User talk:JayBeeEll

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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…
15		Bonn International School (talk)	Add sources
16		Bunyakovsky conjecture (talk)	Add sources
958		Stirling's approximation (talk)	Add sources
149		Alternating series (talk)	Add sources
296		Quebec Bridge (talk)	Add sources
548		Jonathan Haidt (talk)	Add sources
1,272		Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal (talk)	Cleanup
12		Alan Turing Year (talk)	Cleanup
2,335		Expected value (talk)	Cleanup
124		Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory (talk)	Expand
334		Contour integration (talk)	Expand
18		Generating function transformation (talk)	Expand
710		2016 United States presidential election in Utah (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
100		Trigonometric constants expressed in real radicals (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
424		Christian ethics (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
356		Total order (talk)	Merge
788		United States involvement in regime change (talk)	Merge
88		Sophie Germain prime (talk)	Merge
30		Dorris, California (talk)	Wikify
10		Divisor sum identities (talk)	Wikify
126		The Ten (talk)	Wikify
3		Ivo Politeo (talk)	Orphan
4		Zorka Grandov (talk)	Orphan
11		Contraceptive rights in New Zealand (talk)	Orphan
4		Jean Theslöf (talk)	Stub
19		Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems (talk)	Stub
8		A Mind at Play (talk)	Stub
8		Atomic Betty (video game) (talk)	Stub
8		Waring's prime number conjecture (talk)	Stub
15		Second Hardy–Littlewood conjecture (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) 01:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

History of combinatorics

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Primes

Hi Joel, 1 is divisible by 1 and by itself, so the correct defnition of a prime is that it has two dividers. Therefore I changed the text in Mersenne prime. WeiaR (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) No, here is the correct definition of a prime number. Please keep in mind that when one says prime numbers are divisible only by 1 and by themselves this means they're different from 1 (the smallest prime number being 2). Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi WeiaR, the sentence in question is “Since they are prime numbers, Mersenne primes are divisible only by 1 and by themselves.” This is not offered as a definition of prime number, but as a property that primes possess. It is inarguably correct. Since the section goes on to discuss which numbers divide Mersenne numbers, the property is more salient than the alternative you suggest. Finally, the usual word in mathematical English is “divisor”, not "divider". If you'd like to discuss further, I suggest we do it on the talk page, where other editors can weight in (not just my talk-page watcher ;) ). --JBL (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Hi Joel. You reversed my deletion of Ms Omar's "personal" details, saying it was "ridiculous". I think you might have misunderstood my intent. Ms Omar is a wonderfully appealing freshman Congresswoman, and the first Muslim woman elected to Congress. Cedar-Riverside is a very small neighbourhood just off the intersection of two interstates, (see Google Earth). There are two small Masjids, (mosque/cultural centre), on the same small street, one of which Ms Omar is likely to have attended regularly as she grew up. Now considering how enormous her recent National prominence, and given the amount of crazy in the US toward Muslims, particularly one who wears the veil in the House, I thought it best that we not broadcast her neighbourhood, (see church bombing). I have now edited out the neighbourhood and left "Minneapolis". I hope that's a fair compromise.

Thanks for your time. Mark^Dask 14:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi markdask,

Thanks for your message. I understood your intent. Although I no longer live in Minnesota, I was very pleased to vote for Ilhan when she ran for state assembly a few years ago, and I have spent plenty of time in Cedar-Riverside. The idea that naming the neighborhood is either a security or privacy issue is ridiculous. But I am satisfied with the state of the article after your compromise edit; thanks.

Regards,

JBL (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I addressed three Admins with my concerns and left it at that. Since then the page turned into a vicious partizan dogfight with some extreme vandalism, but at least it has since been PCPPed so the trolling has abated. Mark^Dask 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversions 2019-01-23

Hi Joel. Cheers for reverting the category edit I made. I hadn't realised it was in a subcategory already. I'll try to find and revert the other redundant edits I made. Jamgoodman (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamgoodman: Already done, I was about to go explain on your talk page, but I see it's already clear. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Thanks! And sorry about the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamgoodman (talk • contribs)

@Deacon Vorbis and Jamgoodman: Thanks both for sorting this out quickly! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Brooklyn

How have I made the article worse. It is unnecessary to point out where the borough is; it is redundant and obvious. Taking up two lines in that parameter is completely unnecessary and somewhat confusing. IWI (chat) 00:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

copy edit restored

Please be more careful when making complaints about other editors. We are lucky to have such a good copy editor working on that article and I only hope that they don't leave after the way you have treated his recent copy edit. I restored the edit you deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: The edit you've just restored contains one minor copy edit, several substantive changes to the meaning of text that is currently part of an ongoing discussion on the talk page, and an unrelated edit by another user labeled "npov" that replaces sourced text with the unsourced opinion of that editor. You are welcome to restore the small part of that edit that actually constitutes a copy edit, but please don't also restore trash.

