User talk:JayBeeEll

Archives

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
159		Tianxia (talk)	Add sources
23		Hyperperfect number (talk)	Add sources
54		Online text-based role-playing game (talk)	Add sources
849		Greatest common divisor (talk)	Add sources
1,872		Benefit corporation (talk)	Add sources
368		Blind carbon copy (talk)	Add sources
54		Pascal's pyramid (talk)	Cleanup
37		United States Refugee Admissions Program (talk)	Cleanup
509		Lattice (order) (talk)	Cleanup
154		Associative algebra (talk)	Expand
875		New Glenn (talk)	Expand
28		Coxeter element (talk)	Expand
1,640		Quotation mark (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
403		File format (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
60,178		World Chess Championship 2024 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5,656		Coordinated Universal Time (talk)	Merge
9		Map (graph theory) (talk)	Merge
122		Musical isomorphism (talk)	Merge
400		Philosophy of mathematics (talk)	Wikify
548		X86 calling conventions (talk)	Wikify
92		Equity crowdfunding (talk)	Wikify
2		MRF optimization via dual decomposition (talk)	Orphan
2		Abir Har Even (talk)	Orphan
15		Bittles Bar (talk)	Orphan
51		Super-prime (talk)	Stub
60		Legendre's conjecture (talk)	Stub
61		Hlomla Dandala (talk)	Stub
7		River Sid (talk)	Stub
8		Turraeanthus africanus (talk)	Stub
1		Canal River (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hellow JayBeeEll, regarding all your warnings about whitespaces on articles, I'm now in need of any link or source about the proper usage/guidelines/maintenance of whitespaces, so that I'll never ever make any unwanted vandalism in future! Thanking at the end, keep up great works on Mathematics-related articles :) Billjones94 (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Billjones94: The principle is incredibly straightforward: if you can't articulate a clear reason that an edit is an unambiguous improvement, don't make it. Is removing a single space that does not change the appearance of the page an improvement? No, it is obviously not (and meanwhile it is a nuisance to other editors whose watchlists get spammed with pointless fiddling) -- therefore don't do it. If you are making some edit that otherwise has some beneficial purpose and, incidentally at the same time, you remove some whitespaces like this, no one will mind -- but that's because of the other (useful) part of the edit.

I hope this is clear and helpful; if not, please feel free to query further. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some great guidance, thanking you again :) Billjones94 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays JayBeeEll! I've taken advantage of the mental space given by a few days off to write Draft:Supersolvable lattice. This is my first article on mathematics. You have a lot more experience with such articles, and I'm also pretty sure that you've encountered the definition, though possibly only in passing. Would you be willing to glance through and assess whether you think it's ready for mainspace? Disclosing that I cite my own work in a minor way in one place (for I think good reasons). Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Russ Woodroofe, cool! I personally am very comfortable with the level of self-citation there. There's something wrong with some of your references -- when I mouse over/click on the harvtxt link, it should highlight/jump to the corresponding bibliography entry. Maybe you need to give all authors for the harvtxt template to find the right thing, not just the first? I have only looked superficially so far (packing for holiday travel) but I don't see any reason not to move it in to main-space. I will look more closely within the next week (but I think it would be fine if you moved it to main-space before then). Happy holidays! --JBL (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look, and especially for noticing the trouble with harvtxt. I hadn't used that before, and misread the documentation. Anyway, fixed this, cleaned up a few other things, and moved to mainspace! Thanks again. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russ,

Ok I looked a little closer, and really that's a great new math article. I see you've done a good job de-orphaning it, and given it the most reasonable category. I made a few minor edits. Here are a couple of additional comments:

• In the section Motivation (about which, by the way, I wish more math articles had), the reference to Stanley is functioning as a primary source; is there a secondary source that could be used to augment it (maybe one of the other references already present?).
• Is it normal to put the "EL" in "EL-labeling" in math mode, as in the section Properties?
• Is there a reasonable way to give the EL-labeling characterization within the context of this article? (Maybe not, because it requires giving a full exposition of EL-labelings?)

Merry Christmas,

JBL (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBL. Thanks again for reading. Apologies for taking a minute to get back: I'm slower over the holidays than I expected, and I needed to think about the Motivation section. I am actually unsure if I am engaging in WP:SYNTH in that section, although it is minor if I am. Stanley says not much more "this explains our terminology‚ 'supersolvable 1attice'" (well, a tiny bit more at the front of the article), Stern says something similar in his book. But the maximal modular chain connection is pretty clear.

