User talk:JoergenB

Week-end editor: Under the next months, I plan not to wikiedit substantially outside the weekends (Friday-monday). If you need to reach me in between, you may try wikimail!

Welcome!

Hello, JoergenB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I see you're taking an interest in operations, an area where we could use some help. Thanks! Melchoir 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any experience with using these talk pages, so I don't know if I'm supposed to answer your question to me by editing my own talk page or yours. If you think the subscripts are hard to read, you could change them to upper case. I just re-read your other suggestion. Are you wanting to re-index the sequences from 1 to k, instead of 0 to k-1? If so, I would prefer that you not. Having had a class from Dijkstra, I am a firm believer in the benefits of counting from zero, one of them being that the upper bound on the index is also the length of the sequence.NoJoy 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Joergen. Indeed, we probably got into an "edit conflict" (editing the same page at the same time). See Help:Edit conflict for a detailed description of the issue. Conscious 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's no etiquette about how to write names when mentioning other Wikipedians as far as I know. My user name is plainly "Kieff", and I just used a stylized version in my signature to break the boredom and to make it stand-out from normal wiki links. If you want a suggestion, when you talk about someone else, just stick to the actual, non-formatted username of the person (the username that you see in the user page, example User:Kieff or User:JoergenB - of course, you'll drop the "User:"). That's what I do, it keeps things simpler. Besides, a lot of people are using absurdly fancy signatures nowdays, so you'll just save yourself from all the effort to deal with that crap. :P

Anyway, the reason why I "fixed" your edit was to make a clearer text-flow (no junk formatting in the middle of paragraphs). It keeps things easier to comprehend when editing because the fancy formatting code is kept for the signatures at the end of lines. That way you can safely ignore them. Hope everything is clear, and have fun editing! :) ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "..and there are some nice templates, which make it very easy to inform the reader of sources from sister Wikipedia, and which you may place under the heading references. " Joergen, can you point me to one of these templates? Thanks, EdJohnston 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'... one of these templates' - yes, one I can provide, for translations from German; but I have not been able to find the category to which it should belong:-( I have been looking around at templates for some hour now, and I find it more confusing now than when I started. For your 'one example', look at recently completed translations from German; e.g., at

Herta_Müller#References

where the first line was produced by {{German|Herta Müller|[[July 28]], [[2006]]}}. This is nice enough, I think; but if I don't find the same for all or at least many languages, I'll have to retract my statement.

I've been at wp for less than two months, and I sometimes still find some things fairly confusing. The template namespace is one such thing. JoergenB 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I have had the same experience with alot of Albanians about the Kosovo article. They cant see that we will never accept calling it Kosova (I will for sure as long as I live). I don't think this is a trend only among Swedes but I can see that in a world like this when we tend to use more English in our native speak and the use of ghetto-dialects (I think of Rinkby-svenska, which I consider a rape on our beutiful languge), people is getting more aware of what they call their land, city, province, etc.

I see that there is a big missunderstanding when some Swedes say Göteborg ans some Gothenburg. As we know Göteborg tends not to call them self Gothenburg anymore officially but the name is very old and well settled among the English speakers, thats why the article is named Gothenburg here. Well that is okey for me but when you use the latin form (for example Dalarna) I think this is going to far (even if I know this is the "proper English" name. Although I have never the intend to destroy any work here on Wikipedia. Österbotten will always be Österbotten but I see that it's best to call it Ostrobothnia (region).

Do you teach at university level? Well I guess they should have said Henrik if it was a Swedish text or? We all know that we use the latin for of the pope, but acctually I heard and interview with the spokes women of the Catholic Church in Sweden after they new pope Benediktus was elected and she said that they give him a Swedish name called Benedikt, just like the did with Johannes Paulus - Johannes Paul. But if they said "John" it would be acctually disgraceful. Best regards - Litany 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, otherwise I always links a page like this: Österbotten.

Aha, I understand. I read history at Uppsala University before, so there is a big chance a teacher one day (for upper secondary school). Now I am in Crotia to attend Zagreb University in learning the Croatian language for one year.