Furthermore, the correct place to discuss this is on the article talk page, which AlsoWukai should have done as well. --JBL (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Wukai did not make any substantive changes. You should not be calling the work of other editors "trash" and should strike that. Gandydancer (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You are just wrong. I will fix it myself. You and Wukai are welcome to discuss it on talk. --JBL (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history at Euler's identity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Also, and separately, I happen to agree with the IP. "perhaps a supreme example" is a judgment that should not be expressed in the encyclopedic voice, because it can neither be proven nor disproved (hence is unverifiable). See WP:V and WP:NPOV. Don't reinstate it. The IP will also be warned about WP:3RR. General Ization Talk 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Note to future self: this charming pair of messages was related to the usual WP:LTA nonsense about the superlative on Euler's identity. Maybe one day some non-banned user will begin a discussion on the talk page about it, but apparently today is not that day. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Later addendum: [1] --JBL (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Web Planet

What sources would you like for N being the production code for the 1965 Doctor Who serial The Web Planet? Try the BBC website, or any of these books:

• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 1: The Programmes. London: Target Books. p. 8. ISBN 0-426-20139-6.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 2: What's What and Who's Who. London: Target Books. p. 13. ISBN 0-426-20142-6.
• Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. p. 221. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.
• Saunders, David (1987). Encyclopedia of The Worlds of Doctor Who: A-D. London: Piccadilly Press. Story table. ISBN 0-946826-54-4.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1989). Doctor Who: The Programme Guide. London: Target Books. p. 11. ISBN 0-426-20342-9.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1991). Doctor Who: The Terrestrial Index. London: Target Books. p. 3. ISBN 0-426-20361-5.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1992). Doctor Who: The Universal Databank. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 12. ISBN 0-426-20370-4.
• Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James (1994). Doctor Who The Handbook - The First Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 349. ISBN 0-426-20430-1.
• Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1998). Doctor Who: The Television Companion. London: BBC Worldwide. Contents. ISBN 0-563-40588-0.

Please pick one or more of those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Material in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable in reliable sources. Whoever added the production code to the Dr. Who article should also have added a reliable source for that information. If one of the things you just listed is a reliable source and contains that information, then you would make Wikipedia better (albeit very very slightly) by adding a citation. —JBL (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The verifiability policy requires that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. This is not a quotation, and it has not previously been challenged. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And now it has been challenged (albeit not on the relevant article, just in the context of a deeply implausible disambiguation). But what's the point of this? --JBL (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Virchow

Thanks a lot for wasting time and putting back the bad grammar and layout. Great job (not)--Stephencdickson (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edits on net did not improve the grammar or the layout, as I described on the article talk page, which is where discussion of the article belongs. —JBL (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:Quantifiers

User_talk:Reddwarf2956#Quantifiers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Machine-generated "TeX"

In this edit you call the "LaTeX" (a misnomer, of course) "painful". It's not just painful; it affects the ultimate visual appearance:

${\begin{aligned}&x-k\\[4pt]&x{-}k\end{aligned}}$

Donald Knuth had good reasons for intending TeX to work that way, and the difference in visual appearance is perfectly predictable to those who know about those reasons, but I have noticed that some people don't.

Some of the horribly painful MathJax and TeX code that was generated by software packages a couple of years ago seems to have subsided, but still some bad things happen.

BTW I saw you speak at the combinatorics seminar in Minneapolis on a Friday in February and I wondered if you were still around the following Monday, since that's when your remark about cold weather might have been justified. (It's actually been over a quarter of a century since the sort of weather happened that got Minnesota that reputation, but the Monday after you spoke was a lot colder than the more typical February day of your talk.) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michael Hardy, thanks for your message. Interestingly, after making my edit, I looked over the article history and discovered that the formatting was done intentionally (!!), I believe with the explicit desire of changing the spacing in the way you mention: see this edit.