Anyway: in motivation, I added a citation to Stern. I also described a litte more of the connection with subgroup lattices. (Here too, the motivation for Dedekind to introduce modular lattices apparently was to generalize behavior he'd observed in abelian/Hamiltonian groups; finding a reliable source that says this straightforwardly is surprisingly difficult.) As far as the rest, I briefly described the edge labeling, and unitalicized EL (I think I've seen it both ways, but maybe it's just me that usually italicized).

It would be good to expand this modestly. It would also be good to describe the fiber type arrangement stuff of Terao. I'm less familiar with this last aspect of the theory. Thanks again! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: No apology necessary, to be sure -- obviously between the two of us you're the more responsive one to messages :). It is perpetually frustrating how infrequently people write down sentences explaining the motivation that is widely understood by experts -- I think your attempt to extract what can be said is great. Thanks again for this nice article! --JBL (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Season's greetings, and may you have a happy new year! --JBL (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E (mathematical constant) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abishe -- best wishes to you, as well. --JBL (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got bit a few times by more experienced people (partially probably justified, partially probably not), so I really appreciate the extra patience you and a few others showed me on the noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: You're very welcome! It looked to me you were asking good questions and approaching things in a thoughtful way, so it was pleasant to chat with you. Happy editing! JBL (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was very pleasant for me too! Happy editing to you as well :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your excellent Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group article. Cheers! Chanaka L (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanakal: Thanks very much! --JBL (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding one of your last edits in the permutation matrices article: I think the way that the introduction is written is somewhat misleading in the current state. While you are right that it is true that a permutation matrix multiplied from the left permutes the rows, i.e., $PM$ and from the left the columns $MP$, for the same permutation matrix $P$, this would lead to inconsistent permutations, because if $P$ multiplied from the right leads to a permutation according to, e.g., $1->2->3->1$, permutations with $P$ from the left lead to $1->3->2->1$. That's why I agree with the previous edit transposing the permutation matrix. I'm quite new here, so I am not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, I just think it would help intuitive understanding of the article. J-s-schmidt1 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J-s-schmidt1, thanks for your message. The best place to discuss changes to a single article is on the article talk-page (so in this case at Talk:Permutation matrix), so that anyone who edits the page can participate; is it ok with you if I copy your message over there to respond? --JBL (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JayBeeEll, yes of course moving my message is alright, thank you for your answer! JS J-s-schmidt1 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J-s-schmidt1: Thanks; I have copied your comment and responded over there. --JBL (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source - email with archivist Sally Johnson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:

Hello Michael,

Thank you for reaching out to the University Archives at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign! I understand you're interested in determining if George B. Purdy acknowledged Paul Erdős in his thesis.

I have been able to confirm that this is the case--in the acknowledgments section of Some Extremal Problems in Geometry and the Theory of Numbers, Erdős is the second person listed overall, only after Paul T. Bateman. The acknowledgment states: "I also wish to thank Professor Paul Erdős for introducing me to extremal problems in geometry and for suggesting the problem solved in Chapter III" (p. 5).

I hope this information is helpful! Please feel free to reach out with any other questions. Thank you for contacting the University Archives!

Sincerely,

Sally Johnson

— (she/her/hers)

