This is an archive of past discussions with User:JayBeeEll. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
January 2023
Stop engaging in ad hominem attacks. Please find someon else to harass. Alexmov (talk)
@Radlrb: thanks for reaching out, and for the kind words! No apology necessary, I'm sure. Happy new year to you, as well, and happy editing! --JBL (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Recursion
When you say here [[1]] that my pedantic edit destroys the meaning of the sentence. what meaning are you trying to retain? I think it's there to explain the code, and the current version is an incorrect description of what happens which obscures the readers' understanding of how the code works. JeffUK19:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I would have thought the article talk-page is the right venue for this, but since you've asked here I'll respond here. The article is about recursion. When I read that sentence, the important encyclopedic point being made is that two slightly different notions of recursion (one in the context of a mathematical formula, one in the context of computer programming) have the same essential structure, namely, that each term is computed in some simple way from the previous terms (except possibly for some initial values). The way you rewrote the sentence structured it around a mildly pedantic point about how the computer computation works in practice; in my view, this had the effect of obscuring (rather than emphasizing) the similarity between the two situations.
If you are not satisfied with this, I would be happy to discuss it further, but I would suggest in that case copying the discussion to Talk:Recursion and continuing there.
Hi, this is just regarding the reverted edit at the archive. Sorry for adding to it – I don't actually know how to continue a discussion that's been archived there, to be honest. Should I just re-post the contents of the previous discussion on the active page along with the new comment? --Pitsarotta (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Pitsarotta: Thanks for your message. No apology necessary -- the biggest reason not to add to a discussion that's been archived is simply that no one will see it. When a discussion has been archived after a period of time with no response (as in this case), it is permissible to do what you suggest -- and you should probably also delete the entire section from the archive page (or else it will create a confusing, duplicated record in the archive) and for both the removal and addition leave an explanatory edit summary. All the best, JBL (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete the changes I made in the article "square packing in a square" ?
The previous statement was wrong. Thierry Gensane confirmed me in an email that their program was not able to improve the packing from 1979. I added two links, the second explains in detail that Gensane incorrectly assumed to have slightly improved the packing.
I wanted to add a SVG-graficof the packing. But I have to learn this first. Walter Trump (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@CiaPan: and thank you for trying to clean up some of Darcourse's bad edits. There are so many of them, going back so many years—e.g. the ones mentioned here [2]—that I've never had the energy to comb through them systematically. Probably there is a case to be made that they should be blocked per WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Scorpions13256: Hey thanks for stopping by, I was actually just writing you a message on your talk-page :). Specifically, I was going to thank you for the nice improvements you made today. I have slightly mixed feelings about my revert, because the instinct to say something about why is very natural. The problem is that I don't think their claims are widely accepted (or at least, not accepted by people who didn't already agree with them), so any statement of the form "LA says this shows X" creates a problem for how much rebuttal to include. (If you wanted, I'd be happy to talk more about it on the article talk-page, where perhaps other editors could weigh in.)
I also can't help but mention how fascinating I find different peoples' editing styles: I've been doing this to various degrees for 10 years or more, and I think I've only created two articles -- and they were both really hard work for me! But I find working on & improving existing text easy. Meanwhile I see you've got several dozen nice articles created. Anyhow, thanks again for improving Live Action!
See WP:PAYWALL and defer to more experienced editors. I wrote the entire article, your drive-by edit removing access is not helpful in any way. ɱ(talk)20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Christ, so much assholery in one short comment. Please never post here again, unless it's in the form of an apology or is required by policy. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hatting subthread in AN/I re Feoh
I agree that it's a content dispute – though I wonder why then the hat did not also cover the preceding comment by Gwillhickers ("If there were various 'non-white' philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case, but there are none...") as well as my direct rebuttal, which by G's own statement establishes that Feoh *does* have a case. IMHO this whole "incident" is a content dispute being lawfared. – .Raven.talk19:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
My address to Freoh was a response to his "non-white' issue, which is why he came running to ANI in an attempt to settle "personal attacks" and that sort of thing, and did not drag the discussion into a prolonged content issue. It was an address to behavioral issues involving the "non-white" comment. The only thing "moved" was my original response to Freoh, had no basis for being lumped in with Raven's wall of text over content and hatted.