Yes, I saw you in the audience at my talk. In some perverse way I was disappointed that the weather was so mild when I visited -- nothing to brag about afterwards, I guess? (I lived in Minneapolis for five winters; the first two, 2012-3 and 2013-4, were really different in character from the subsequent three; my impression is that this year was more like those two, perhaps even colder, just not for the days I was in town.)

All the best, JBL (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Excedance vs. exceedance

hello joel I wonder why did you undo my last revision because on Wikipedia and other sites I found that excedance is misspelling of exceedance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universe song (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Universe song,

In the context of the combinatorics of permutations, the relevant word is "excedance". As you note, this is a bit puzzling, since that spelling doesn't appear to exist as a word in any other context, and I have no idea what the history is that led to this usage. But it's easy to find examples of it being used in the mathematics research literature: for example, [2], [3], [4], [5], or the standard graduate textbook [6]. (Stanley's notes say that the study of excedances dates back to Percy MacMahon, in the early 20th century, but that MacMahon did not name them. Unfortunately, he doesn't say who did name them!)

I hope this helps!

JBL (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at James Joseph Sylvester

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 2600:1003:B857:EA83:BC46:44E6:D7AB:F708 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about revert on Abby Johnson (activist)

You recently reverted my addition to Abby Johnson (activist) with the message "zero reliable sources in this addition". Could you please clarify your reasoning for that so that I can do better? I added two sentences: the first stated that the case was ongoing (used two primary sources and one news source) and the second stated that it had been settled (used one primary source). My intended use for these sources was to cite that the case existed, and I'm confused as to how these are not reliable. Could you please clarify what you consider to be "reliable sources" so that I can properly add this information to the article? -Thunderforge (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Since this is about a single article, the right place to discuss it is on the article talk page -- do you mind if I move it there to respond? --JBL (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine. -Thunderforge (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert at Irreducible polynomial

The edit summary of your revert was "I do not understand why the more-complicated-to-edit-and-understand inclusion of a template would be better than the easy-to-edit-and-understand inclusion of a single space". The reason is the following: I did know that a sequence of consecutive spaces is rendered as a single space, but I did not understand that this applies to "{{math|xxx     }}    yyy", which is rendered exactly as "{{math|xxx}} yyy", that is as "xxx yyy". Thanks for this information. D.Lazard (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: Thanks, that explains it! (I did not realize it either, but I experimented a bit before committing my edit to make sure I wasn't making anything look terrible :).) All the best, JBL (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

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

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

Use of collapse

This thread is a good example of the problem.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please revert this edit. It is not an appropriate use of collapse. Andrewa (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC) I disagree: none of the text I collapsed was connected in any way to improving the article. Consequently, I decline to self-revert. —JBL (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC) That's not the point... This template should only be used in accordance with the refactoring guideline; it should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing. [7] If you believe that my contribution was unambiguous disruptive editing then you should take it up on my talk page. Otherwise, you should revert. The guideline in turn reads If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Which is what I am suggesting. Andrewa (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC) That page is not a guideline, and certainly it is not binding on anyone. Nevertheless, I do believe your behavior is disruptive. The nature of the disruption is your willingness to go on, at length, independent of the validity of what you're saying or its relevance to the supposed topic. As a result, I have no interest at all in beginning extra conversations with you. I also am not interested in self-reverting, and further discussion is not likely to change that. --JBL (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Point taken about the how-to page at Wikipedia:refactoring. My bad. Yes, we seem to be at an impasse here, and I must decide whether it will really improve Wikipedia to take it further. Probably not. I have attempted to discuss here. In my opinion you have made out-of-process refactoring in misusing the collapse template, and have now accused me of disruption without any attempt to discuss it on my own talk page. Please desist. Andrewa (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hello Joel B ! What that you say "This doesn't seem to be a real thing." Have you plotted it yet? or you just want a research paper link?

Vistics (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vistics: Thanks for the goat. your edit (that I reverted) had several features:

1. an approximation to the factorial;
2. a name for this approximation, with an internal link; and
3. a sentence making some statement about the validity of the approximation.

Here are some comments about each of these:

1. Since the symbol "≈" has no concrete meaning, it is not always clear what it means to say an approximation is "correct". But certainly it is true that for large n, the approximation you give is close (in some sense) to the factorial.
2. I searched for the name "Vatcharit's approximation" -- as far as I can tell, it is not used anywhere else. This is what I meant by "doesn't seem to be a thing." The internal link was a redlink, i.e., there is no Wikipedia article with that title, so that was not helpful in finding anything.
3. The final sentence was grammatically muddled to the point of incomprehensibility.

