use the quasi-random choice of values, versus creating a set of polynomials that build upon one another. For example start with:

y(1)=2

then

y(2)=y(1) + x = x+2

then

y(3)=y(2)* (2x+3)= 2x^2+3x+ 6

Keep on building by taking the prior polynomial and multiplying by a new term, possibly dividing through by constant to keep the scale reasonably compact. I wouldn't include the parenthetical values, I'm simply including the new year to make it obvious how I'm doing the construction.

My concern is that a graphic artist might find it trivial to do all the conversions on the existing polynomials but might find it more complicated to do the request with a new set of polynomials. Any thoughts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I agree that the result is much, much better than it was before -- thanks for taking the initiative! And thanks for finding those latest sources. It seems to me like the "factoring" subsection is one last piece that would be of interest to lower-level readers and could benefit from major clean-up; I'll try to find time to give it a go myself, and I hope you won't mind if I ping you to read it over when I do. (There is a lot of clutter lower down in the article -- the section titled "Applications" might better be titled "Assorted other information about polynomials" -- but it's not bad in the same way that the Arithmetic section was.) Good luck with 6 -- I have always kept my distance from the articles about individual integers.
I agree with you that a uniform style for the graphs would be desirable. I rather like the style of the current polynomials of degree 3--7, but the changes in line width and scale are a bit jarring. (Actually, looking a bit closer, there's some funny business going on with the scales: the y-axis in the degree-7 polynomial is at a totally different scale from the x-axis. Hmm.) I am afraid I have little idea about what a graphic artist would find easier or harder; maybe the best thing is to put the question to the potential volunteer. About systematic construction, I also have one comment: the current degree-5 figure illustrates something not seen in the others, which is that a polynomial of degree n can have fewer than n real roots, and I don't think the process you described will produce such an example. Conceivably it would also be nice to have an example with a double root (there aren't any shown at present). -JBL (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I said I would "drop the stick"

You wrote "For example, Geo Swan never responded to EEng's post here." EEng repeated that claim in multiple places. I thought it is a weak claim, and I thought I offered a strong rebuttal - just not at that specific user talk page.

I said I would "drop the stick". Dropping the stick is inconsistent with linking to or repeating my rebuttal. I am not trying to be coy, the temptation to forget my commitment to drop the stick and repeat that rebuttal, is strong.

You also wrote "Like DFO I do not claim to understand why anyone would do this." Well, I did provide what I thought was a was a civil, substantive, policy-based explanation as to why I questioned how the policy was being applied to this individual. On a personal level I too am sympathetic to this individual. My commitment to taking the advice to "drop the stick" prevents me from linking to or repeating those arguments. I assure you I did make them, even if you didn't read every byte I wrote, so didn't end up reading them. You were not obliged to read every byte I wrote. Geo Swan (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan, thanks for your message. My read of it is that it does not request a response, and I am inclined not to offer one beyond acknowledging having read it. (Let me know if I misunderstand something.) --JBL (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

New RfC about governance description of a few U.S. universities

A few months ago, you participated in an RfC asking how we should describe the governance of the University of Pittsburgh. That RfC was closed as "no consensus." Another editor has opened a new RfC asking a similar question for this and a few other universities; your participation would be welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion in pair

Hi. Could you tell me how exactly it is possible to propose articles for deletion as a pair, please? I was under impression that something like that was expressly not possible. The recently opened discussions about Prince Gabriel and about Prince Alexander are quite redundant to each other and I agree that a single venue would have been better. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna, thanks for your message (and for rooting out a lot of these ridiculous pseudo-nobility articles). I am not expert in this, but I would look at Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). --JBL (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(At this point I guess it's too late for those two.) --JBL (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It is too late for those two, but not for these and countless other identical cases. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Jewish emigrants from Nazi Germany categories

Grete Stern‬

She features in the Jewish Women's Archive.Rathfelder (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

... and if you find a reliable source that identifies her as Jewish, and add that information to the article, I will have no objection to putting her into such categories. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Siegfried Blumann

If he wasnt Jewish why was he sacked in Aprill 1933, and why did he flee? Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely you are aware of WP:OR and do not need me to explain to you that it is not acceptable to substitute your own deductions for reliable sources. Even if we were to set that aside, however, your deduction is completely groundless. Many groups were persecuted by the Nazis (you may be familiar with First they came ..., for example) and so it is not possible to rely on such a general argument to reach a conclusion about someone's Jewishness. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Maurits Frank