Yes Henrik would be the proper name in Swedish, although I dont think that it's wrong if they would say Henri rather then translate him as Enrique. The mistake in DN and by TT was clearly the "anglification". I think that even more proper in Swedish would referring the late pope as Johan Pål, instead of Johannes Paulus, but now do we use the Latin form of the pope so no deal to argue about the "proper" Swedish name. Hehe

So do you live in Rinkeby or some other suburbs? My origin is also from one of Stockholms suburbs and I grew up with this horrible "dialect" around me in school and etc. But this is my POV. Best regards - Litany 12:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joergen,

The english version of wikipedia does have a formal policy that "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more details) so that would be on the english version as having the place names generally in the english with the swedish to follow in brackets, in terms of swedish place names there is the following policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish). I think in terms of getting a more expert response, posting your query on the naming convention discussion page might get a better response than I can provide. I hope that this is of some use, if you need anymore help feel free to ask and thanks for pointing out the typo on the geography wikiproject. Good luck :-) AlexD 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I tag things as historical when I note there is no ongoing discussion; if discussion starts anew, it's a good idea to remove the historical tag (or replace it by {{proposed}}). Note, however, that there may be very few people watching the talk page, so it would probably be a good idea to ask for feedback at e.g. the village pump, WP:CENT, and/or some relevant WikiProject. >Radiant< 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JoerganB. Thanks for the welcome. This is my first attempt at doing anything on wikipedia, but I have done some work on lowering the upper bound of R(3,3,3,3).

I've never seen Ramsey's original paper, and I am not sure exactly what he used the theorem for. I do think that it would be interesting to have a historical section in the wikipedia article with a discussion of the context in formal logic in which he needed to apply the theorem, and how he actually formulated the original theorem(s) in his paper.

--Ramsey2006 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the standard welcome template on peoples' pages. I haven't had time to check it out much, though. I did find a page that tells how to use some TeX notation here, so that should be useful.

Yes, I'm the "K". Here's a link to to an updated version of my unpublished manuscript. (I did notice on some math dept page at your university that you have an interest in Ramsey Theory)

The Ramsey Number R(3,3,3,3) Is No Greater Than 62

I don't actually know much about the history of the subject. I got into it in a rather roundabout manner. There are some small finite symmetric integral relation algebras (which I tend to call the "coloring algebras") whose representations are essentially good edge colorings of complete graphs with some additional existential conditions. The additional conditions essentially say that every possible triangle (except for the monochromatic triangles) must exist off of every edge. The 2 color relation algebra has a single representation, the pentagram. The 3 color relation algebra has exactly 3 representations, the untwisted and twisted colorings on 16 vertices, and another one on 13 vertices. The 4 color relation algebra has a representation on 41 vertices. That may be the only one known. I'm not sure. Fan Chung's good 4-colorings on 50 vertices are NOT representations.

Now that I think of it, it may be open whether the n color relation algebra is representable for every n or not. I'll have to ask a friend of mine about that.

When I started looking at R(3,3,3,3), I had seen the comment in the introduction of Kabfleisch and Stanton in which reference is made to a private communication with Erdös, where he states that a Hungarian Philosopher had succeded in proving that R(3,3,3,3)=66, but that the proof had not been checked by a mathematician. Since it is hard to imagine how such a proof would go without actually constructing a good coloring on 65 vertices, I set about to find the coloring on 65. Had it existed, it would have been another representation of the 4 color relation algebra, since the existential conditions would have been forced to hold simply by virtue of the sheer size of the representation.

I can still remember the day when I suddenly found the color of edge after edge being forced on me, adding an edge every couple of minutes, seemingly converging on unique coloring, when suddenly the whole coloring just evaprated in a sea of contradictions. (I didn't know at the time that Folkman had proved the same thing a couple of decades earlier.)

Later, I ran across a (false) comment in some edition of Berge's book, "Graphs and Hypergraphs", where he says something to the effect that there is no good coloring on 65, but that one does exist on 64. (A quote by the character Scotty on one of the original Star Trek episodes comes to mind here..."Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".)

Still, the same feeling of converging in on a unique coloring, with the color of edge after edge being forced on me before the entire coloring evaporating into a sea of contradictions has repeated itself several times now. Of course, in hindsight, I can always see why I should have been aware of the contradiction much, much earlier.