Finally, one thing your edit did not include was any kind of source for the approximation, or for the name. Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for publishing original research (you can read our policy about it here), so in order to include this, you would some published source that supports the validity and name of the approximation. (You can see our guidelines for what kinds of sources are valid here.)

I hope this is helpful, JBL (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@JBL: OK! Thxz. JBL sound is good.

Harmonic number

Regarding your edit comment "I don't think it is true" – if you have the time and could come up with a counterexample that disproves my language, that would be great! From my perspective, I made the change without adding a citation because I thought it was obviously true. I guess that means my task is to persuade you that it is obvious or to dig up a citation. 165.225.38.131 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi 165.225.38.131,

As I understand it, you assert that the third bullet point $\lim _{m\rightarrow \infty }\left[H_{m}-H_{m+x}\right]=0$ implies $H_{0}=0$; is that correct? If so, I do not see how the one thing implies the other. In particular, it seems to me that for any function H that satisfies the second and third bullet points, the function $J(x):=17+H(x)$ does as well. If I have misunderstood you, I invite you to clarify.

All the best, JBL (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. In my edit I had changed the third bullet to

lim_m→+∞ (H_m+x − ∑ m
k=1 ⁠1/k⁠) = 0 for all complex values x

Thus, the trick of adding 17 no longer applies. Thanks! 165.225.38.131 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. I am just running out to lunch now, I will write a proper response some time this evening. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is my analysis of the situation:

I agree that your version is equivalent to the previous version; in particular, that it is correct. (Thank you for pointing out my error.) Your version comes without a citation, but that is also true of the original version, so that's a wash. The advantage of your version over the original version is that there is one fewer condition. There are at least two disadvantages of your version over the original version: the variable m in the limit must be restricted to integers in your version, which is artificial; and the statement with the "usual" harmonic numbers is considerably less natural-seeming than the version that makes reference only to the function H.

Overall, I probably prefer the original version to yours on aesthetic grounds, but don't feel strongly about it. What really would be good is (1) a proper reference and (2) trimming the OR enthusiasm on display down to something more reasonable. Your change doesn't help with this, but it doesn't hurt, either. Anyhow, I leave it to you to decide what to do next.

Also, if you agree, I'd like to copy this over to the article talk page, since that's where other editors of that article might be expected to find it. All the best, JBL (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to copy or move this discussion. Yes, I agree that some citations would make this much better. Mathematically, I find it nice when the necessary assumptions are as week as possible, and lim_m→+∞ (H_m+x − ∑ m
k=1 ⁠1/k⁠) = 0 is weaker than lim_m→+∞ (H_m+x − H_m) = 0. On the other hand, once the harmonic number function is extended then it turns out that the latter is true. That is, the latter is a stronger result. At some point I may take a stab at achieving the high points and avoiding the low points. 165.225.38.131 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done so. All the best, JBL (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Busy Beaver game

Hi, you undid the IP edit of 11 June on Busy Beaver game. Imo, it was not a bad edit. While I consider its changes to the lead as neutral (neiter improvement nor disimprovement), removing overly used boldface in the body appears an improvement to me. - How can you be sure that the IP is subject to WP:BMB? Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw that this very IP is already blocked; this answers my above question. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

However, reading through the contributions of the IP (Special:Contributions/51.7.23.7), I wonder why it has been blocked (by Favonian) in the first place. I'd consider the IP's all edits as between good and neutral, most of them removing (close-to-)unencyclopedic phrases. For example, at Jeffrey Beall, the IP's edits give more focus on the person himself, rather than the world's reception of him. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jochen Burghardt, thanks for your message. This editor (WP:LTA/BKFIP) has an extremely distinctive style -- with a bit of experience, it's easy to pick up on after only one or two edits. And it is indeed true that many of their edits can be classified as mild improvements. (Not all: they are not thoughtful in their approach and it leads to clear disimprovements like this or the ones discussed here.) Their flaws as an editor (and the reason they are banned) have more to do with an extreme unwillingness to engage constructively with other editors, and frequent edit-warring and personal attacks when challenged. If you think there is a legitimate edit that can be made to some article they have edited, you should go ahead and make it (perhaps not just by reverting). --JBL (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see. The P vs. NP discussion is really annoying. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is going on

I've added an entirely new formula for HN, and your envious ego couldn't let it stick, could it? Now, seeing your talk page, I see you're quite the troublemaker. I'm still new to this, so I don't know how to engage or discuss this with you directly, but I'm willing to give in, if you tell me what my options are. I know some math people like you are nasty, but am willing to listen. Please let me know how to go about it. I already know. Unlike you, who've never created anything worthy, I have, I learn fast lol.