JBE, I'm assuming the title in the hat should read: "This is not what article talk pages are for." (bold added) . You might want to fix that so there's no confusion. In any case, I don't appreciate the "dumb" comment, which is a personal attack. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
In that comment, you are making a (poor) argument about content; content arguments belong on article talk-pages. (Really that particular argument doesn't belong anywhere, since it's just repeating your position that "sources are biased and that's good, actually", which you have (as you noted) made elsewhere already.) This was also noted by DIYeditor. You are welcome to disagree, but please contain the urge to respond here: I (sensibly) hatted your comment and the ensuing thread, you (unfortunately) moved the hat, and I am not going to revert you (despite thinking this was a bad edit) so there is nothing further to discuss. On a separate note, in the future, if you are going to write messages on my talk-page, please use the "preview" function so that I can have fewer than 8 notifications for a six-sentence post. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
> "his 'non-white' issue, which is why he came running to ANI in an attempt to settle 'personal attacks'" His thread title is "Incivility from Gwillhickers", his final summary in that first entry addresses "his inappropriate conduct", and the examples in between mention content only as context of the [documented] accusations he refers to as "personal attacks".> "my original response to Freoh, had no basis for being lumped in with Raven's wall of text over content" Your hatted-then-unhatted comment is entirely about content and whether Freoh had a "case" for his desired content – while my replies (including the one you declared you hadn't read) pointed out he did, a direct rebuttal.Either that entire subthread should be hatted, or none of it. – .Raven.talk00:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers no I think JBL is right in the description that that is what article talk pages are for, as I commented as well. These extensive content discussions don't contribute to the ANI. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This was Freoh's statement.
I was trying to point out what I saw as an unintentional bias that skewed the page toward white people. It is not that I want to include others "on the basis" that they are non-white; it is that I felt your proposal was (unintentionally) unbalanced.
@DIYeditor and Raven: Freoh was trying to make a case about bias and how the account was "skewed", and this is what I addressed, and in doing so explained
If there were various "non-white" philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case.
That is all. I didn't run on, as did Raven, in a wall of text content dispute. I was responding to Freoh's comments about "non-white" influences and the claim that the account was being "skewed. The attempt to 'hat' this explanation is disruptive and only tends to hide the response to Freoh. Now I'm being accused of ignoring WP protocol -- this coming from someone who blatantly ignored that protocol with a wall of text about content. Please make attempts to devote your time more constructively instead of handing me this sort of opinionated conjecture, which has accomplished nothing in terms of resolving the ANI. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
> "I was responding to Freoh's comments about 'non-white' influences" – i.e. engaging in a content dispute.> "opinionated conjecture" - comments with multiple cites & quotes of sources, but which G claimed not to have read [but renders this conclusion about them anyway], and blasts for their length. How funny. – .Raven.talk08:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I was addressing Freoh's claims over how the account was "skewed",and "unintentional bias" and that if anyone was ignoring individual "non-white" philosophers, then a case for skewing the article would have some merit. That is not a content dispute, it's addressing accusations levied at me, all the while you ran on at length about politicians in the 20th century, etc, and now are trying to provoke an edit war in the middle of an ANI. I have every right to address the claims of skewing and bias, and don't appreciate it being hatted and hid from view while Freoh's accusations are in full view . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Gwillhickers I covered the fact that Freoh was being disingenuous about not basing any content decision on race in any way with a single sentence. If needed, a single diff would do that as well. The rest of it is irrelevant. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@DIYeditor:, yes, overall you've been helpful at the ANI with a voice of moderation. Be it as it may, I was responding to Freoh's comment which onlyt touched on one aspect of the content, in regards to race. I will make efforts to stay away from this sort of thing in the future, unless of course I'm smacked with another accusation that needs to be addressed. Hopefully this will all blow over. Freoh has been taken to account by numerous editors, some lending him support, so at this point I would not be disappointed if he just got another warning. Best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
JBL, the portion you hatted as you know was my response to Freoh's accusations about skewing and bias, with an explanation how no "non-white" philosophers were being ignored, as there are none -- just general Iroquois influences. The focus was on Freoh's accusations, and didn't get into content. It's not right that my response is hidden under a hat while Freoh's accusations are in full view. Someone hatted this explanation, again, so as to not provoke an edit war in the middle of an ANI, I can only appeal to you to return my response where it can be viewed just as easily as Freoh's accusations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