I've looked around a little, and did notice some things here that could use some work. The Relation Algebra page needs work, not to mention a complete revamping of notation. The notations used there is almost unreadable. (Enclosing in parentheses to represent boolean negation, for example, which makes it impossible to use parentheses in equations normally.) I also noticed that there is no page for Cylindric Algebras or for Boolean Algebras with Operators.

--Ramsey2006 01:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joergen, it was meant as a compliment. Just because I tend to be more impatient and impulsive doesn't mean I can't appreciate a more tempered and rulebound approach to encyclopedic cyber life. As a matter of fact, I'm sometimes quite in awe of that slow, methodical and analytical style of yours. What do mean you think I peaked at your user page??! He, he. I agree there needs to be more structure in order to avoid constant conflicts and bickering, but only as long as it doesn't strangle creativity and make people don't want to contribute because it takes to much work and effort to check out and learn all the different sets of rules and stylesheets in effect. It's a balancing act, for sure. Thanks for working so hard on getting the Scania name conflict settled. I do appreciate it very much. Love, Pia

Please see Talk:Skåneland to discuss a possible name change. -  AjaxSmack  00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved John Meier (disambiguation) back to John Meier. We only need the parenthatical comment if John Meier is taken (as it stood, it was just a redirect page, so I cut out the middle man). I also removed the disambiguation header from the top of the article. The only way someone is going to find these pages is if they click on a link or if they type out John Meier (Australia), so the need for dab is unnecessary. Hope you don't mind these changes. And yes, I was only aware of the biblical scholar before today.--Andrew c 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the disambiguation header from the top of the article. So yup ;)--Andrew c 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoergenB. To keep consistency, are you able to rename John Meier (Australia) to either John Meier (politician) or John Meier (Australian politician) as all other disambiguated SA politicans are done that way. I would do it myself but I haven't learnt how to do this. If you can do it, it would be great. Cheers. Timeshift 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :-) Timeshift 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   1) Is a rose a flower? (Comment: Small children are sometimes stating things like There were three roses and two flowers there.) 

A "rose", whatever it is, is irrespective of human designation. A "rose" would still be a "rose" whether or not any human being was there to smell it or not. That being said, according human taxonomy, a rose is indeed a flower, and a flower can be a rose or some other plant with specialized leaves that serve as sexual organs.

   (2) Is a square a rectangle? 

Following the logic above, a square is what it is. According to human mathematic theory, a square is indeed a rectangle.

   (3) Is 0.25 = 1/4? 

Now, then. These things actually do not exist. Therefore, they are entirely reliant on human logical consistency. Since 1 over four can be represented as twenty five percent, and there are no recursive numbers, there is no cognitive dissonance, so yes, they are in fact the same thing.

   (4) Could the same number have different representations? Could you give an example? 

"Numbers" are a human concept created to help us navigate through reality. As long as there is no cognitive dissonance, a number can be represented in many different forms.

   (5) Are integers rational numbers? Why/why not? 

Integers are rational numbers because there is no cognitive dissonance required to claim that integers are rational numbers.