Jrsousa2 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Jrsousa2

Hi @Jrsousa2:,

Thanks for your message. Wikipedia is edited by consensus, which means that neither of us is the final arbiter of anything. Per the guideline WP:BRD, the correct thing to do when trying to build consensus for a change is to begin a discussion on the article talk page; in this case, that's here. I've already briefly explained my objection to your edit, namely, that Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing or promoting new results, but perhaps you will find other editors are more convinced than I am. (Probably, you will have more luck if you adopt a less aggressive approach.) But, as I said, the right venue is the article's talk-page.

--JBL (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All right, I was a total noob and didn't know much about the process on how things are done, now I know. I'm a bit tired of it, so I will not proceed with this further at this point, maybe in the future. That said, I wish wikipedia had a more efficient way for people to get together and decide, consensually. It never occurred to me, but after this experience, I imagine the nightmare it must've been for each one of these millionsof pages to have been created with so many hands involved, and so many heads talking. Now I'm thinking each one of these pages is probably not the best that they could be, if editing them didn't take too much fighting and friction, if the process were more streamlined. It's no wonder 2% of the users are responsible for 66% of the pages, if each new user is given a hard time when they try to contribute. I wash my hands for now, perhaps in the future, I will try and talk with the previous users, to propose changes.

Jrsousa2 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Jrsousa2

Thanks for your message. Editing Wikipedia is definitely opaque and takes getting used to. If you do decide to try again later, I definitely recommend using the talk page to discuss changes, particularly when the edits in question concern your own research. All the best, JBL (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent news in the Oberlin College article

In cases like this, I find it's often necessary to back away to let editors work on the issue for a month or two. Then I can come back to see how much material is in the article and make suitable adjustments. That's usually after editors who are only interested in ensuring that we have covered this breaking news have moved on so those of us invested in the entire encyclopedia article can work on the article without stepping on their toes. It also gives us the benefit of allowing the news to break and further develop so we have a better sense of what is noteworthy in the long term and what was just flash-in-the-pan. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, thanks for your message, and for the very sensible suggestion. I will stick a note in my calendar to revisit it in a few weeks. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ron Paul comments cited in United States Electoral College article

This edit caught my eye. I'm not a WP RS maven and have not refreshed my understanding about that prior to this question re your edit, however I'm wondering what your concern is. Are you concerned that this is not a reliable source for an assertion that the comment there attributed to Ron Paul actually came from him? If not, are you concerned that the comment from Ron Paul there is not sufficient to support an assertion in the article that "Proponents of the Electoral College claim that it prevents a candidate from winning the presidency by [...]" (which does seem a bit thin to me), or is it something else? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell,

Thanks for your message. No claim to expertise or maven-ness here, either. I have no problem with the referenced article being used to support a statement like, "Ron Paul has argued ..." or "Ron Paul believes ..." or whatever. (Though such a statement isn't appropriate in that section.) But the referenced sentence asserts something broadly about proponents of the electoral college. To support a statement like that, one would expect a secondary source that reports on the views of proponents of the electoral college broadly, not a piece from a single proponent, and particularly not from a proponent who is notable for having views outside the mainstream. In retrospect, it might have been better to remove the Ron Paul article entirely and leave a citation needed tag in its place. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Harmonic series

Dear Joel B.Lewis, I'm sorry that I restored again the edit of mine you recently reverted: the reason is that I think it is not so bad after all, and may have its little place. But please let's talk constructively. I have no strong feelings about it, and in case I could even delete it. Cheers!, pma 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear PMajer,

Thank you for responding, and for beginning a discussion on the article talk-page. I will add my thoughts there later.