> "Freoh's accusations aboutskewingandbias" – referred to the state of the article. Unless you were its sole author, you have no good reason to take those "accusations" personally... particularly since skewing can be inadvertent and bias can be unconscious. His mention was to explain that his motives were not malicious, but toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. If your discussion was meant to deny that defense, then my rebuttal of your claims (supporting his case) was entirely on-topic. – .Raven.talk19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
> "you ran on at length about politicians in the 20th century" – Quoting a Congressional Resolution that "the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, acknowledges the contribution made by the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations to the formation and development of the United States;…" is not "about politicians in the 20th century". – .Raven.talk19:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Congress are politicians, and your rather sloppy dismissal is not responding to most of what's at issue here -- my response to accusations. Understandable, as you've been trying to take me to task over something you're blatantly guilty of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
What Freoh "accused" you yourself of was not the skewing or the bias (those referred to the article), but, as the AN/I thread title said, "Incivility" – making unfounded personal accusations against Freoh... otherwise known as ad hominem attacks... to help win a content dispute. Feel free to quote my doing that. > "Congress are politicians" – Focusing only on the finger that points, I see. By that reasoning, any citation of a source to support an article statement is actually only "about" the author of the source, thus off-topic to the article (unless it's a bio of that author). – .Raven.talk19:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The article looks very good to me, informative and complete.
I have a couple of questions/observations:
There is a whole section on "Relationship to the finite symmetric group" and so I wondered why there was nothing on the relation to the group of braids on because as far as I can tell the affine symmetric group is a quotient of the braid group of braids on under the relations for all i. Of course this is a simple observation, straightforward from the formal definition but I wonder why this isn't in the article. This quotient is compatible with the projection from to , so is also the projection from to (I think) where it is eminently simple to visualize. The relation to the braid group on the circle makes it easier (to me at least) to visualize the relations of the algebraic definition, in a manner similar to that given here. Done
In the section on the combinatorial definition, when you write I understand that this is easier for the general audience, but perhaps you could add or as these forms are commonly encountered in the literature when presenting this result. Done
As a Coxeter group (or as a quotient of the braid group), the word problem for the affine symmetric group is solvable. I think this should be stated somewhere. Done
General question: let's say a reader when to delve more into the subject, which book shall he/she go to ? Is there no general review book on the topic or are the historical item cited the best there is to be up to date on the notion ? Done
Ref "Lusztig, George (1983), "Some examples of square integrable representations of semisimple p-adic groups", Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 277: 623–653" is missing its DOI. Some other references are lacking DOI but have their MR numbers so it is fine by me. You might still get it pointed out at FAC though. Similarly none of the books have the publisher location listed but I think it is fine for FAC if nobody raises this in the sources review. It is actually better to have none than an inconsistent style with some that do and others that don't. Done Or at least, done for everything for which I could find DOIs. --JBL
Two references are only arXiv preprint which might pose a problem at the FA source review. But these preprints have since been published, I advise you to update them with the published ref. "Chmutov, Michael; Frieden, Gabriel; Kim, Dongkwan; Lewis, Joel Brewster; Yudovina, Elena (2018), Monodromy in Kazhdan-Lusztig cells in affine type A" is now published at Selecta Math. New Ser. 28, 67 (2022) and "Monodromy in Kazhdan-Lusztig cells in affine type A; Michael Chmutov, Joel Brewster Lewis, Pavlo Pylyavskyy" is in Math. Annalen, 2022 (I don't have more precise info). Done
Pushing a bit: do you know the state of the art in this field ? It would be nice to have a sentence or two on current research about these groups ("As of 2023, research ..."). If not this is not so important, it is more for researchers.
All pictures must have alt text, which you can insert in the code with "| alt =" in the figure caption. This is mandatory for FA, see the MOS. Done
@JayBeeEll, Iry-Hor, and Jarfuls of Tweed: Hi, I have restored the Iry-Hor's question above (and fixed some minor math formatting mistakes in it). I also fixed (nowiki-ed) some tags in the Jarfuls of Tweed's question high above, which were messing all the maths formatting in the rest of the talk page. Hope you guys are not mad at me. :) --CiaPan (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@CiaPan: Thank you! (It seems no one used math tags here after JoT and before I-H, so I hadn't noticed the problem.)