Thanks for letting me know about your edit. Personally, I think the hyperlinking of Lord's Prayer provides enough explanation, but I can understand your point. I've changed the formatting slightly, but I've left your change in place. Thanks! :o) — OwenBlacker 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds all right to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your nutshell comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said "close" to snide. I didn't think your intentions were malicious. I agree with what you are saying, but I was just trying to stay consistent with the linking article on Natural selection. I gave up trying to make certain changes in the article. I share some of your concerns that the present effort to simplify evolution may lead to more misconceptions, but I'm trying to be Neutral and supportive of the present crew of editors attempt. A lot of experts have contributed in the past so I think it fair that novices have a go. I don't consider myself an expert on evolution, but I am a (biological) scientist and it has been a hobby for thiry years. I did teach an introductory course on evolution to undergrads twenty years ago. I bet it would be comical to compare a syllabus of then and now. I have been in research (mostly cell signalling) until recently. That said, my bias is molecular. I find the Wiki process enlightening, frustrating, and interesting. I apologize if I sounded thin skinned.GetAgrippa 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Always appreciated! Best, Hagerman^(talk) 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (The non-logged in person incidently also vandalised your user page, too.)--JoergenB 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him. Thanks for telling me. Hut 8.5 13:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was reading this, and it struck me that it was amazingly detailed and specialized philological material that wasn't really getting utilized fully. I appreciate that you wrote the original review at http://www.matematik.su.se/~joeb/kvad/Kommentarer/omTSB.shtml and rewrote for Wikipedia, so it's not original research or copyright violation. What bugged me is that our ballad article is weak as water. We have precious little on ballad development, English ballad types (and there are a lot of typologies), ballad use in later and non-folk literature (e.g. in the Restoration), or even the major steps of the "Ballad Revival." Oh, there is an article on Percy and a few things like Bagford Ballads, but not much. What do you think about trying to work to get an overview of the ballad going? We can then integrate a bunch of "daughter" articles so that the information will be used by college students. Utgard Loki 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I did have it on my...no, sorry - can't lay claim to that one :). As it happens, I was just doing newpages patrol and noticed the article, and thought I'd have a look. I enjoy reading the articles on the various Child ballads, although I don't know much about any of them beyond having had a few friends in college who sang "Barbara Allen" and "Allen-a-Dale" now and again. And I'm in "tidy" mode today, so when I caught a typo or two I just went ahead and fixed 'em. That's all, really - nothing terribly romantic in it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got to a library and got the first two volumes of English and Scottish Popular Ballads and am (slowly) working my way through them.

I mention this because when I was adding details to Earl Brand it occured to me that you probably could expand on what was added. Goldfritha 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joergen, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... that was quite a while ago. The table comes either from The Indo-European Languages (Ramat and Ramat; Routledge) or The Germanic Languages (Konig; Routledge), neither of which I have access to at the moment. Give me a few days, I will go look. Strad 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoergenB -- you posted a while ago on Category talk:Religious scholars. I agree there's a problem & responded; perhaps we can dig around and find some other interested people, and develop a useful solution. --Lquilter (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great point about the historical (& WP:CSB) biases in naming categories. --Lquilter (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd say, you made a good point and I have amended as suggested.

Pahari Sahib 21:06, 27 December 2007 (GMT)

Hi, Jörgen. Sorry for not responding, I've only been sporadically active on Wikipedia recently and forgot about your question. No, I do not mind moving the template back. I do believe it should be on the talk page but it would be better to move them all at once than instead of one by one (if someone ever plans to do something about that). Cheers, —Ruud 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you mention on your userpage that an article on global homological dimension is missing. Does the article Global dimension provide what you want, or is this a different concept? Michael Slone (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same concept, indeed. I'm just trying to understand the variations in terminology. In our usage, I've always thought of "global" as a qualifier for "homological", considering the projective and injective dimensions of various modules as homological dimensions of a more "local" kind within the category of left or of right modules for a given ring. However, I just verified that Matsumura indeed uses "global dimension" of a ring, without the word "homological"; while Kunz uses "homologische Dimension" (with no mention of "globale") for exactly the same concept (Ernst Kunz, Einführung in die kommutative Algebra und algebraische Geometrie, Kap. VII, § 2). We have an article on cohomological dimension, but none on homological dimension.

Anyhow, Matsumura nowadays is a kind of standard text book in the field, which is an argument for keeping the article at the name global dimension; but Matsumura sometimes seems to choose short terms for convenience (like discarding "Krull dimension" for "dimension" of a ring). For the moment, I think I'll just insert the alternative names into our article, and make a redirect from global homological dimension; however, not from homological dimension, since I suspect we'd rather need a disambiguation page there.

Best, JoergenB (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a dab page for global, projective, injective, and cohomological dimensions. There is no article on flat or weak dimension (global dimension refers to weak dimension but does not define it). JackSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Actually, it is possible to define a myriad of slightly different "homological dimensions". What you need is a fairly well-behaved class of (e.g.) modules, and a fairly well-behaved subclass thereof; in the sense that resolutions of objects in the larger class by means of objects in the smaller "compare" (preferrably, directly by the existence of comparison maps of complexes). (Of course, you also should specify what kinds of resolutions you have in mind.) Given that, you get an object-wise dimension (the shortest needed resolution of that object), and a global dimension (the supremum of the object-wise dimensions).

However, even if this rather vague description is made more precise, it is not at all clear that it substantially could remove the burden of describing each encyclopedically interesting homological dimension separately, in sufficient detail.