All the best,

JBL (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Abortion pro-life pro-choice

Hi Joel, Can please restore my changes at Abortion in Canada and Abortion-rights_movements. The politically correct terms pro-life and pro-choice do not adhere to the wikipedia standards. Their meaning is due to change after some decades (within 100 years). See the decision reached at Terminology and their talk page. I am aware of what you said about political English <smile> Thanks for your work here. --Ferdilouw (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ferdilouw, I will not restore your edits, because part of what you did was to replace a somewhat dodgy term ("pro-choice") with a completely unacceptable term ("pro-abortion"). If you instead replace somewhat dodgy terms with neutral terms, I will have no objection. (With "pro-life" this is a completely straightforward issue of substituting one adjective for another; with "pro-choice" it is a bit more awkward because of the various grammatical forms of "support for abortion rights" and its variants.) --JBL (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Joel_B._Lewis, please read again the decision reached at Terminology and their talk page. I did initially, like you, preferred the terms pro-choice and pro-life, but then was convinced that it won't work in the broader picture. It has already come to my attention that many pro-life organizations includes a fight against euthanasia in their agendas. Also most pro-choice organizations includes a lot of emphasis on feminism and women's rights not related to abortion only. So these terms are now politically popular with those who has abortion high on their agendas, but it is changing what they mean. In wikipedia we need to get the facts straight and communicate in non-confusing ways. Thanks. Ferdilouw (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The picture becomes more muddy as time goes on. NARAL is planning to embrace the term "reproductive freedom" since "pro-choice" lost its appeal. A cycle that seems it can continue for ever to replace aging terms as they get negative connections. On the other hand, many pro-life organizations are going wider than just anti-abortion by also fighting against people being killed by euthanasia and death-penalty. So "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" are not always synonyms. Language is never perfect! :-( Ferdilouw (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am completely uninterested in having a broader discussion about this, sorry. You made two bad edits earlier that I reverted; more recently, you made two similar edits that were not bad, and I did not revert them. Presumably you won't repeat the bad ones. I am satisfied with this situation. --JBL (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops...

... I had overlooked the typo with my revert. <Blush>. - DVdm (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@DVdm: Haha, no worries -- it was quite subtle! All the best, JBL (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Improve understanding

Hi Joel, thanks for being willing to talk to me.

1. Just btw: Is this the proper way I'm using to start a conversation in WP?
2. I would like to understand what is the argument about quoting a person (in general and in this case and why you have removed it)
3. Why does it seem to me as if a newspaper's second hand quote of a person/party/institution/company is more reliable than a first hand quote from the original source? I've seen the following been criticized as not a reliable source: "XYZ said bla bla bla" \< ref XYZ's own official site \>

Thanks for your wisdom Ferdilouw (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ferdilouw,

This is definitely an appropriate way to start a conversation. However, since the discussion pertains to a particular pair of edits on a particular article, I want to suggest that a better venue would be the article talk-page (rather than my personal talk-page). Would you mind if I copy your comment over there to respond?

Best, JBL (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(Note to future self: this concerns [8] [9] [10]. --JBL (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

Please do. Ferdilouw (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; done and responded there. --JBL (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool verbal communication

Hello.
You mined a half of my phrase which was stupid, devised a subtle trap (which I barely evaded), but anyway pushed me onto defensive. Indeed, I found the word “genus”, but (initially) ignored the context of infinite fundamental groups of surfaces (whose genus is discussed). Are such games your preferred alternative to my usual “anal” style? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You made an assertion that something existed in an article; I glanced over the article but didn't see the thing you mentioned; therefore I requested a more precise pointer. As it turns out, you were in error; this is a thing that happens to everyone sometimes, apparently even to you. Why this mundane sequence of events has resulted in the bizarre, hostile message above is a mystery. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your support in my recent, albeit unsuccessful, RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Hey, you're very welcome -- sorry it didn't turn out the other way. All the best, JBL (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

r.e. recent edit on Cayley's formula article

Sorry to clog up your talk page with this; I would have redone my edit and notified you with the 'Reply to' template, but since my edit doesn't add any new lines of text, and only edits existing ones, that wouldn't have worked. I'm not fussed at all about my edit, but the reason for it was primarily to add the positive integer tag, and while I was at it I thought I might as well make the math typesetting consistent throughout the entire article since it was almost all in italics (plus I think italics are preferred for inline equations anyway). Let me know if you want me to add the positive integer tag back in and leave everything else alone, or to redo my edit. Joel Brennan (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joel Brennan, thanks for your response. I seem to have focused on the formatting change and missed the added wikilink -- I will restore it as soon as I finish this message. The situation w.r.t. math formatting here is messy at best; I think the opening paragraph of the section MOS:FORMULA is a good summary. If you are going to write formulas in not-LaTeX, please use the minus sign − instead of the hyphen - for subtraction. (For me, it appears in the menu immediately below the editing window and above the edit summary, along with some other handy symbols.) All the best, JBL (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Always nice to see another mathy Joel around. --JBL (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to add information on the U.S. Electoral College page