@Iry-Hor: You are amazing! Thank you so much for this careful and in-depth reading. I will put substantive responses on the article talk-page, but really thank you thank you thank you!
JayBeeEll Of course no problem, mark them as you wish. I have added some more comments in the list above. Also forget what I said about the quotient of the braid group on the circle, it is all wrong ! But my comment on the word problem is correct, as a coxeter group it is decidable for the affine symmetric groups and is an important observation given how many Artin groups don't have this nice property. For the general book I was talking about I think your ref Björner and Brenti does the job very well, Appendix 8.3 also confirms this article is quite complete.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks, that will make it much easier to keep track :). Certainly some more group theoretic connections (the associated Artin-Tits group, even if it's not a braid group in the nicest geometric sense; the word problem) deserve to be mentioned. These are things I don't know as well right off the top of my head, so I probably won't get around to them for a couple of weeks. About a general reference, really this page exists because of my frustration that there was no single place one could turn to that discussed the combinatorics and geometry and algebra all in one place. Björner and Brenti is the closest. (They don't do the affine geometry thoroughly; the books that do the geometry thoroughly (e.g., Kane) tend not to single out this group for special attention, presumably because they tend not to be particularly interested in the combinatorics.) About alt-text, I have not thought enough about it before to know what is a good job. Do the ones I added (in thesetwo edits) look ok? Do you have any suggestions for what to do about an image like this one? Thanks again, JBL (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
About the alt-text what you wrote is fine, I had quite a laugh when looking at the image of the alcoves labeled by affine permutations though, I really don't how how you would describe that in words...Iry-Hor (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Haha, ok, I'll try to come up with something. I spent this morning looking into the braid groups for the affine symmetric group, it turns out there is a lot of interesting stuff to say! (And in fact there is a presentation as geometric braids -- just a bit more complicated than what you suggested.) It will take me a while to write up and reference properly, though. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I did a thing with the alt text, I guess we'll see what other close-readers think of it. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Good god you made quite an effort for the alt texts. These are top-notch ! I spotted a couple of minor things also:
"unusually nice representation-theoretic properties" as a mathematician I know what you mean but a more general audience simply won't understand what unusually nice really stands for. I think you would need to explain in a sentence or two what makes their properties "nice" and why they are "unusual" in this context.
In the reference list, Viennot is given surname G. (for Gerard) but actually his true first surname is Xavier and his second surname is Gerard. He used both in publications. It would be more appropriate to write X. G. in the reference.
Generators of the Artin-Tits group of affine type A, represented as braids with one fixed strand (for n = 4) and as braids drawn on a cylinder (for n = 3)
Thanks, yes, keep them coming :) :). I remember being confused about Viennot, I'll have to go back and look at the papers and see if I had a good reason for doing it this way, but it's possible I just got it wrong. (It's also scandalous that he doesn't have a WP biography IMO.)
I've been reading all sorts of stuff as a result of your question about the braid group, and finally found my way to Charney, Ruth; Peifer, David (2003), "The -conjecture for the affine briad groups", Comment. Math. Helv., 78 (3): 584–600, doi:10.1007/S00014-003-0764-Y, which gives explicit generators. I drew them as in the top row of the image at first (with the last strand fixed) and thought "well ok, fine, that's interesting but nothing too special", but then I tried drawing them the second way (as braids on a cylinder, where the fixed strand migrates to the middle) and obviously that picture is too nice not to put in the paper. Now to go bother the knot theorists in my department to learn the dark arts they use to make figures for things like this .... --JBL (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Nice drawing! From what I remember there are chord diagrams for braids with base on the circle (i.e. the cylinder braids you drew), essentially chord diagrams but where you keep clear which strand if above and which under at each crossing. Is there a way to add the requirement that on that group ?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, if you just ignore which one goes over and which one goes under you essentially get "wiring diagrams" (in the sense of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1760.pdf ) on a circle, recovering affine permutations: the permutation of which point on the top is connected to which one on the bottom should be the underlying permutation, and the winding numbers should be the translation component . (To be clear: I had never thought about these braid groups before a week ago, and so I don't know if this connection with the combinatorial interpretation is written down anywhere precisely, but it's definitely implicit in the Charney--Peifer paper.)