"he had to leave Germany for racist reasons " and this is in the references. BrücknerH/RockCM 1938 Judentum und Musik – mit einem ABC jüdischer und nichtarischer Musikbeflissener, Hans Brückner, Christa Maria Rock (Hg.), 3. Aufl., München: Brückner, 1938 (1. Aufl. 1935, 2. Aufl. 1936, antisemitische Publikation).Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a sentence that definitely does not say that Frank was a Jew. And indeed it is consistent with many other possibilities, e.g., maybe his mother was Polish, or a gypsy. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You have the field

I have bowed out now, but I will not not respond just to please some people, also as I am dyslexic I often have to give up trying to figure out what I am trying to say, and go with what I have. As such I would expect some consideration.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not dyslexic, but when I start to write a comment and realize that I'm not sure what I'm trying to say (this happens occasionally) or that my comments will not improve anything (this happens more frequently), I delete it so as to not waste the time of other users. --JBL (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

dyslexic's cannot see what they have written may not be accurate, its why they are dyslexic. What I meant was, once spell checkers or grammar checkers says its OK I accept it is. But fair enough, I shall of course treat your requests with equal consideration. My last word here, for now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

reminder

Tedious
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:CIVIL Vexations (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC) WP:CIR --JBL (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Joel B. Lewis, And here's where I could refer to WP:NPA I suppose. Or we could discuss this in a civil manner. If you mean to say that I lack the competence to edit Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emmett_Till&diff=prev&oldid=975625457&diffmode=source), can you identify which of the following competencies I lack: the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively the ability to read sources and assess their reliability the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies With diffs that show evidence of such incompetence please. Vexations (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Concerned by edit-summary language

Hi there, I'm a passing editor who is very concerned by some language you've used toward other editors in recent edit summaries, particularly in reversions like this one of User:Miaumee's edits. I counted 71 edits with the same summary, "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing". In isolation, that kind of edit summary may not violate the letter of the "no personal attacks" rule, but there are certainly other ways to write that summary that are both more civil and more concise. When that edit summary is multiplied across many edits, it starts to seem like WikiHounding to me.

Note that I'm not taking issue with the substance of those edits, but only with the tone. I know it's often hard to stay civil on here, but I believe this crosses the line. Would you consider writing an apology to this user? I think that would go a long way toward restoring collegiality. Benny White (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Dear JayBeeEll, I noticed that you have reverted multiple edits by Miaumee.

While you raised a few valid points in User_talk:Miaumee, you have reverted some of Miaumee's edits that were actually clear-positive contributions.

Would you be willing to undo your reverts to those edits that were actually positive?

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Walwal20, thanks for your message. Here is a TL;DR of what's written below: please feel free to revert any edit of mine that you believe is substantively bad.

Long form: on average their edits seem to be net negative -- every single one I have investigated carefully includes broken grammar, very broken punctuation, and the use of poor sources. Because they make comprehensive edits, it takes a long time to evaluate each one. Since they seem firmly unwilling to address the problems with their edits, the most improvement-per-editing-time I can get is by reverting their edits en masse. That is, the point of my reverts is precisely that it's not worth the time to sort out the two good comma fixes from the multiple misplaced punctuation marks and crappy sourcing. So, I'm not willing to go back over my edits again, even though it probably means that a few of my edits reverted something net beneficial. However, if you are more patient than I am, I certainly do not mind you picking through them (either the ones I have reverted or the others), and likewise if you think one of their edits was net positive (so my revert was bad) I will not object to being re-reverted. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so it doesn't seem like I hadn't read your reply, I had read your arguments here and in the ANI and I agreed with the majority your complaints against Miaumee's edits, hence why my proposal was to have me point to Miaumee what she did wrong, and how she could improve. Will answer you on my talk page now. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You sneaky bastard

It took me this long to realize what changed. Today I saw one of your edits somewhere and thought, "Hey! That guy can't have that username and signature. There's already a user with that name! Imposter!" I dig it BTW. Lev!vich 04:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Ha, thanks for the note! FWIW, I did notify the world in the only venue that matters. (There is a short but tedious and uninteresting story of why I ended up using my given name instead of a nic in the first place.) Anyhow, glad you approve :). --JBL (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You suggested that "instead of whining" I should fix an article I complained about.