Dear Joel,

I am not coming at this from a partisan perspective, as I do minor political work for voting groups and registration efforts in my area of rural Pennsylvania. My objective was to simply specify data and let users decide for themselves as to what makes the most sense given the data I provided. In my view, that is the very nature of an encyclopedia. Hence why they change and new additons are released. I realize that it was placed under the wrong section of the page, but I feel very strongly about the accuracy of these historical elections since my family has taken part in most of them, and in many cases have actively campaigned and supported candidates for both major parties.

That being said, I would like to request your permission to either add this controversy to either the History section or an entirely new area towards the bottom of the page. I would normally not request this but am doing so in this case because the edit took me several hours to collect, document, and format the data into Wiki.

Thank you and I apologize if this is an inconvenience.

-Ian ElectionWiz1936 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ElectionWiz1936 (Ian),

Thanks for your message, and welcome to Wikipedia. Some practical (but not substantive) responses to things you said:

• The addition you made is not lost because it is still available in the article history, which you can access by clicking the "View History" tab above the article (maybe it is in a different place on mobile, different browsers, etc.). Here is a direct link to your edits: [11]
• I am a volunteer editor on Wikipedia, just like everyone else: you do not need my permission to edit, and I don't have any special power to grant you any rights.
• Instead, the thing to do is to begin a discussion on the article talk page Talk:Electoral college (rather than my individual talk page), laying out what you're hoping to accomplish. Other editors then will have the opportunity to weigh in, in order to form a consensus (which is the guiding principle of editing here).

I hope this helps, and I look forward to continuing the conversation at Talk:Electoral college.

All the best,

JBL (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wording at Sierpinski number

Hi! I have seen your edit at Sierpinski number described as in connection to clarity/intelligibility. What exactly is unclear in my wording to see how to rephrase? Thanks!--109.166.129.57 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi 109.166.129.57,

Thanks for the message. The structure of the lead is currently "A Sierpinski number is a number with [some property]. In 1960, Wacław Sierpiński proved that there are infinitely many odd integers k which have this property." Since there is only one property mentioned, the referent of "this" is 100% clear and unambiguous. You replaced the second sentence with "... which have this property of generating a sequence of composite numbers by the mentioned formula for the general term of the sequence." This is an extremely difficult to follow attempt to restate the same property; to the extent that I can parse it at all, I am not convinced it is correct (what is "the sequence" supposed to refer to?). Perhaps it would be better to start with this: what do you think is wrong with the current version that needs clarification?

All the best,

JBL (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI I.M.

Can't we just {{hat}} all Almond Plate's posts? -DePiep (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(talk page stalker) @DePiep: wouldn’t be better to wait calmly for administrators’ action? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Naaah. That ANI page looks much better without trolls. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) To me, better to see Guido’s sock than blood-thirsty sharks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: I see you've gone ahead and done it. I probably wouldn't have myself, but it is clearly defensible. (I have little doubt that whoever closes the thread will be able to read their comments in the appropriate context.) --JBL (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Result: [12] --JBL (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Joel, you repeatedly try to drive me out of the site, meanwhile ignoring those who attack and smear at me. Some of their attacks were made with exactly such postings that detracted my so-called “incivility”. Show that you have a superior moral standing (like the Wikimedian Vermont showed), and consequently I’ll begin to consider your opinion to be more valuable than the majority sludge and scum. And note that it isn’t much about avoiding such vocabulary as “childishness”, let alone about ridiculous “taking a civility block”… it’s about moral integrity in general. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Result: [13] --JBL (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Partition recurrence

Hello, you reverted my edit on partition site about recurrence formula. Here's table with p_k(n) up to n = 19, k = 10 (11 for my correct version) -> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wbvQIOY6F---ky5QdgpbbmlwCbNQpJs0 As you can see, it's wrong in more ways. I've made wrong formula only up to k = 5, because it's so wrong that it hurts me...

