User talk:JayBeeEll

Archives

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

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

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
315		Hendersonville, Tennessee (talk)	Add sources
1,927		Laser (talk)	Add sources
35		Donald J. Smith (talk)	Add sources
230		Photonics (talk)	Add sources
612		Isomorphism (talk)	Add sources
61		Conway chained arrow notation (talk)	Add sources
914		Linear algebra (talk)	Cleanup
203		Infrared heater (talk)	Cleanup
390		Unisex name (talk)	Cleanup
94		Group ring (talk)	Expand
46		Generating function transformation (talk)	Expand
206		Scheme (mathematics) (talk)	Expand
85		Hydrargyrum medium-arc iodide lamp (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,599		Anti-Zionism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
42		Maven (Scrabble) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
597		Cardinality (talk)	Merge
5,124		Physics (talk)	Merge
397		Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan (talk)	Merge
1,477		Incandescent light bulb (talk)	Wikify
828		Weibull distribution (talk)	Wikify
223		57 (number) (talk)	Wikify
4		Luc Thévenaz (talk)	Orphan
2		Abraham Sfej (talk)	Orphan
2		Asinisi Fina Opio (talk)	Orphan
15		Frontal solver (talk)	Stub
123		Successor function (talk)	Stub
10		Toms Kantāns (talk)	Stub
24		Jack Thorne (mathematician) (talk)	Stub
22		Zimmer's conjecture (talk)	Stub
8		Phyllis Cormack (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) 00:05, 13 June 2025 (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]

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

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

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

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

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

JayBeeEll

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

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

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

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

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

I'd appreciate some guidance.

Jonathan E. Jaffe ^[1]

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

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

Hi Jonathan E. Jaffe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please send email to me at jejaffe

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

Hi Jonathan E. Jaffe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

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

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

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

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

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

What would you think of a version like this:

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

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

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

Done! PaulTanenbaum (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi JayBeeEll. I would like to clarify your disagreement with my edit. I believe that the edit is justified on the basis of her Somali heritage and the basic translation, though clear consensus was reached on not including the Arabic translation, which I concur with. May you consider a partial self-revert of the Somali version, especially helpful or nice is that Somali using regular romantic language characters and can be read on the WP:En with ease, unlike Cyrillic or Arabic or another language that would require further transliteration. Lastly, though it was only in an invisible comment, I left in there previously the Arabic translation for if/when consensus would ever evolve to include the Arabic language translation. I do not see the harm in a invisible comment keeping this translation handy, but if you would like to remove that part and the comment alongside it in a partial revert restoring the Somali language content only, I believe that would be fine. Thanks for reading. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iljhgtn, thanks for your message. If you don't mind, since it is entirely about content, I would prefer to keep discussion located in one place (the article talk-page). I am sorry that I have been editing so infrequently recently as I realize this makes discussion difficult; I appreciate the patience you've shown with respect to that. I don't know what (if any) holidays you celebrate at this time of year, but I hope that you are finding it enjoyable and restful. --JBL (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy Holidays to you as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Greetings of the season ~ ~ ~

Hello JayBeeEll: 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, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas3}} to send this message.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mention on your user page that you're interested in collaborating on improvements to symmetric group. The deficiency that most strikes my eye is that the article is almost entirely devoted to finite symmetric groups, notwithstanding that infinite symmetric group redirects there.

I think we could at least have a good section on the symmetric group of the natural numbers (usually called ${\displaystyle S_{\infty }}$ for some reason instead of something more precise like ${\displaystyle S_{\mathbf {N} }}$ or ${\displaystyle S_{\omega }}$ or ${\displaystyle S_{\aleph _{0}}}$). We could talk about how isomorphism of countable structures in a countable language is the orbit equivalence relation of an ${\displaystyle S_{\infty }}$ action, and how the Solovay model is constructed from names that are invariant under such an action. The closed subgroups of ${\displaystyle S_{\infty }}$ are of interest in set theory, model theory, and possibly topology. The content I know about here is more in those fields than in group theory proper, and I suppose that could militate towards treating it in a separate article. --Trovatore (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trovatore,

Thanks for your message! I'm glad that having left that message on my talk page finally paid dividends :). Three quick thoughts:

1. You're right, there should be at a minimum some summary-style content in that article about the infinite cases. In the first instance that content could be incubated in the main article Symmetric group, then eventually get split out, if it gets meaty enough. The content you describe sounds very appropriate to me (though I am very far from an expert in the relevant topics).
2. In fact there are at least two (arguably three) infinite groups worth mentioning: the symmetric group of all bijections on a countably infinite set (the one you mention); its subgroup consisting of those bijections on a countably infinite set that fix all but finitely many points (the direct limit of the finite symmetric groups; a Coxeter group in two different natural ways); and perhaps even the family of affine symmetric groups. (In my experience the second of these is usually denoted ${\displaystyle S_{\infty }}$, so perhaps this is one of those situations where the study of "big S infinity" and "small S infinity" are so unrelated that people use the same symbol without ever having to worry about a conflict.)
3. Off the top of your head, do you already have good sources in mind for "big S infinity"?

