User talk:JayBeeEll: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

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…
343		Root of unity (talk)	Add sources
67		Factorial number system (talk)	Add sources
45		Affine group (talk)	Add sources
9		Magic hypercube (talk)	Add sources
117		Compact operator (talk)	Add sources
54		Permutational Number System (talk)	Add sources
25		Moment matrix (talk)	Cleanup
656		2023 Davis, California stabbings (talk)	Cleanup
151		Exact sequence (talk)	Cleanup
102		Real coordinate space (talk)	Expand
17		Generating function transformation (talk)	Expand
152		Closure (mathematics) (talk)	Expand
488		Fisher–Yates shuffle (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6		Magic cube classes (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38		True quantified Boolean formula (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
77		Angular displacement (talk)	Merge
51		Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Fazārī (talk)	Merge
14		Mastuj (talk)	Merge
29		Thabit number (talk)	Wikify
560		Lottery mathematics (talk)	Wikify
177		Quantifier (logic) (talk)	Wikify
2		Paramodular group (talk)	Orphan
4		Bueno-Orovio–Cherry–Fenton model (talk)	Orphan
2		Kernel function for solving integral equation of surface radiation exchanges (talk)	Orphan
16		Second Hardy–Littlewood conjecture (talk)	Stub
10		Toda field theory (talk)	Stub
45		Legendre's conjecture (talk)	Stub
2		Generic Image Library (talk)	Stub
5		Serre's theorem on a semisimple Lie algebra (talk)	Stub
14		Magic polygon (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (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]

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

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

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

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

Precious

Five years!

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

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

Hello, JayBeeEll,

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

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

Hello JayBeeEll,

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

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

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 821 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 847 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello JayBeeEll,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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

Misc

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

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 8789 articles, as of 22:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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

Reminders

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

Notes

1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

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

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

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

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

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

Hello JayBeeEll,

Backlog status

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

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

Coordination

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

Open letter to the WMF

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

TIP - Reviewing by subject

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

New reviewers

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

Reminders

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

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

Since you likely have no idea how this re-closing touched me, and mattered.......... well, I know its silly to invest so much meaning into our Wiki edits.... but I just wanted to go the extra mile to say "thank you". Silly gushing emoting mode..... off. Carry on.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for the kind note. I was just chatting with a(n in-real-life) friend the other day about how weird it is that there is this group of total strangers, most of them completely anonymous, about whom I have genuine warm feelings, built up via this strange shared interest. And you're very welcome! --JBL (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>grins< or if you prefer, cheers and bottoms' up! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JayBeeEll,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The time of "nothing good or healthy happening on Wikipedia" has overlapped with the time of "escalating responsibilities in every other area of life", so I most definitely need to get away from here. I've purged my watchlist and will be logging out in a couple minutes. If you do see me editing anywhere, please drop me a note and confirm that it's really what I want to be doing with my life. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XOR'easter, boy can I relate. Yes, I will be happy to check if I see you around. (I think WP:FRINGEN and AFD are particularly maddening placed to hang out.) As for myself, I'm going to go read some Calvin Trillin and pretend classes don't start next week .... (I swear that looking over Calculus has been on my to-do list for weeks at this point; surely one day I will ... :/.) --JBL (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JayBeeEll,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Huygens (chess piece) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#Huygens (chess piece) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (notifying you because you were involved in the AfD a while back) ChromaTK (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JayBeeEll, thank you for fixing the "polyhedron" at Diagonal; I had not realized that what I had removed was a defaced version of something that had formerly made sense, so I'm glad you noticed this! As for "antidiagonal" being infrequent, all I meant was that the main diagonal arises much more frequently in math. I don't have a particular reference for this, however, so your edit removing this remark is fine with me. Ebony Jackson (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ebony Jackson, you're welcome. My apologies if my edit summaries seemed personally critical, it was not my desire or intent. I agree with you that the main diagonal is mentioned more frequently, because it's more important, in the same way that (say) linear maps are much more common than antilinear maps -- but I don't think that it's necessary to state this meta fact explicitly, basically because of WP:DUE. JBL (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced here (so I do not link directly to my site): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_August&oldid=1125846028?

You said "low-quality" and you call yourself a mathematician? Please provide answers before just deleting my question.

How would you explain 0 negative comments with a little less than two hundred downloads on Vixra: https:// vixra.org/abs/2206.0040 [remove space]? 78.72.115.52 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You were abusing Wikipedia by using a talk page to harass an editor and spamlinking to your website. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JBL. Please let me know your preference on initiating an ANI on Elmenhorster. I can do it, but would prefer you as I am in the middle of two other projects on here. Ping me and I'll immediately endorse. Apologies for the obvious frustration involved and thanks for the soundness of character you have shown. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Thanks for the kind words -- I have created it. JBL (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I have added my two cents. Preferably this will be wrapped up soon. Best to you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well glad that that's over. Just in time for final exam grading, too. I'll try to find some time to contribute to the article later. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JayBeeEll. I replied to a recent comment of yours at a new administrator discussion. I happened to notice your response to someone else about interactions with other editors. You had recommended that that editor try a sourceforge script given his unease over not being familiar with the particular potential new administrator's wikipedia user name. I tried it for myself and... WOW! It is great! Thank you so much. It runs pleasantly in my Chrome browser and is really fast and is so well designed with helpful links. I like (and miss) lots of the scripts that are no longer maintained, um, I forgot the URL, the Tool Server wiki site maybe? Music Animal writes nice scripts but he is only one person.