But I don't know enough about the subject of that article to fix it. (That's why I consulted that article in the first place.)216.161.117.162 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(Note to future self: this is continued from User_talk:216.161.117.162 and concerns [12].) Your comment proposed a concrete addition to the text (and then wrapped that in pointless and unpleasant whining), so this response is just nonsense. --JBL (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Why did you close https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Views_on_the_Police?? Absolutely no one was trolling! I was simply telling the other user not to accuse me of bad faith, and then we moved on discussing the issue at hand.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You were engaging in trollish wikilawyering unrelated to the article subject. I have no interest in discussing this with you further, but if you strike "suspiciously" from your earlier comment and apologize to NH for it, I will be happy to strike my own comment. --JBL (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. But can you just confirm to me that you're an objective, third-party and you have no personal connections to that user? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologized to that user on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NightHeron#Apology_for_Acting_in_Bad_Faith. I have also struck the comment out. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that (and will go edit my comment on the talk-page in a moment). No one is objective, but I certainly do not have any connection with NightHeron beyond some overlapping editing interests. (You could work out a more precise version of this statement using the editor interaction tool, which is linked from my userpage.) Happy editing, JBL (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alek Skarlatos

I am just wondering why I was mentioned in a revision on Alek Skarlatos that you undid, since I did not make that edit. Thanks. Halcyon grun Sproutz Halcyon grun Sproutz (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Halcyon grun Sproutz, as I noted in my edit summary, my edit reverted another user's attempt to clean up the damage to a ref tag left in this edit of yours. --JBL (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:POSTNOM

Hi, could you please explain this edit? You wrote that "these honors are from a country with which he has no particular connection and that have had no impact on his biography or career". But how did you deduce this rule from MOS? --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Omnipaedista, here is the first sentence of MOS:POSTNOM: When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. For foreign members of the Royal Society (like Knuth or Weinberg), the first condition fails, so it comes down to the second question, whether reliable sources regularly associate [the honoring organization] with the subject. It is my view that if that condition were met, there would be evidence of it in the actual content of the biography or the description of the career. However, it doesn't really matter if you agree with this particular interpretation of mine, the question is whether reliable sources regularly associated Knuth or Weinberg with the RS, and the answer in both cases (as well as in just about any other case of an extremely important American scientist) is that they do not. I recommend the discussion here and the related section just above it. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Thank you for clarifying this point. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring

I'm not the one edit warring, are you serious? Look at the talk page. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the article history, where you ... have repeatedly reverted other editors. That's called edit-warring, and you should stop. --JBL (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page. The editor I've reverted has been doing it on the Jews place as well, and if you look at the talk page there, you'll see he was told to stop. I told him numerous times, I'm pro him editing it, changing it, I'm totally pro compromise. Please look at the talk page. He's the one edit warring! Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This is extremely basic: if you find yourself repeatedly reverting other editors, you are engaged in an edit war. You should not do that. If someone else is edit-warring, that is also bad and absolutely does not make it okay for you to do so. --JBL (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not other editors, it's one guy. Could you please warn him to? Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Permutations with repetitions

It has to be clarified Tuples at least as Tuple#n-tuples_of_m-sets as Tuples alone is only the plural of Tuple and Permutations with repetition is a scalar number. Please change tuples to tuples of m-sets or let me do it Orendona (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC) It is OK now I only added 3 words. Please it is simple and it is OK, taking them out losses the meaning. My master degree was made on that theme. Orendona (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Not bureaucracy

Regarding this edit. It's not "bureaucracy", it's a bot that operates to certain instructions, and has certain expectations of the pages that it processes. If those expectations are not met, the bot cannot process the page according to its instructions. So the RfC listing is incomplete. Trying to explain how the bot operates is no more bureaucracy than a driving instructor explaining the throttle pedal to a pupil on their first lesson. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Collatz conjecture

Dear JBL, I am referring to our talk about the Collatz conjecture. I deeply appreciate your work on Wikpedia, and I am convinced that you are a very good mathematician. That is why I am still surprised that you refused a discussion that is based on scientific arguments and not on a source that is unreliable in my eyes.