Here are a few examples: Apart from projective, injective, and flat or weak dimensions (small class: flat modules) we have the the finitistic dimension (large class: finitely generated modules; small class: dito projective ones). Another example is mentioned by P. M. Cohn in Skew fields (cf. Ore condition); I quote from the second paragraph after proposition 1.6.6:

"The homological dimension of a module measures how far the module is from being projective. In this sense one can also ask how far a projective module is from being free. We shall not introduce a measure here, but define a ring R to be projective-free if every finitely generated projective left R-module is free, of unique rank.

(Large class: finitely generated projective left R-modules. Small class: Such ones who also are free, of unique rank. If R is commutative, then all f.g. free modules have unique rank.)

It is probably possible to generalise the subject further. Unhappily, I do not know how far this is done (and published).-JoergenB (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding a redirect from "Isla de la juventud" to the article so that one can access it without capitalizing the "J" as well. A Gate Through The Past (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jörgen. Thanks for your friendly message. I'd completely forgotten to try sorting out Reconstruction in the way you describe, so thanks also for reminding me about it. For now, I've just redirected Reconstruction to Reconstruction (disambiguation) but I imagine replacing the former with the latter is preferred. Shall I add an entry to the Requested moves page? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it has a history, I don't think the page can be moved to Reconstruction without a request, so, unless you wish to make it yourself or have a better idea, I could set this in motion. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done -- see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#24 May 2008 and Talk:Reconstruction (disambiguation)#Requested move. If you have a more effective rationale in mind, please add to both places. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for reworking the page itself.

Hi, Jörgen, I look forward to seeing more of your input at Cambrian explosion and Talk:Cambrian explosion. Seeing that you're a mathematician, I wonder if you could help with something else: the chess champion Emanuel Lasker was a more serious mathematician than I realised before I started editing that article, and I'm totally unqualified to judge the significance of his contributions to mathematics - can you help, or point to someone who can? Philcha (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk:Cambrian explosion, I won't push my crazy sense of humour so far again. Philcha (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Or, if there is a problem, in deviating just a little from the serious "we are here to discuss article editing and nothing else" principle at article talk pages, I think we share responsibilities for these devoiations. JoergenB (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a bot which periodically fixes this error, which will eventually get to them. Since the article's in flux, I'm focussing my time on getting it to a stable state – smaller things such as references and style are "finishing touches" that I'll get to at a later date. Because the article is too large for my browser to edit the whole thing at once without crashing, it's quite tricky for me to work out if references are referred to elsewhere, and it seems a bit pointless spending loads of time fixing them only to delete them in the next revision! I appreciate that it's probably a bit annoying in the meantime, but we'll get there eventually! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an active link to the Märta Ramsten article that you posted in the Talk page for Scarborough Fair? I want to use it to cite the info that many medieval folk songs contain lists of herbs, but the link you posted is no longer active. If you can't find the live link to the article, could you give me the citation for it, as an alternative (or add the citation yourself into the article, under "Meaning of the refrain"). Thanks in advance! Softlavender (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that I get a "server not found" message. I've sent a letter with a question about this to Märta; but I also am going to try again in a couple of days, if you haven't already done this. It does happen that servers go down temporarily, you know...-JoergenB (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that error! I've changed the last link now. - htonl (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jörgen for fixing my user site. I suppose I could learn it myself - it's just a question of how much time one spend with editing Wikipedia. I do not spend a lot of time and is not intending to do it. There are also other things to do in life ;-) Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Scientific opinion on climate change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 18:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint, I was not aware of the method for a move. I've just undone all my moves to the original status concening the Method of steepest descent and Laplace's method articles and asked the administrators to make the move (and reverse redirection). As Laplace's method exists as an empty article, I'm not able to use the standard moving method. --Bluemaster (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually go to Mt. Holyoke; I'm at a high school summer program there. --138.110.25.31 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I've answered at the page User talk:138.110.25.31. JoergenB (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been some time since I worked with that article. I wrote it because I was struggling through the reference, had one or two aha! moments, and thought it might be handy to break it down a little.