Turtlens (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? My revert has nothing to do with the underlying truth of the proposition "Purdy acknowledged Erdos in his thesis". If you'd like to continue this discussion (such as it is), please do so at the article's talk-page, not here. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to clutter up a cluttered thread with this comment, especially since I don't know that it even applies. But the remark is a pet peeve of mine so I am just letting you know that depending on the platform, the preview button may not work and on mobile or mobile desktop it is certainly not reliable. Just an fyi. Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Good to know, thanks! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JayBeeEll,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you gave no explanation at all for restoring an edit which I had reverted, with an explanation. Can you explain your reason? I'm sure an editor with your amount of editing experience must be acquainted with WP:BRD. JBW (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBW, my apologies -- I could have sworn I wrote a descriptive edit summary, but obviously I screwed up somehow. Briefly, I reverted for three reasons: (1) your edit summary suggests that the substitution "contradictory" -> "false" was recent, but that's wrong: "false" has been in the article for years, it was changed recently and was swiftly reverted (not by me). (2) "Contradictory" is a relative term; a result can't be "contradictory" all by itself, it needs to be in contradiction with something else. So I don't think the sentence works as you left it. (3) I am not impressed with the idea that it is somehow improper to write, "The statement that the complex number 1 is equal to the complex number -1 is false" -- indeed I think the sentence I've put in quotes is more or less universally understood, correct, and uncotroversial. If you'd like to discuss this further, may I suggest that we continue on the article talk-page, rather than here? --JBL (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just saw the note on your talk-page; best wishes for a swift recovery! --JBL (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for your good wishes. Secondly, thanks for your answer to my question. I don't really see any need to discuss it further. I am perhaps to blame for not checking the editing history and seeing that I was restoring a recent change, not a long-standing version. More importantly, though, having thought further about the matter, I have decided that the version you restored is more likely to be helpful to a typical reader than the other, whichever might be considered more justifiable in terms of mathematical formalism. JBW (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, in relation to your remark 'a result can't be "contradictory" all by itself, it needs to be in contradiction with something else', I read 'contradictory results" (plural) as meaning "results which contradict one another", not "results each of which by itself is contradictory", which would of course have been nonsense. JBW (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you reverted my edit on Sarah Jeong. Are you seriously suggesting the omission of any of her tweets which garnered significant controversy? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have (sensibly) opened a discussion on the article's talk-page; it was silly to open a parallel discussion here, as we can discuss it there. But you should begin by reading the extensive past discussion of this question in the archives there. --JBL (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at nothing more than tangential discussions from more 6 years ago. I am only asking you to elaborate, beyond just "it's not consensus". Zilch-nada (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WCM_email 17:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your advice. I've now presented as much evidence as I could scrape up. Hopefully a checkuser will now see the evidence and block the sock. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh: Looks like it worked! --JBL (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure did, and Ed gave me the green light to add a block notice on the sock's talk page (though sadly, I'm sure they'll sock once more to the point where it becomes a "here we go again" moment). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the importance of the two choices of sign is that these are the only ways to define an ordering on ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ((x))}$ (or, more generally, to extend an ordering of an ordered base field to the Laurent series field); maybe that could be noted there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1234qwer1234qwer4, thanks for your message. I will take your word for it that these are the only two ordered field structures on ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ((x))}$ (it is not obvious to me, but I haven't thought about it very hard). That seems to me like a reasonably interesting fact about the ring of formal Laurent series; indeed sufficiently interesting that, if you have a citation for it (because it's well beyond WP:CALC), I would strongly encourange you to add it to the article formal Laurent series. The place that you did add it is a list of examples of ordered fields. Generally, the purpose of such an "Examples" section is to quickly introduce readers to important examples; in my opinion, this is undermined by adding too much information about the individual examples. (If you wanted this grounded in Wikipedia content policies, the one that seems most relevant to me is WP:DUE.) If you still disagree, I suggest bringing the issue to the article talk-page, and perhaps adding a notification at WT:WPM, to get some additional opinions. All the best, JBL (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize for my incorrect correction. I mistakenly interpreted the n^k mentioned to mean width n and dimension k. I looked up the paper cited, and I understand it correctly now. I will try to be more careful with my corrections going forward. Thank you for correctly correcting me.

--Viliam Furík (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viliam Furík, thanks for your message. No apology needed, I'm sure! The sentence there is really not very clear, it's not surprising to me that someone could be confused by it. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance in the last few days to think about how to write it more clearly. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated 0.999... for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could i ask your help updating the summary here Tonymetz 💬 23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tonymetz, that discussion ended and was archived two weeks ago; no one viewing it in the future is going to be confused about whether it ended with any clear conclusion (beyond the warning you received from Bishonen). If it were still on the front page WP:ANI, I might consider adding a closing statement (because it would sit around for a day or two and other editors would have the opportunity to object), but I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to add a closing statement long after a discussion has been archived and receded from view. (I mean you could restore the whole discussion to WP:ANI on the grounds that it never reached much of a conclusion -- but that seems like a terrible idea.) I hope these comments are helpful, even if they are not what you requested. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that a long serpentine ANI thread will be perceived as a blemished reputation. In the end no action was taken. The warning was given prior to ANI Tonymetz 💬 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reputation (not a real thing btw) will survive. If you simply cannot abide with this discussion having been archived without a closure statement, you can restore the whole discussion to WP:ANI and request that; but that seems like an incredibly bad idea for several reasons, and will be most likely to result in drawing negative attention to yourself. FWIW, any uninvolved party closing the discussion will certainly include in their closure statement that you were warned by Bishonen, as that fact is a prominent feature of the discussion. --JBL (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's my point. but anyway, thanks for helping come up with options. I agree that's not practical. Tonymetz 💬 18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you as ever for the kind reminder! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding No consensus on UAW RFC. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Elissa Slotkin".The discussion is about the topic UAW Strike Quote.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