I've put together a draft section that mentions the group-theoretic properties and the braid group. I'm still refining it, but it's here if you want to take a look. I was thinking of adding it as a subsection of §Relationship to other mathematical objects once I am satisfied with it. JBL (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Well here is a place where something approximately equivalent is written down (although what it calls the affine symmetric group is what is called in the article the extended affine symmetric group). --JBL (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes your section on relation to other objects is really nice, I like the description of I think this is a nice addition to the article as this is the type of ideas that might spring up in the reader's mind, at least for readers acquainted with braid groups. Now that makes me wonder the following: since braid groups can be seen as the fundamental groups of certain configuration spaces, and given that is the defining feature of symmetries, I wonder whether can be given another geometric interpretation along the lines of fundamental groups and homotopy ? Technically wouldn't that be true that homotopy in instead of would translate into for braid groups ? I think this starts to be original research so we can forget this for wikipedia though.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh hah I just noticed that you had already given me the Arun Ram link back in your first comment. I have copied over the section and will figure out how to make a better figure at some later point. About fundamental groups / homotopy, that is a very interesting question that I do not have strong enough topological background to say anything intelligible about :(. --JBL (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok about Viennot: on MathSciNet, all of his publications before 1986 have author "G. Viennot" or "Gérard Viennot". In the second half of the 1980s, MSN lists several publications by "Gérard Xavier Viennot" or similar with initials (e.g.). Only beginning around 1990 does it show his papers switching to "Xavier Gérard". And then in the last fifteen years, the "G" goes away entirely (at least on MSN). So what I've done is consistent with the MathSciNet entry, but I certainly agree that he has been Xavier Viennot for at least the last 30 years. Under the circumstances, I'm inclined to stick with "G", but I am very puzzled by this all, to say the least. --JBL (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Interesting ! Let me add a funny twist on this Viennot story: I met and discussed combinatorics with him twice in Bordeaux, and stayed in the LABRI for some time, the lab in which he was emeritus. Well there everyone just called him "Viennot".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Iry-Hor: I realize I have not quite addressed every point you've raised so far, but I was curious about your big-picture view: is this a credible candidate for FA, either as-is or with a bit more polish? I've never participated in FAR/FAC at all, so I don't have any sense of where the line is separating "yes worth nominating"/"no a waste of time", or how the article is situated relative to it (even setting aside the math-is-scary issue). --JBL (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Dear JBL, yes this article is essentially already FA, I have absolutely no doubt it will pass successfully and although the maths might be an issue for some reviewers (who could decide to stay away from reviewing because of it), the scarcity of FA maths article also means that some reviewers might make special efforts to help the article through. I will certainly support this nomination and will provide at least the source review so this is one less hurdle. Look there are so few featured maths articles that you have a duty to continue and earn your FA badge for what is already a great victory for open knowledge.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Iry-Hor: Phew, thanks, that's wonderful to hear. This week I will take a careful look through your comments and the article to see if there're any last edits I want to make (and of course you are welcome to keep making more comments if you have the time & inclination), and then I'll push it forward. Thanks so much for all your help so far! --JBL (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
On the Italian moto gp page it says that moto gp was born in 2002 but that's not true! You also wrote it that the first edition was born in 1949, write it also on Italian Wikipedia please, help Wikipedia! Maperes (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Maperes, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is the English-language Wikipedia; the Italian-language Wikipedia (at it.wikipedia.org) is a separate community; no one here has any role there. I have left a welcome message on your user talk-page that contains some links that may help you understand the structure of Wikipedia better. In particular, information on Wikipedia (in any language) should be supported by published, reliable sources. Good luck! --JBL (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand, thank you, she was very kind, much more than the Italian colleagues who might seem a little rude, I didn't know about this, I understand, however, try to do something because on several sites that I have visited from moto gp in various countries it always says 1949 and not 2002..The administrators there continue to leave 2002 and woe to anyone who modifies it, but it's a contradiction because in other countries there is the real date and there isn't, probably leaving some readers confused. Isn't there a way for you English Wikipedia admins to contact those in other countries? Anyway thanks again for your kindness and your ways, I wish you a good continuation! Maperes (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Maperes, you're welcome. (Although, may I suggest