With respect to english, I'm australian, and I think the Macquarie Dictionary (which is pretty much normative for Australian english) is fairly relaxed. If anything: to me, "center" connotes a geometric or measured midpoint, wheras "centre" connotes a social construct - a shopping centre, a jobs centre. Looking at what I just wrote, even that seems a little fusty and old-timey: australian english has pretty much adopted the american "center" for all uses. "Colour" and "generalisation" still use the britishism.

So: whatever the Macquarie Dictionary says is fine by me.

Paul Murray (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• well, I found the Macuarie Dictionary in the iPhone app store, and they insist on "centre". So there you have it. Paul Murray (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the definition of the word apparent as stated in the OED: "Appearing to the senses or mind ..." The adjective, inferring to something that may not be real, conflicts with what follows, something that is very real. That's the basis of my objection to the use of the word in that manner.

The term apparent heart attack, or some other thing causing harm or death that happens to a living being, is used quite often in writing. I cringe whenever I see the term in print.

Thanks for responding. Ed (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do understand my point: real versus the appearence to be real. Thanks. Ed (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would make me happy is if the word apparent were not used at all. Just say the sentence both with that word and then without it. Apparent does not really add to the meaning of the sentence; it's empty verbiage. That's my point. Ed (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could use your help in Talk:List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Nazis_excommunicated where a document is being discussed with which you may be familiar. Student7 (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are still curious about relative usage, I have put a relevant comment on the the Matrix (mathematics) page. And would welcome dialogue with editors who are professional mathematicians about concerns that I have with many articles on mathematics in WK. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've sourced the original report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report about lead in tap water, but the criticism and corrections are not sourced. I don't doubt their accuracy, but could I ask you to include appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims made in the second half of your edit to the article? Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either "amendment" or "correction" would be fine, but it's important that the issues identified with the original be supported by appropriate sources. Thanks for the prompt response. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoergenB, I realize this is now beyond stale, but I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your post at Template talk:R from misspelling#Double messages concerning space. -- œ^™ 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joergen, I just answered your question on the Dutch Wikipedia. Head over to nl:Overleg_Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Dieren to see it. Grashoofd (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Ternary relation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Binary and Modulus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Philippine politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could really need some help from a Swedish Wikipedian. I have made an article on Elisabet Höglund which I have nominated for DYK, I could need some help with additional copy-editing and translation of some of the words that perhaps was lost in translation from Swedish to English and links that are without proper redirect. Any help is welcome. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no problem fixing the minor errors. I used to use a wikipedia account with my name on it, but since the edits I tend to make are for minor corrections without controversy, I may as well stay anonymous.

OK, I understand. Thanks, again! JoergenB (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments at the FGS talk page, I've created a request for inclusion here. prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoergenB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoergenB. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has commented on this subject before, can you have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Istvaeonic_languages#RFC._Merge?_Split?_Re-name? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoergenB. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to JoergenB for their continued efforts contributing to articles on languages, linguistics, and grammar across Wikipedia. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article X Input Method is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoergenB,

Thank you for creating Nigel Williams (children's rights activist).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good start, JoergenB. Please add more if you know anything else! :)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Snowycats}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Snowycats (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowycats: Thanks! However, I don't quite understand why you added a (generic) {{stub}}, considering that I already had included a {{UK-gov-bio-stub}}. JoergenB (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JoergenB: Thanks for letting me know about that one! I missed it because it wasn't all the way at the end of the article. I have corrected that now! Happy Holidays & Happy Editing! :) Snowycats (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowycats: I see; my mistake. Thanks for correcting it!

(As you can see from the Talk:Nigel Williams (children's rights activist) note, I had som troubles finding more information. However, I suspect that someone with access to British newspapers might find some biographic article from April 2006, since he died while in office.) JoergenB (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oncholaimida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denticle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deutscher Tanzpreis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Åland dialects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cowboy culture has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your consideration. Well, Constantine Finehouse is certainly a noteworthy artist, but I do agree that the article is now in a very poor state. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do the work that would be necessary to restore it/improve it to an encyclopedic level. So, I will not take a position on its deletion. If the article is deleted, so be it. Thanks again. Pasquale (talk) 19:27, 7 September 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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoergenB: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Children's rights in Bangladesh indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoergenB,

I saw your message on Explicit's talk page about an empty category. There is no category history page that retains a list of what was in a category that has now been removed. This used to be a gaping hole in Wikipedia's generally good system of transparency and record keeping. But a year or so ago, an editor created a script that will allow you to see pages that have been recently added or removed from a category. Just install User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer and you'll see a bar on a category page that says "Recent changes" and hit the "Search" button. It only has a limited memory, maybe 2 or 3 days at most but if a category suddenly empties, it will allow you see what pages have been removed, what time they were removed and which editor removed them. Then, if you believe that this "emptying categories out of process" was not in the best interests of the project, you can go to each article or category page and revert the category change.