andrew.robbins (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are as fun as ever. XOR'easter (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Well you did the right thing, let's see if the second time sticks. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted my comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [1] citing off topic, general content? How come is that off topic and general content ? What I said is related to the topic that was at hand there. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RSN thread is about the reliability of the TimesNowNews source; your comment did not address that question at all, instead you continued an argument from elsewhere about the Western Standard.

Is English your native language? (I ask because you seem to have some difficulty communicating clearly.) --JBL (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JayBeeEll

The edit you reverted simply claimed that Wantzel made a conclusion that ONLY the equation cited could solve the problem. I cited the paper that supports the claim. That document (link below) includes this allegory.

Consider the goal is to put a nail into a board and there are no hammers. Wantzel might have said:

Hammers put nails in boards. I have no hammer; thus nails cannot be put in the board.

Why is the statement after the semicolon false? Because other tools can put nails in boards. [ and three solutions without hammers are shown ] .

As a non(academic) my work is not eligible to be included in academic-only web sites for a review. I have created a construction that functions using the tools available to euclid and the babylonians. How else to introduce this to remove another in the long list of items widely held, but no longer accurate? Those include "man will never travel faster than a good horse."

I'd appreciate some guidance.

Jonathan E. Jaffe ^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jonathan_E._Jaffe

Jonathan E. Jaffe (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan E. Jaffe,

Thanks for your message. My reversion was not made without comment, I left the following edit summary: rv self-promotion. ("rv" is local jargon for "revert".) Your addition was based on your own unpublished manuscript: this is a clear violation of our policy WP:NOR, which forbids the addition of original research to Wikipedia. I do not have any suggestions for how to get around this situation because, in my opinion, the rule that applies here is a good rule that functions correctly in this case. If you want other opinions or advice, you could ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

Unrelated to this question, I glanced at your manuscript. It appears to me that you have, in essence, rediscovered a version of the construction described in the section Angle_trisection#Approximation_by_successive_bisections. This does not represent a solution to the problem considered by Watzel, which does not concern itself with the practical question of trisecting an angle in practice up to measurement or observation error, but instead is concerned with an abstract mathematical model (axiomatic Euclidean geometry) in which lines have no width, planes have no thickness, etc. If you have not read The Trisectors by Underwood Dudley (cited in our article), I recommend it to you.

Best of luck, JBL (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response. Papers from non(professional academics) are not accepted in academic pre-press for peer review hence I was the only one who knew about it.

What Dudley describes is a "proof". Mine is a "construction". It works in the real world using only the tools and limitations faced by Euclid and the Babylonians. In science "practice" trumps "theory" and some note should be made that trisection can be done. Wantzel's "negative proof" wasn't an error in math, it was an error in logic. It is described in the paper including the allegory above.

Unfortunately as even my Wikipedia account was deleted I won't get notification of your response.

Please send email to me at jejaffe

at nc3 dot mobi 174.50.238.102 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan E. Jaffe,

Your Wikipedia account was not deleted: what was deleted was your user page (the page User:Jonathan E. Jaffe) where you had initially posted your first comment, before finding the correct way to contact me (on this page). This does not prevent you from logging in to your account and using your account to edit.

Unfortunately, the fact that your work has not been published means that it is not suitable for use as a reference on Wikipedia.

(It is not actually true that academic publishers are unwilling to publish work from people who are not professional academics -- I have many friends who have been able to publish academic papers after leaving academia, and I have mentored the research of many groups of undergraduate students, some of which has been published. Since your work doesn't make any real attempt to adhere to the conventions of the field to which you feel it belongs, it is not too surprising that you would not have been able to publish it with a reputable publisher. I think a good example of this failure to engage with the field is visible in our exchange, when you simply ignored my reference to Angle_trisection#Approximation_by_successive_bisections. People are not generally willing to go out of their way to help someone who claims to understand something all mathematicians have failed to grasp for the last 200 years, who also doesn't seem to listen.)