My semester is just about to begin (on Monday) and, based on my teaching assignment and other responsibilities, I probably won't have a lot of time to spend on this until the beginning of May. But I would definitely be up for spitballing some ideas here, collecting a list of sources, etc. in free moments. --JBL (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with reversion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=1269055007&oldid=1268918917  ?

The info I added related to actions in 2020, 2021, particularly the renaming of Sanger building in Manhattan. Was that already in the article? Granted one sentence I added was a bit redundant with stuff already there, but why take out the entire paragraph? Noleander (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m curious to learn how to improve the accuracy and readability of my posts, especially since you removed my post but provided very concise comments.

The revised version was now posted in the subsection titled “Impacts” under the DeepSeek article. Thanks very much! Bowen (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you literate in English? Because I see that people have given very clear answers to your questions, and you keep repeating the same questions over and over again in one venue after another, without any indications of comprehension. It's very bot-like behavior. Maybe you should respond to [2] before you waste any more of anyone else's time. --JBL (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe so. If you find those answers clear, please help re-iterate them here. I understand you have your own reasons for removing my post. Thank you very much! Bowen (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you inform those who could provide compelling reasons to remove my post. I’ll then engage in a discussion with them. Please share your thoughts. Bowen (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to future self: [3] --JBL (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added to post to the RSN:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mathworld_revisited

S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JayBeeEll,

First, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Discussion on the previous close. It's appreciated. But I don't think that 2 admins is "widespread agreement".

Also, can you change this closure so it is archived (visible) instead of hatted? I think it's important that it's not hidden. If you are not familiar, the tags are {{atop}} and {{abot}}. Thanks so much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Thanks for reaching out. Per your request, I have rephrased the close and switched to atop/abot.

All the best, JBL (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Descartes_number&diff=1279642094&oldid=1279509239 , could you explain your reasoning a bit more? The paper is itself a reliable source, and was being discussed in a section about generalizations, so that seems reasonable to include there. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoshuaZ, at the time this felt like a sort of second-order generalization, only thinly related to Descartes numbers; but maybe that was wrong. My negative view was enhanced by the fact that over many years, IP addresses based in Luxembourg have repeatedly added content to WP of the following form: "In [citation], Laszlo Toth showed [something]." There are many mathematicians named Laszlo Toth, but will it surprise you to find out that invariably the one in question is the one based in Luxembourg? If you think the content is worth having, I am happy to defer to you; I just ask that you please restore it in a way that avoids the primary-sourced name-dropping of a non-notable person, as in my following edit [4]. --JBL (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't noticed the IP address origin. I do think it is close enough a generalization that it should be included. I should probably note that I have a conflict of interest potentially here, since I'm currently in the process of coauthoring a paper with Toth. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshuaZ: Haha, oh dear, sorry to complicate your life. In my opinion, it is not a genuine conflict of interest for you to add a reference to work that you believe in good faith to be relevant that happens to be by someone who is a collaborator on a separate project. (If that person solicited you to add references to their work, that might be a bit different, but that seems not to be the case here.) As I said, I happily to defer to you if you believe the content is in-scope for the article. --JBL (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking over my edits more carefully, I think that I incorrectly transposed my argument for removing this specific content from Perfect number (where it is only related second-hand) into a different context; I agree with you that this generalization is on-point for Descartes number. --JBL (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to hide? Mistletoe-alert (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: the charming message above is in regards to this [5] [6] [7] [8]. Personally I feel like this person has had enough chances; if you agree it will save me the trouble of opening a new ANI report. --JBL (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner time. Won’t be able to lol at this today, open an ANI report. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I'm not entirely sure I understand the justification, but it seems to have been handled. --JBL (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for going to ANI, a much better result than my handling it as I might not have noticed the MAB issue. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [Disruptive conduct and personal attacks by JBL in content dispute (Markov chain)]. EricoLivingstone (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to future self: [9]. --JBL (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My "personal attack" can help you become a better Wikipedian. For example, do you recollect 6 August 2018 Rank and Durfee square: "reasonable but let's do a decent job of it"?.. I'll try to be nice if you'll try to be nice.Rich (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you recollect 6 August 2018 Is this question meant in earnest? I have made perhaps 20,000 edits to Wikipedia since 2018, and I can barely remember what I taught to my students last week if I don't write it down. I have no recollection of ever having interacted with you at any time or place (although if you would like I could try to figure out what this is in reference to), and I certainly reject the idea that I am party to an ongoing conflict with you. If I have somehow offended you in the distant past, you have my sincere regrets and apologies. --JBL (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology! And I'm not perfect either. I apologize for my personal attack. Let's both try to be gentler with fellow editors.Rich (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some consensus that infoboxes may be removed? Many articles have them. Is there some project wide consensus that says they should go away? Andre🚐 20:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in Wikipedia "may be removed" if the reason to do so is better than the reason to not do so; the two boxes I've removed were completely useless clutter. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, each article can determine whether the infobox is useful; as to whether it was clutter, that is a stylistic judgment. Well, at least the 2nd one you restored the image. It was not useless, because that image was coming from Wikidata, and when I restored it, it was returning a useful image. The original user who removed it did not. Also, the automatic infoboxes have the advantage of automatically importing data that is sourced on Wikidata. If there is no project-wide discussion and this is case-by-case for an article, that is fine in the 2 cases as you said. But we should not indiscriminately remove infoboxes without recreating their content. Andre🚐 20:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree with David Eppstein that "automatically importing data that is sourced on Wikidata" is a disadvantage rather than an advantage. I certainly did not remove anything indiscriminately, and I rather doubt that DE did, either. (Although he may have done so partly in error, given the reference to BLPs in the context of biographies of long-dead people.) --JBL (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he certainly removed images that illustrated both dead and living people without returning them as you did. Andre🚐 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now started several discussion threads - one at the article, one at the MOS, and an admin action review of David's rollbacks, which all mention you somehow. Andre🚐 00:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --JBL (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gerda Arendt, thank you as always! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provided numerous sources as requested by Vincent Lefèvre to justify the inclusion of arithmetic series (in the actual article page - the template box is not part of the article itself) and of distinguishing "finite arithmetic series" and "infinite arithmetic series". 2600:1012:A024:A5C0:5540:B7D8:4D6A:270A (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to split this discussion into multiple pieces, the article 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ is on my watch-list and I received your ping on the talk-page. --JBL (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CIVIL. You can do better. Please watch your language and do not use such snarky or negative edit summaries. You are getting close to this moving in the direction of what might be characterized as a personal attack. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes whereas this random personal remark was completely charming and appropriate. Don't post here again unless required by policy. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no intention of getting involved, I'm interested to see where this goes, as I have also been threatened with ANI by this editor in previous exchanges at Gun Show Loophole. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darknipples: yeah there's an entire other angle that is only slightly related to the names issue which is the considerable POV-pushing by this editor. Really the sooner that they get indeffed the better; a committed high-volume editor like this can do an enormous amount of damage. (They've been "too busy with their family" to respond to a yes-no question I asked two days ago, but they made more than 100 edits in that time!) Unfortunately I don't really see how to work this in to the ongoing ANI thread. --JBL (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it out or strike and try to stay focused on the original issue and especially the order of events. There is too much deflection and pivoting from one accusation to the next. Eventually it usually ends up flooding the zone in the hopes that something sticks besides how this all started, and makes it impossible for others to follow. DN (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion at ANI and the other contention shouldn't be conflated at ANI. One thing at a time. DN (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JayBeeEll,