I'll just add that because going to CFD can be a laborious prospect (discussions are sometimes open for weeks or even months before they are closed), it's not uncommon for editors, even those who work extensively with categories, to just empty out categories so they will be tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion even though this process is discouraged. It's just much faster so it is tempting for many editors to just do this themselves rather than having a deletion or rename discussion at CFD. I hope this helps with any questions you had. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CatChangesViewer can (and has always been able to) retrieve changes up to 30 days. If it goes back only "2 or 3 days", it means there was no activity in the category between a few days ago and 30 days ago. Nardog (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: Thanks for the clarification! (And your tool is great.) JoergenB (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JoergenB:. I'm copying this here in case the Talk page is deleted, so you can still read it...

Hello @JoergenB:. "Attic" and "ATIC" aren't the same thing. They are spelled differently and capitalisaed differently. "ATIC" should appear in See also because it is a related item: MOS:DABSEEALSO "Some entries may belong in a See also section at the bottom of the page: ... Terms which can be confused with Title ... Less likely to be confused alternative spellings of Title ...". So See also is the right place. I agree there is a risk of confusion, which is why Attic Records has {{distinguish}} hatnote. It's highly unlikely a reader landing at ATIC Records actually wanted Attic Records, but you could put a similar hatnote there. That leaves a disambiguation page "that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page" which is a WP:G14 candidate. In summary, "Attic Records" isn't ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Shhhnotsoloud: I think your interpretation of the dabbing philosophy misses the point. Dab is done when there is risk for confusion (not easier resolved elsewise); not necessarily because the items are identical.

The important point is simply this: You left two items on the dab page, since (as you have confirmed) you accepted that there could be some confusion between them. (Whether they were under the same heading or not on the page is completely irrelevant.) Therefore, you could not reasonably demand a deletion of that dab with reference to that WP:G14 clause, namely:

• Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.

The page disamiguated not "only one extant Wikipedia page", but two. It still disambiguated them, after you had put one of them under a See also heading; and you left these two links on the page precisely since you recognised the (small, you think) possibility that the article titles could be confused. Your redisposition of the dab page had no influence on this fact.

On the other hand, there are other criteria for deletion, which did apply—and applied equally strong before and after you did the redisposition of the page: With just two items being dabbed, employing hatnotes for a (factual) disambiguation is very often preferrable. See WP:2DABS for some details! Implicitly, you referred to this situation when you wrote:

I agree there is a risk of confusion, which is why Attic Records has {{distinguish}} hatnote. It's highly unlikely a reader landing at ATIC Records actually wanted Attic Records, but you could put a similar hatnote there.

(I indeed shall do so.)

Now, this argument is perfectly reasonable, whether or not the two items on the dab are kept under the same heading. (However, in this case, the "primary subject" discussion is less relevant, since the (small) differences in spelling and capitalisation makes it unecessary to add distinguishing parentheses to either title.) So why didn't you use it?

I can see just one potential 'trouble' with employing the approved procedure, namely, that you cannot employ a Speedy deletion criterion. The reason of course is that such a dab page is not automatically pointless. A page containing two linked items with short distinctions between them does serve as a disambiguation page, while one with just one or zero such items doesn't. This means that whether or not a two-item dab is unnecessary depends on the contents on other pages. However, the dab indeed is unnecessary, if you have put hatnotes on both pages (and the titles of those two pages do not need additional qualifiers within parentheses). You might suggest adding a "speedy deletion" criterion for this situation, in order to simplify handling. Until this is added, however, you'll just have to follow somewhat more tedious procedures; or, e. g., add the {{One other topic}} to the dab and leave it at that (although IMO this would not be quite appropriate in this case). JoergenB (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]