User talk:Deacon Vorbis/Archive 2018

2018 in science
You can't just delete so much stuff without consensus, and even the consensus on the talk page is against the deletion. And how are the press releases from the universities themselves not reliable?--110.93.240.251 (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion of any substance on the talk page, which is the place this should be discussed, not here. But as for press releases, see WP:RS.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're basically saying you don't care about any of the criticism about your actions. And no you can't remove such a vast amount of content on your own whim alone.--110.93.240.251 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See Identifying_and_using_self-published_works --110.93.240.251 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss content on the article in question is, not here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok fine. But don't remove the content until a consensus on that has been reached on the talk page. --110.93.240.251 (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Truly pathetic actions by you. Leave the page alone!!! Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit war with the IP violates WP:3RR (both from your and their side). Stop reverting the edits on the page please, otherwise I'll ask administrators to stop it. --mfb (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Covariance
The changes I made give a much better lay out then the present one, and makes the calculation much better understandable. Nijdam (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The changes you made had several issues – mainly a lot of manual spacing using either wiki markup (extra colons, which should really be avoided, which is a long story on its own), or LaTeX spacing commands, which are almost always a bad idea to try to use for manual alignment purposes. Combining the two is especially problematic, as there's no guarantee that one of them won't change or look different depending on browser settings (wiki markup for this).  There might certainly be ways to improve this, but it should still be done in a robust way.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

At least the small version of the fractures should be used and without the unnecessary brackets. Nijdam (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Check the 2018 in science talk page
Ditto. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We've gone through this already. Your previous deletions under this logic were also reverted. I've also put this under Third_opinion. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Catalan number
Knowing that some Catalan number counts the number of triangulations of a polygon is part of the excitement of what mathematics is all about. Knowing which Catalan number it is, through the mnemonic that "the n-th Catalan number counts the case of n triangles" is intended to be the frosting on the cake. Thank you, 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments about changes to articles belong on article's talk page, not here.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. I have put my query on the article talk page. 64.132.59.226 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's fine
I do not care if DePiep says I'm a troll. If he reverts again, I'd consider it a favor if you just let it be. It's better to just let him get the last word. If you ignore him, he eventually stops. Thanks though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for assisting at List of school shootings. The material that has now been removed several times can go into its own article. A list should be consistent with the other WP lists, IMO. Regards,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  16:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with 23h112e before, and he generally just wears people down by exhaustion. His English is bad, and he generally just doesn't really listen.  I'm about at the point where I just need to disengage already.  His English isn't good enough to really do much more than minor fixes, so I've suggested that he limit his activity to that or to edit the appropriate language Wikipedia, but he seems fairly resistant to such an idea.  Anyway, good luck.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am watching, almost edit conflicted with you. Take a rest, I will get the next batch, if he adds more. Easier to do it all, in one edit. Regards,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, I realized that Pre-2013 Amendment and Post-2013 Amendment contained the same list of years. When I attempted to correct this, 23h112e instantly reverted me. I attempted to explain (at length) the situation on his talk page. He doesn't understand that the titles are not the problem, it's the contents. I agree with your assessment- poor English comprehension and WP:IDHT. So. we will see what happens now. He went WAY over 3RR yesterday.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  19:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Suppressing edits
You revert the Talk page content again I'll have to ask someone to review if you are suppressing the information being added, the reasons your giving aren't reasonable. You are being unreasonable. 23h112e (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 23h112e (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your busy doing something else ... you might like to re-add the Talk page heading at List of school shootings in the United States, I added, in a format more to your liking, since you know the content of the heading I added so well - but it wouldn't be possible to know as easily, to make any argument to show reasons for doing anything, unless involved users are able to see the related information included in the original section, before you reverted. 23h112e (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a vindictive individual, but I think there is a reason to have the information you reverted, and since you understand the needs of the users who would be reading the section you reverted, you could go through the reverted content and make the argument on my behalf. You really should do this, then obviously I won't think you are suppressing the discussion, since it is your opinion that deleted the Talk section, but other users may not share your opinion. 23h112e (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Please stop your inappropriate edit war and harrassing threat. Links to Mathcurve (which received from the SMF the Prix Anatole Decerf 2008, as you should have noticed if you looked at in the link given by R. Ferreol in his modest answer) are definitely not a spam but a selfless and valuable gift. I am sure you will agree if you have a quick but honest glance at this website. Anne Bauval (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * (I've moved your comment to my own talk page, as it was a comment addressed to me, not to the user whose talk page you made it on.) Please see WP:COI, WP:ELNO #1, WP:LINKSPAM, etc.  How great this website is (it's actually not so great) is completely irrelevant to whether or not someone closely affiliated with it should be going through and adding mass external links.  My cleaning up after the fact is not edit warring, and my warnings are standard templated warnings, not threats.  There are increasing levels of seriousness to them, which I used since the behavior wasn't stopping, and the user wasn't making any kind of response that he understood the relevant policies.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good evening. What are your references for the parenthesized comment "it's actually not so great" ? The prize mentioned above was given, I suppose, by incompetent French mathematicians, but you will surely, nevertheless, be kind enough to cite relevant sources showing how incompetent they are... As for spamming, since when a site maintained as a free ressource and used, perhaps not so much as OEIS, but in the same spirit, should be disqualified only because his main (only ?) contributor links relevant articles to relevant portions of WPen ?--Dfeldmann (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Proportion
Hi, ! As a mathematician, could you chime in Talk:Proportion, I would like to create an entry for this concept and I have been consistently shot down. Thanks. Mikus (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Othello theory
Provided "Reversi" fully equals "Othello". Perhaps the phrase "neutralize" is wrong terminology (and "Black / White" also ?). But for the moment, please try to see what I actually mean. Well worth telling our readers, I think. First, I think, we have to consider the "dangerous squares". Taking B2,B7,G2 or G7 - more than usually ends up in loosing the A1, A8, H1 and H8 corners, respectively. Also A2, A7, B1,B8,G1,G8,H2 and H7 are "semi-dangerous" (before the corner is taken, afterwards the same squares becomes the most optimal "neutralizing" squares. But only if and when a corner has been taken AND it comes between the opponents bricks). If you dislike the phrase "neutralized corner", then "disturbing" might work instead. (I've read the word "neutralisera" in my native language and in an Othello context. So the phrase isn't an invention of mine, I wish to assure you of that). Please see to the logic which I honestly just try to illustrate in a few diagrams below. Please don't see me as an intruder. And if you can see my points, you can edit the article a bit yourself. I played this game quite a lot in the late 1970's. (at age 13-15) "Othello" became quite popular in my country soon after it was released, sometime around 1978. It was sold under the punchline "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master". How true that was, I'm still a bit unclear of. I simply wish our readers to (if possible) learn the basics. I'm not really talking about the "lifetime - master" level, but just a bit more than the significance of the corners. Although they indeed are imperative.