JBL (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unduly aggressive in my last post here etc. You were hardly the right person for me to direct my semi-justified anger toward after my ban had been overturned. Again, genuinely sorry for that; wouldn't do it again. Biohistorian15 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re this revert, I'm pretty sure "to recurse" is a widely-accepted verb, but possibly only in computer science; it is used in Recursion (computer science) (and I certainly didn't add it). I grew up using this word, though that's hardly an unbiassed sample and certainly isn't a citation. The pronounciation is different for "re-curse" and "recurse"; the vowel "u" in "recurse" is long, as in "recursion" (there's a sound file at wiktionary:recurse). That said, I don't deeply care if the article has dictionary links. HLHJ (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HLHJ, thanks for your message. About "recurse", I think we agree about the situation broadly. I am an academic mathematician and I would expect other mathematicians to understand if I said "and then we recurse through previous cases". But I think the word is a piece of informal jargon, not understood or recognized outside of the fairly specialized context of mathematics and computer science. As a point of evidence in favor of this view, I note that "recurse" is not in Merriam-Webster or dictionary.com (these are the first (only) two general-interest dictionaries I checked). --JBL (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, we do largely agree. Apologies for the misunderstanding. My old concise OED does not contain "recurse", nor actually "recursion". I think there are enough academic papers using "recurse" that it is, at least, formal jargon of some fields. In some non-subject-specific social circles, "recurse" gets used as an ordinary non-jargon verb, and I think I've used it to explain the whole point-the-camera-at-the-livefeed thing to a small child. It is actually useful in everyday conversation.

That said, I imagine only people who need to think or talk about recursion regularly find the word particularly useful; people in comsci, math, some fields of tech and visual arts. I'd think anyone looking up the recursion article might be entering that class, though, and thus might actually want the word, in the same way they want to learn recursive and recursion. They might even be looking up what "recurse" means on Wikipedia. At worst, they don't need to know and promptly forget.

So I favour including it. But it's pretty easy to guess from a basic knowledge of English, which most readers will have, so I'm not too fashed about it. HLHJ (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. I am planning to expand Fundamental theorem of calculus via my sandbox here. I was wondering if I might dismantle and rewrite the whole article, you would probably disagree with what have I done. Would you like to give some suggestions before heading this article into B-class or possibly high-class? Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dedhert.Jr, thanks for your message. My relationship with Fundamental theorem of calculus is that I tend to protect it on a local basis, without thinking very much about the article globally. Looking it over briefly right now, I am sure that a more global perspective on the whole article could yield improvements. I would not stand in the way of you making such a large-scale change to the article. Given my current time availability, I don't think I can make significant contributions to your effort, but if you would like help with copyediting or spot-checking or prose-polishing certain sections in your draft, I would be happy to try to do that -- let me know. --JBL (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re certainly correct that it would be a challenge to draw a Hasse diagram of any partial order on, say, R. So the point I was trying to make would indeed require rewording. But before I tried to do such a rewording, I would like to know the second problem you had with my edit.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaulTanenbaum, thanks for your message. The bigger objection is that Hasse diagrams only "work" for finite posets (and some nice kinds of infinite posets). The smaller objection is that I am a little hesitant around the language of what a poset's Hasse diagrams "look like", because (for all but a very few simple cases) the same finite poset can have "different looking" Hasse diagrams. I would feel better if the language were directly based on a citation to a reliable source. All the best, JBL (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your hesitancy about raising a Hasse diagram’s appearance. I suppose my inspiration to add the comment at all reflects my own comfort with the distinction between a graph and its myriad possible drawings, so the comment could be misleading for readers who aren’t already acquainted with that idea.

What would you think of a version like this:

“The idea of isomorphism can be understood for finite orders in terms of Hasse diagrams. Two finite orders are isomorphic exactly when some single Hasse diagram (up to relabeling of its elements) expresses them both.”

—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaulTanenbaum, sure, something like that seems reasonable. I might go even more explicit about "expresses": "Two finite orders are isomorphic exactly when a Hasse diagram for one can be transformed into a Hasse diagram for the other by relabeling elements" or something. --JBL (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]