Beall's List has been closed for years and is now being maintained by an "anonymous postdoctoral European researcher". If you consider the source to be reliable, you should provide answers to the following questions:

• Who is the "anonymous postdoctoral European researcher" that maintains the site?
• Who does he or she work for?
• Does he or she have a conflict of interest?
• Is he or she working for another journal and aims to discredit competitors?

Claiming that we did not "have submitted [our] work to the kind of academic journal that subjects papers to a rigorous review process" is hearsay, as long as you do not provide sound evidence for that, even, let me say this clear, if you think you are right.

Once again, I am not criticising the decision not to incorportate our theorems into the article. This is why we have started the discussion. We have politely asked an open question on a talk-page and have not violated the Wikipedia policies. We would therefore have expected a fair and fact-based response. --C4ristian (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You have received fair and fact-based responses from several users. The application of WP:RS is completely straightforward in this case, and I am really not interested in discussing your (evidently rather strong) feelings about Beall's list. Conceivably, you will find people willing to discuss this at WT:WPM or WT:AJ or WP:RSN. --JBL (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I had expected that. When I look at this page here, your comments seem to evoke "evidently rather strong" feelings on other topics as well. Never mind, I am convinced that in principle you act with good intentions --C4ristian (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ⋯, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Summation notation. 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) 06:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks, bot! --JBL (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Buggy WP:ECF?

Hello, JBL! It seems that I inadvertently re-published your comment because I had my editor active before you got to delete it. For some reason, the system didn't prompt me any conflict resolution (as it should and mostly does) and just re-posted your comment. I apologize for the inconvenience, but I'd like to let you know I didn't deliberately write anything on your behalf. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Assem Khidhr: No problem, thanks for clarifying! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Extended content

Hello JayBeeEll/Archives/2020, Year in review It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist. Rank Username Num reviews Log 1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation 2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation 3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation 4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation 5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation 6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation 7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation 8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation 9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation 10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation Reviewer of the Year John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity. NPP Technical Achievement Award As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition. Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271 To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply to your comment to KarlJacobi (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already told you that I don't have anything invested in the issues you raised, and would now kindly ask you to cease putting comments on my talk page.

KarlJacobi (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@KarlJacobi: I also have been looking with growing wonder at your obstinate refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia's rules. At this point, we really have to assume that you must have grasped this basic fact: you may not have multiple accounts that give the impression that they are multiple independent people. Either make very clear, on each individual user page, that C.F.Klein, W.Pauli, F.G.Frobenius, F.J.Dyson, and KarlJacobi are the same person, and denominate one primary account; or you will in short order run into administrative trouble. - I don't even know if there is tolerance for such an arbitrary proliferation of alternative accounts without a good reason, but I'll be happy to let an admin sort that one out. What I do know is that you cannot keep doing what you are doing right now, because it amounts to sockpuppetry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Note to future self: this was about this (and likewise this and this and later this). --JBL (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Berlekamp switching game

Any chance you could revisit your proposed merge of Berlekamp switching game at Talk:Delone set#Proposed merge of Berlekamp switching game into Delone set now that I've beefed up the switching game article? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke -- I'd noticed that you've been editing it, but hadn't taken a proper look. Really nice work! --JBL (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: unconnected to this discussion/Wikipedia, Darij pointed out to me that the problem of showing that any orbit contains a representative with at most half the lights on in each row and column has been used (repeatedly?) as an olympiad problem. Solution: if there's a row or column with more than half the lights on, flip the switch; the number of lights on strictly decreases, so this terminates. This greedy procedure may end up flipping the same switch many times. He posed the problem: is it always possible to reach a configuration in which at most half of the lights are on in each row and column by a greedy series of moves (each one decreasing the number of lights that are on) that only flips each switch at most once? Any idea if anyone has ever thought about such questions? --JBL (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not in that form, that I know of, but it's very similar to a standard greedy 1/2-approximation for max cut in graphs (where the problem is to 2-color the vertices so that as many edges as possible are 2-colored, and you can make each vertex have at least half its edges 2-colored by flipping its color). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks -- maybe the more general question has been asked & answered, I'll suggest it to him. All the best, JBL (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)