you be more patient? I only edit during certain hours of the day, and you posted your message a second time after waiting less than six hours.) I am afraid that what I said is really a hard and fast rule: English editors have no more special role on Italian Wikipedia than the reverse. Since I cannot write or speak any Italian at all, I am not a good candidate to try to convince anyone there of anything. (Also, I am not an administrator at this copy of Wikipedia, nor any other.) So, while I'm sorry that you've had a frustrating time on the Italian Wikipedia, there is really nothing that I personally can do to help. Possibly it.wp has its own version of the Teahouse or another helpful venue where you could go; but I don't know. (I also have no special knowledge about motorcycles or motorcycle racing. Everything I know about it I learned from spending five minutes reading the article Grand Prix motorcycle racing, from which I can see that both 2002 and 1949 can be taken as starting points, depending on what exactly one is referring to (the current top league versus the broader competition structure). Maybe that is the source of the confusion?) Best of luck, JBL (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, once again he proved his superiority. As for the site's article, I only ask you to move it from 2002 to 1949 (like all the other sites in other languages) because the moto gp world championship was born exactly in 1949, this is the problem that I speak to you. Thank you for your reassuring message even if the story is not over. Thanks again and good luck too! Maperes (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
ANI: User:_Richie_wright1980
Hello! I noticed that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Richie wright1980 before I had a chance to respond to Richie's last comment. You also summarised the closure as occurring because we 'both agree that this thread has served its purpose' when the exact opposite is true — we are both disappointed by the ANI process and do not think it has served its purpose. If you can't reopen the thread so I can respond it would be good if you could at least change the summary to something more accurate. Cheers, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi A.D.Hope, I think it was more awkward wording than anything else (I meant, both felt that there was nothing to be gained by keeping it open) but I'll self-revert. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I understand what you meant now and I do appreciate the effort to bring the discussion to a close (it does need to end!) A.D.Hope (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope: Well I'd be happy to give it a go again (with more careful wording), after you've had a chance to make your comment (if you still want that) -- let me know. --JBL (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
My pleasure -- I'm sorry the discussion wasn't terribly productive in itself (ANI is always kind of a shitshow), but the tenor of the latest posts (setting aside the peanut gallery) was promising, and I hope it leads to constructive engagement on the articles. All the best, JBL (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Folly Mox: Thanks so much, and sorry for the edit conflict! :) I'm not sure how those of you ploughing through edits where dozens of references get changed manage it, I can barely keep track when it involves more than three, but I'm glad someone is doing it (and leaving all the little one-ref-edits to me, which I can slip into moments that don't require too much focus). Thanks also for your "thanks" on some of my sillier edit summaries -- nice to know that someone has a compatible sense of humor, and makes the whole thing more bearable. If XOR'easter's latest update is to be believed, we're just about 2/3rds done -- pretty incredible! --JBL (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that one. One thing I appreciate about Folly Mox's subdivision of the list page into additional sections is that that edit still seems far in the future, as if maybe someone else will get there first :). (I guess it's too much to hope for a situation like List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids (block), where in a merge the bad parts somehow got replaced?) I think we'll have to have a group of people plan out a special strategy just to handle that one, it's too big for one person and too big to do collaboratively without a good system for keeping people from stepping on each other or checking the same thing over and over again. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I just want to apologise again for my recent absence from this project. I got pretty burned out on it and found myself not feeling invested in the accuracy of citations on pages where I didn't care about the topic. I can't pretend I've been absent from Wikipedia during this time, although part of the dropoff in my participation is due to irl nonsense. I keep intending to come back and help out more the same way I keep intending to perform other adult style tasks in my life.I do like the idea of some kind of subarea specifically for the final +100k diff. We could probably just leave notes underneath it like "checked dates A through B".I think for the next blocks of ReferenceExpander diffs (outside the 2023 Jan–Apr timeframe), it might be easiest to keep them sorted by date, because it's common to come across blocks of related articles edited around the same time where the same citations need to be fixed in the same way (the Anglo-Saxon months, human trafficking by country, Japanese regnal period, and board game articles come to mind immediately). Folly Mox (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Even by month seems hard -- probably 200 of them in some months. I seriously have trouble keeping track when there are reference changes in more than two paragraphs. (Although I suppose the list structure is helpful for keeping track, I hope.)