--Viliam Furík (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Viliam Furík: The definition you are using for p_k(n) is different from the one in the article: exactly k parts versus at most k parts. --JBL (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

But I've used recurrence for creating your numbers, and they don't seem to add to p(n). --Viliam Furík (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You have the wrong initial values: it should be p_k(0) = 0 for k > 0. (Really, there is no doubt about the correctness: there used to be a one- or two-sentence proof in the article, until you deleted it, and it is supported by an inarguable citation.) --JBL (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, so then mine formula is recurrence relation for restricted size, isn't it? --Viliam Furík (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Restricted size is the same as restricted number of parts: take the conjugate partition. Yours is for *at most* k parts (equivalently, largest part *at most* k), the one in the article is for *exactly* k parts (equivalently, largest part *exactly* k). --JBL (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Keeping things civilised and non-personal

I noticed that you are pretty aggressive in the way how you comment. I honestly don't think that saying things like "go away" make Wikipedia a more pleasant environment. Please always remember that with the editing of pages as well as talk pages things should be strictly non-personal. I do see that when it concerns bad news about open access publishers, some wiki editors are more lenient than when it concerns good news. It is just my personal observation, and you are free to have your own. But keep things civilised and non-personal. Kenji1987 (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kenji1987: When you retract or strike through the two completely unwarranted and unfounded suggestions of hypocrisy, I may become a tiny bit interested in your complaint. Until then you are not welcome to post here, doubly not on the subject of personalized commentary. (I would also accept an apology, though I do not expect one.) --JBL (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently this is your way of admitting error? Do not post here again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do think I need to mention your comment " This makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that you are editing in good faith" here (even though I might not be welcome here). Tell me in which faith do you think I am editing? Frontier's faith? MDPI's faith? Why do you keep on mentioning this? Kenji1987 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Context of a request to cite sources

Hi, JBL! I see that at factorial article there are quite many sections and subsections not having sources cited such as the one re the negative integers non-extendability. In such context I think the demand for a cited source (for another simple explanation like that already in article) is a rather too strong demand. What do you think about this context? Thanks!--185.53.197.26 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that many sections of factorial are inadequately sourced; this is a significant flaw in how the article is written, and you are proposing to make it worse. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Polydivisible number for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polydivisible number 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/Polydivisible number 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. Prova-nome (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Notation of propositional variables p, q, r or P, Q, R?

Hi! I have seen your edit at destructive dilemma re the notation of propositional variables p, q, r in contrast to the notation from the article P, Q, R which is usually asigned to predicate symbols. How do you recall this convention of notation? Is it frequently encountered in sources?--185.53.197.214 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have difficulty parsing your question, but hopefully the following answer is on point: I have no personal opinion (based on sources or anything else) about the use of lower-case versus upper-case letters for propositional variables. I have an opinion of moderate strength that changing notation wholesale on an article is bad, and doing so is discouraged by Wikipedia editing guidelines. I have a very strong opinion that taking an article with a consistent notation and changing some but not all instances, so that the article uses multiple different notation for the same thing, is bad. The last opinion is the relevant one. —JBL (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected page edit request

Hi! It looks like you and I were discussing some content on a semi-protected page. Would you mind reviewing the content that I wrote? I suppose the middle reference and its words might be more than you would like to see, and if that's the case, I don't mind dropping it. And if you're okay with either of the two versions (my orig or what's left after aforementioned reduction) would you be so kind as to make the final edit? Thanks! 170.54.58.11 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response, life has been busy. I looked over your text and it seems reasonable to me, I've added it to the article Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. --JBL (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Essay on my criteria for supporting admin noms.

That essay is my criteria, it's not an article. Stay the hell off of that page. You don't get to edit what my criteria is or is not. GregJackP Boomer! 04:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@GregJackP: I have not voted in the RfA and don't plan to, so I don't think it's appropriate to accuse me of "badgering" you there. My edit changed nothing about "what your criterion is", it corrected a minor and nonsubstantive agreement error. I have no intention of editing it again. --JBL (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. @GregJackP: Upon investigating further, I see that you were aware of this error and consciously chose to preserve it. I had not realized that when I changed it; you have my apologies. (I still think your response was over-the-top, but I understand it somewhat better now.) --JBL (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RTG and RDMA

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RTG and RDMA. --Jasper Deng (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sort-of ;). --JBL (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry merry !

~~~ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikaviani -- happy holidays to you, as well! --JBL (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

“Tainted by sockpuppetry”

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's your issue with my edit?

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

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

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

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

Beets

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

John Coleman (meteorologist)

Hi Joel.

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

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

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

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

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

RFC

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

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

Talk:Jimbo Wales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@El C: these two recent edits of mine will help clarify: [14] [15]. --JBL (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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