Also other squares (including more than one, just as all are in between the opponents' and along the edges). But the closer to a captured corner, usually is better. Naturally there is no point in attempting to "neutralize" a corner until it actually is taken by the opponent. And having the corner is of course better. Finally about the strategy of turning rather few squares until the very end -

Without a taken corner, nothing is decided. Kind regards Boeing720 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI
No worries about the ANI report - I'm happy that you observed possibly concerning behavior and felt comfortable enough to express them. We just can't block users exclusively over bad practices if no other issues are occurring, nor can we force them to use edit summaries or exhibit what we deem as "good etiquette". Blocking users over this or similar situations wouldn't just be seen as very bad admin actions by the community (lol), but they would achieve the opposite effect - it could cause this user to become frustrated or angry and leave the project, or cause the user to become confused and associate it with his/her good contributions - which we definitely don't want to happen. Thanks again for expressing your concerns; I just wanted to message you to let you know that you did nothing wrong. I don't want you to feel like you can't say something or create a report if you believe something isn't right :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, and thanks for the note. I appreciate the extra explanation.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You bet; always happy to help ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Victor kosko
You and other editors are misusing Wikipedia policy to ban any criticism of set theory as if Wikipedia has a policy against it. I checked policy and my user page does not at all violate it. And no deletion of my material was appropriate, the proofs are valid. Noone who deletes my material gives a reason for it. Your and others interpretation of policy regards talk pages is bent towards you banning discussions contrary to your 'religion' of set theory. Further the last post was designed to not violate policy. Any material contributing to the Wikipedia project is good for user pages such as proofs for the intended audience, the only person reading my user page, my deleters. Nobody else can even find it. Editorial comments are allowed in talk pages, you people are lying and violating policy claiming we anti-set-theory-ists are not making editorial comments. Would you prefer me to edit into the article the common arguments against set theory, which are inferior to mine, just to obey policy. One the policy ignore all rules comes into play so my arguments should go in instead, two if I did put in the standard objections you people would delete them anyway by distorting Wikipedia policy. As I wrote even the one argument you retain in Wikipedia, that there is no such thing as actual infinity, is wrong, on two points. I don't like the links to Zenkin's material, I will put up with it for lack of links to better material. Do you really want me just to send you links to 'appropriate' material inferior to mine just because the author (s) are credentialed. That's not original research or pov being common criticisms. Now, what we are putting in talk is editorial comments, therefore cannot be deleted from talk pages without violating multiple policies. All but one of my proofs are valid. But my current proofs are better so I only need my last two or three posts to my user page retained. The disproofs are valid, you people are the cranks. If you want to only use their valid arguments against the diagonal argument and can find them: Tree arguments Exponential argument As I said the arguments against infinity are not quite right so the current said arguments in Wikipedia are basically historical use only. If you think there is a way  around that I'd like to Know, I know of no way to get around policy and I have seen no correct versions. The other two I do see, but rarely. However set theorists words can be used against them, thus avoiding policy complaints. But I had one of those in the talk you deleted. Victor Kosko (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see:
 * WP:RGW – Wikipedia is not a soapbox to correct any perceived injustices.
 * WP:NOR – Wikipedia is not the place to publish original thought or research.
 * If you can find reliable, secondary sources that offer any criticism, then it can be added to articles (although please see WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE as well). If you cannot, then talk pages and your user page are still not a proper venue to try to promote your ideas.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