I don't think you should apologize for taking a break any more than I should apologize for picking out all the easy ones :). the Anglo-Saxon months, human trafficking by country, Japanese regnal period, and board game articles come to mind immediately It is very funny to me that I saw this list and I was like "Anglo-Saxon months? Japanese regnal period? what are they talking about?" but then I got to "board game articles" and suddenly understood completely. (I suppose emphasis on "to me" in that sentence.) --JBL (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I try to use this as a provocation to read about things I wouldn't read otherwise, so it offers at least a little intellectual stimulation. But that only goes so far. It's a very easy project to get burned out from. It made sense at the time to order the worksheet by the change in size, since it seemed that the big decrements were surely where the most information was actually lost and needed restoration. Did that hold up? I'm not sure. It feels like lately I've been leaving more edit summaries that say "was basically fine" and removing silliness like |last=Staff |first=News (which is nonsense but doesn't hurt the text like, say, missing quotations do). But that's just how I'm feeling at the moment. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been focusing on the cases and there have not been very many cases where, say, a footnote with a link in it got replaced with just a citation template (which is something I had seen in a bunch before this became a systematic thing). So you may be right. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh I think the initial organisation of the first worksheet was well founded in suspicion. None of us knew how poorly Citoid functioned when this started. I guess in general I'd characterise the plus deltas as less damaging than the minus deltas (although some of those were just removal of archives), but I don't remember ever hitting a string of three where no action was indicated, or hitting a string of five where nothing was actually damaged. Folly Mox (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
To manifest positive outcomes I should clarify that there's no theoretical impedance to the existence of arbitrarily long subseries of ReferenceExpander edits that can be evaluated as "fine", and my memory is garbage enough that I frequently forget to eat breakfast until it's almost bedtime. Let's hope this wishful thinking makes the remainder of the task less effortful. Folly Mox (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I'm really enjoying "can I find three in a row that are ok?" as a game to play with this task :). I'll try to tone down the absurd pinging, though. (Unrelatedly, I thought your comments re: DGG etc. at ANI were excellent -- thanks.) --JBL (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this edit summary at AN:I (how often do we get to say that, honestly!) I was very surprised to see the initial close as I very much saw this as "editors disagree" rather than Abuse and definitely didn't think Cullen or Ravenswing were a "tag team" in their responses. So while I'm obviously biased, glad you saw it the same even if we disagree on the block merits. FWIW, I hope they can edit productively down the road. It's also (unfortunately) highlighting the issues that COI editors face, we're not well equipped to handle more complex issues beyond edit requests. Have a good evening and thanks again! StarMississippi03:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: Oh you're very welcome -- this was solidly in the realm of "reasonable people can disagree", I don't know what the original closer was thinking. (They should have gotten as far as "I hope I won't regret this one" (in their edit summary) and leapt to the obvious conclusion "I should leave it for someone else".) It's always tough to tell with inexperienced-but-potentially-valuable editors whether they are interested in/capable of adapting to the social norms here. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, JBL. Following your edit to Jim Niekamp, you asked for advice in this edit summary about the obit cited on Niekamp's page. First of all, that obit seems pretty useless; all it shows (to me) is a name, DOB, DOD and age. Is there more to it somewhere, maybe behind a paywall or membership boundary or something?
As to the connection with "our" Niekamp, I don't see a big problem. While possible, it'd be pretty strange if there were two guys named James Lawrence Niekamp born on March 11, 1946. Oh, John Smith, sure; Jim Johnson, probably; but James Lawrence Niekamp? Naw. The hockey sites cited, FWIW, seem to all have the same info anyway, although there's no telling where they got their dates. I suppose there could be some WP:CIRCULAR sourcing going on (it is ice hockey, after all).
Having said that, it wouldn't be terrible to have better sources for his off-rink life. Even his career as commentator is fully unsourced (unless it's in a part of the obit that I just can't see).
You statedDisambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles, not all possible concepts.
Hyperbole aside, this is not correct.
Per MOS:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
What constitutes "value" may merit discussion in some cases, but it is clear that entries cannot be rejected solely because the disambiguated concept is not (article-)notable in and of itself. HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Paradoctor, perhaps I have not expressed myself as clearly as possible. There is no hyperbole in my edit summary: as the guideline you've quoted makes very clear, each line in a disambiguation page should include exactly one link to a Wikipedia article (see specifically the section MOS:DABONE). The line I removed (and that Fgnievinski improperly restored) contains 0 links to Wikipedia articles. I invite either of you to identify the relevant Wikipedia article for that line (if there is one) and to add the link in an appropriate way. --JBL (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
When I said "hyperbole", I referred to your use of "all possible". Nobody was suggesting that. ;)
As it turns out (pun intended), I accidentally removed the link when I edited the line, through no fault of Fgnievinski. Fixed.
Please do not delete "In popular culture" sections (or material from them) that consist of film, TV episode, etc. material. Published works (including A/V ones) are reliable sources for their own content. Do feel free to use citation templates ({{Cite episode}}, etc.) to built up proper citations for them, though. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I probably shouldn't have gotten into this in the first place, so I'll probably be stepping out of it now, but there is a serious case of WP:IDHT on his talk page, and he has archived the discussion on his page. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 11:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The user named in the header of the thread is so aggressive with archiving messages they don't want to see that I deliberately breached WP:TPG to reply in their archive to an ongoing conversation they removed early. Folly Mox (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Dialmayo: Thanks for your message. I agree with you. Perhaps one could take this as a sign that some small amount of listening and learning has taken place. I think that as long as the problematic behavior doesn't recur, letting it lie is a good idea (I also plan on that)---and if it does reoccur, I think the ground has certainly been laid for a clear CIR case at ANI (thanks to Folly Mox and everyone else who has been quite clear about the problems and the possible consequences). --JBL (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations, JayBeeEll! The article you nominated, Affine symmetric group, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article, "about a mathematical object that is of interest to pure mathematicians in a wide array of areas. I believe this article presents a comprehensive account of its subject, including its multiple definitions (and why they are equivalent), its many interesting properties and substructures, and its substantial connections to other mathematical objects (especially the "usual" finite symmetric group of permutations, which appears in nearly every corner of mathematics). While the affine symmetric group is not usually encountered outside the context of research mathematics (say, by PhD students or professional researchers), I believe the article is written so that significant portions of it can be appreciated by readers with a more modest mathematical background, and nearly all of it appreciated by an undergraduate who has taken a first course in group theory." Enjoy your first TFA day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
F minor and E-sharp minor should remain on the same page as established in 2011 with this discussion. If someone wants to re-organize all of these articles, they should gain consensus through a project-wide discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this note and deletion. I must have been massively brainwashed this morning not to note this obvious fact that floor(x+n) = floor(x)+n, for integer n :) Guswen (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I took some thwacks at improving the article 0, because it turns out to be among the most frequently-visited math pages and it did silly things like drop the term "additive identity" into the second line without a definition. It could use additional thwacks by somebody else for a more varied perspective. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hellow JayBeeEll, regarding all your warnings about whitespaces on articles, I'm now in need of any link or source about the proper usage/guidelines/maintenance of whitespaces, so that I'll never ever make any unwanted vandalism in future! Thanking at the end, keep up great works on Mathematics-related articles :) Billjones94 (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@Billjones94: The principle is incredibly straightforward: if you can't articulate a clear reason that an edit is an unambiguous improvement, don't make it. Is removing a single space that does not change the appearance of the page an improvement? No, it is obviously not (and meanwhile it is a nuisance to other editors whose watchlists get spammed with pointless fiddling) -- therefore don't do it. If you are making some edit that otherwise has some beneficial purpose and, incidentally at the same time, you remove some whitespaces like this, no one will mind -- but that's because of the other (useful) part of the edit. I hope this is clear and helpful; if not, please feel free to query further. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Stop engaging in ad hominem attacks. Please find someon else to harass. Alexmov (talk)
CiaPan (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Done
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