While I was here, I read your user talk page. Sheesh! You are extraordinarily patient. So is David Eppstein and the XOR'easter person. I have a low tolerance for sources that don't satisfy WP:RS and WP:NPOV. You are correct about Research Gate being the Facebook of (not so) scholarly journal crudola. As for vixra... sigh. I tried to explain about vixra on Math StackExchange. The question was "Submit papers to arXiv or viXra?" Both the question and all the answers got deleted by site mods back in 2016. The viXra proprietor is a nice guy but he has a lengthy disclaimer (EDIT: Oh! It is blacklisted so that I can't even link to it here; no great loss) in which he acknowledges the site is a parody of arXiv, which isn't peer-reviewed either FWIW! (Hmm, looks like vixra is now owned and operated by Scientific God Inc. ("SGI") lol!) And then there's Tim's Paranormal Website. I read the Squaring the Circle article talk page. OMG I had no idea how invested people are in mathematics. I thought US political article talk pages were the ultimate cesspools of conflict and bad faith editing but I was wrong. I have a math degree too but I function at a much lower level than you do. I *DO* like combinatorics and permutations a lot! I do applied probability for a living, e.g. hardware reliability, finance, catastrophes.

So, this is lengthy in keeping with my style. Thank you for your efforts here and keep up the good work. FeralOink (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeralOink,

Thanks for your message, and the kind words. I think you probably know this, but just in case: the script is indeed wonderful, and I have nothing to do with its creation or maintenance at all (it is the work of Σ).

Happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

let's prefer :<math> over <math display=block> because <math display=block> cannot be seen in the amoled dark mode of the Wikipedia app. If not, why should we prefer <math display=block>? Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) _vs_:<math>" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So this seems to be resolved but just for the record, if you were interested in changing the consensus on this, the right places to discuss it would be either WT:WPM or WT:MSM. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JayBeeEll,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Stop engaging in ad hominem attacks. Please find someon else to harass. Alexmov (talk)

Please learn how to use the preview button some time before you are blocked for WP:DE, WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JBL, sorry for yelling at you over at sum of three cubes. Definitely not the way I like to resolve issues. Happy New Year though, you do great work! Best Radlrb (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Radlrb: thanks for reaching out, and for the kind words! No apology necessary, I'm sure. Happy new year to you, as well, and happy editing! --JBL (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you say here [[3]] that my pedantic edit destroys the meaning of the sentence. what meaning are you trying to retain? I think it's there to explain the code, and the current version is an incorrect description of what happens which obscures the readers' understanding of how the code works. JeffUK 19:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JeffUK,

I would have thought the article talk-page is the right venue for this, but since you've asked here I'll respond here. The article is about recursion. When I read that sentence, the important encyclopedic point being made is that two slightly different notions of recursion (one in the context of a mathematical formula, one in the context of computer programming) have the same essential structure, namely, that each term is computed in some simple way from the previous terms (except possibly for some initial values). The way you rewrote the sentence structured it around a mildly pedantic point about how the computer computation works in practice; in my view, this had the effect of obscuring (rather than emphasizing) the similarity between the two situations.

If you are not satisfied with this, I would be happy to discuss it further, but I would suggest in that case copying the discussion to Talk:Recursion and continuing there.

Best, JBL (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just regarding the reverted edit at the archive. Sorry for adding to it – I don't actually know how to continue a discussion that's been archived there, to be honest. Should I just re-post the contents of the previous discussion on the active page along with the new comment? --Pitsarotta (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pitsarotta: Thanks for your message. No apology necessary -- the biggest reason not to add to a discussion that's been archived is simply that no one will see it. When a discussion has been archived after a period of time with no response (as in this case), it is permissible to do what you suggest -- and you should probably also delete the entire section from the archive page (or else it will create a confusing, duplicated record in the archive) and for both the removal and addition leave an explanatory edit summary. All the best, JBL (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is very helpful. Have a good one! --Pitsarotta (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pitsarotta: You're welcome; and I'm happy to see that reposting resulted in an efficient (and hopefully satisfactory) resolution! --JBL (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thanks again! --Pitsarotta (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the changes I made in the article "square packing in a square" ? The previous statement was wrong. Thierry Gensane confirmed me in an email that their program was not able to improve the packing from 1979. I added two links, the second explains in detail that Gensane incorrectly assumed to have slightly improved the packing. I wanted to add a SVG-graficof the packing. But I have to learn this first. Walter Trump (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for simplifying (special:diff/1146738098) my explanation (special:diff/840419862) at Cauchy sequence. CiaPan (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan: and thank you for trying to clean up some of Darcourse's bad edits. There are so many of them, going back so many years—e.g. the ones mentioned here [4]—that I've never had the energy to comb through them systematically. Probably there is a case to be made that they should be blocked per WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
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) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gerda,

Thank you as always for this kind reminder!

All the best,

Joel

--JBL (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits to Live Action. Forgive me as this is my first attempt at improving an existing article in my 6 years of editing here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: Hey thanks for stopping by, I was actually just writing you a message on your talk-page :). Specifically, I was going to thank you for the nice improvements you made today. I have slightly mixed feelings about my revert, because the instinct to say something about why is very natural. The problem is that I don't think their claims are widely accepted (or at least, not accepted by people who didn't already agree with them), so any statement of the form "LA says this shows X" creates a problem for how much rebuttal to include. (If you wanted, I'd be happy to talk more about it on the article talk-page, where perhaps other editors could weigh in.)

I also can't help but mention how fascinating I find different peoples' editing styles: I've been doing this to various degrees for 10 years or more, and I think I've only created two articles -- and they were both really hard work for me! But I find working on & improving existing text easy. Meanwhile I see you've got several dozen nice articles created. Anyhow, thanks again for improving Live Action!

Happy editing, JBL (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAYWALL and defer to more experienced editors. I wrote the entire article, your drive-by edit removing access is not helpful in any way. ɱ (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, so much assholery in one short comment. Please never post here again, unless it's in the form of an apology or is required by policy. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And personal attacks like that can get you banned. ɱ (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]