About Natural intergers
Hi, Thanks for reviewing my edits. I had taken the time to validate the definition of N on Wikipedia, but deemed relevant to clarify. The fact that you do say « usually » in your edit comment proves my point ;) Could Wikipedia « adopt » a définition that is used throughout and potentially to refer to in by an inline link. Regards, Scharleb (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not usually practical for Wikipedia to adopt conventions like that (there are some exceptions); see WP:Manual of Style/Mathematics though. Sometimes it's clear from context, so it's not necessary to be overly explicit, and sometimes you can mention in an article which sense is meant if it's going to be used repeatedly, but here, it was probably easiest to just replace with {1, 2, 3, ...} to be sure that the meaning is clear.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to various articles, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What edit are you referring to here? Paul August &#9742; 22:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * RandNetter is having some sort of breakdown regarding me -- I suggest you check his recent edit history for the full story. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 18:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Abouabdillah's theorem
Could you, please, have a look at Articles for deletion/Abouabdillah's theorem whether I have done everything well? And, of course, you can share your opinion. Thanks. --Tudor987 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's possibly not a good idea to notify individual editors about AFDs like this lest you run afoul of WP:CANVASS. Cases like this feel like sort of a grey area to me, but in this particular instance, I'd say it's probably okay.  AFDs will almost always be sorted into appropriate areas by volunteers, and interested users can see a new entry if it's on their watchlist.  I've gone ahead and added this one to the math list (see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics).  If your question was more about the technical side of listing something at AFD, then it seems fine as far as I can tell.  Certain errors will be fixed by a bot, and if it's something really off the wall, someone will likely fix it manually.  I'd recommend using Twinkle in the future, though; it makes life way easier for listings things at XfD (among lots of other useful features).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I asked you mainly because at the Hungarian Wikipedia AFDs work in a bit different ways. --Tudor987 (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. When you return to editing, do not harass or attack other editors. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What's the length of the block? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I saw it on the ANI thread. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 24 hours. When the block expires, do not resume that type of behavior, or the next block will be longer. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

video problem
Do you know how to fix the thumbnail on the video at Foucault Pendulum? I don't know how to do it - I asked at the help desk but haven't gotten a reply. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I tried to mess around with it, but all I can see is that the media viewer doesn't even display a still frame when you view it (before you hit play, at full size), unlike other clips. I'm afraid I can't figure out any more than that; maybe ask at WP:VPT.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I read a help page about posting files, and I don't see what is wrong. I asked on the general help desk.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It was because it was an MP4 instead of webm. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Deacon Vorbis. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ADeacon_Vorbis enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Tedium
You should talk me into doing some tedious work for you if possible, such as creating category or article structures (see Commons:Category:Consonants by manner of articulation and List of music students by teacher: A to B, Template:LMSTA) or multiple sound files (List of pitch intervals) or images (List of chords). If you know better than me then I will make better improvements than I would without you, and that should please us both. I apologize for the Hawaiian earring "incident"; I often see only two possibilities. I especially can see how my single edit adding "apparent" (with the edit summary "apparent"), could be seen as a reference to your edit summary, "this is apparently unrelated". I did not mean to disagree with you or prove a point, or respond to your edit summary. It should probably be noted on the talk page that not only is the article missing etymology as flagged (in the article) the article does not have any mention of who invented or discovered the concept or any history at all. Hyacinth (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Transport puzzle
Per commentary on my user talk page, Articles for deletion/Transport puzzle has been reopened and the article has been restored for the time being. North America1000 01:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Filed an arbitration request for putting the link to Chaitin's article back
Since I disagree with your peer review report on my contribution, I've filed an appeal here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Infinity
Hii What is problem in my value of infinity if it is wrong then say the reason -0.2113245486 what is wrong in these value Mishraankush714216 (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The notice on your talk page was pretty clear about why you can't make those sorts of edits to articles. Mathematically, what you said was meaningless.  If you have questions, you can always ask at the Math ref desk.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