Just to let you know that this discussion has been moved to WP:ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. --JBL (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP article asks: "Is there a uniform bound on limit cycles in generic finite-parameter families of vector fields on a sphere?"

This great source asks differently: "Is it true that for a generic finite parameter family of smooth vector fields on the 2-sphere the number of limit cycles of the equations in the family is uniformly bounded with respect to the parameter, provided that the parameter set is compact?"

The questions, although similar, don't seem equivalent (there are more requirements in the second one).

So... What is the statement of Hilbert–Arnold problem? I don't know.

Esevoke (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The template has a simplified version of the problem. The article's lead mentions "compact" for example... Best wishes, Esevoke (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. (As I said, this is not my field and so I don't have any knowledge of the topic other than what I gleaned by reading the article and following a couple of links.) --JBL (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as the GA project has long struggled with advanced technical topics, and 1a has been reviewed for this, I can accept that this topic's broad audience is people who have studied mathematics to higher education level. You're probably aware that this article is currently the oldest unreviewed GA nomination, probably because of that. I won't commit to taking on the review, but to help judge if I think I could, are there any comparable articles that are GAs you'd recommend I could look over? Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsif, thanks very much for reaching out -- I've been embroiled in the worst parts of Wikipedia recently, and your message is a nice reminder that it mostly consists of people volunteering their time to collaborate to make good content. One comparator is the featured article Affine symmetric group, which is pretty technical (but not quite to the same degree). In this comment, David Eppstein mentioned two or three other articles that might be good comparisons. I'm not super involved in the GA process, so I think those are the best examples I can suggest.

I was aware when I submitted it originally that this might happen -- and it must be the oldest unreviewed GA by a wide margin at this point. I did just make some edits to try to make the lead section a little gentler (following a nice concrete suggestion by Russ Woodroofe), and it's possible it will move a bit further in that direction (I solicited more input on the talk-page earlier today), but probably not much. So let me also take the opportunity of your message to commit that if you decide that this review is beyond you, I'll withdraw it with no hard feelings (and perhaps you can explain to me how to properly do so), so that those of you who do the hard work at GAN won't have it as a yoke on your neck any more.

All the best, JBL (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]