species of bacteria
Your link has a link to the ngram:



They're pretty close in British English, with "a species of bacteria" being more popular in the past decade or two. In American English, "a species of bacteria" has always been more popular. --Steve (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, but looking at words with normal plurals, the rule seems pretty clear. I'm not sure that we absolutely have to give weight to a modest preference for a single exception shown in Ngrams when there seems to be a good reason to choose what's normally done for singular/plural here.  But I think that's about the limit that I'm going to mess with this, and if you really care about it strongly enough to put it back, I'm not going to revert again.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Gaslighting
An IP removed a sourced section, I restored it, you removed it again without explanation... why?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It was a good-faith removal of a section (the removal was accompanied by an explanation). You reverted without explanation, so I reverted again without explanation.  On a side note, since it may come up, I agree with the removal.  The first source was questionable – it's two people attempting to co-opt a term in psychology (which the article is about) to a sociological phenomenon (which the article is not about).  The second source seems to be barely an abstract linked to on some sketchy-ass Russian website and seems to have nothing to do with gaslighting.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your ANI thread
I was in the middle of composing something when the thread was closed. I think it is pertinent to still make the comment. You said in one of your comments, "try to take a step back for a second and look at this from another angle." I think that is something you should do here. You started this whole thing off by telling Kudpung to assume good faith. You continued on saying that the comment on the AFD was "completely inappropriate". Then you gave two options, strike it out or remove it. You didn't come in with an attitude of looking for a discussion, you came in with an attitude of you did something wrong and you need to fix it. When people responded to you with the same kind of attitude you took offense. Everything since then has been the same attitude and most of the responses from both sides are the same. I would suggest in the future if you really want a discussion with someone, start off with a note not a template. That note should invite a discussion not be an accusation and your preferred solutions. I think you carry the blame for how this came out. ~ GB fan 19:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second that. Dropping templates on people's talkpages is quick and easy - it's handy for communicating quickly with newbies who have no ideas of the rules, and since there are so many of them time is often of the essence. Templates are pretty pointless with experienced users who are already familiar with the rules though, even if you think they're not following them - better to drop them a personal note and let them know how you feel. Nevertheless, my comment about a trout was meant to be lighthearted - just my way of saying that while I think your ANI thread was a bit silly, it wasn't a big deal. I'm sorry to see from your userpage that you're feeling dispirited, and if I contributed in any way to that then I apologise. You and I have never interacted (as far as I can remember), but I've often seem your comments in various forums and I wouldn't want to see you leave the project forever. I hope you feel better in the morning. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize; and I'll probably get over this before too long. (I noted this in my reply below, but there's also WP:TTR as a differing view of templating). Anyway, I appreciate the note.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback, and if more people at the thread had taken this sort of level-headed tone, I might have come away from it without such a sour taste in my mouth. However, I don't think Kudpung should get a pass simply because I didn't do something right – his comment at the AfD  completely inappropriate, and it's not the first time he's pulled this kind of crap.  I didn't add to it because I didn't want to seem petty or be (rightly) accused of the same no-no that I was chastising Kudpung for.  It was his response to my note (template or not, WP:DTTR is just an essay, and one that I don't agree with; there's also WP:TTR) that was over-the-top uncivil, and in my opinion, worthy of a block.  And just as I was finally able to say "look, this is the problem" (my response to Dloh), the thread was hatted.  When you say I'm to blame, I disagree.  I surely could have done better, but Kudpung's response is completely his own responsibility, not mine.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheer up ;-)
Don't know about your recent troubles (related to the above I suppose), but I know that I'm not alone in appreciating all the good work you've done here. Paul August &#9742; 20:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paul! I really do appreciate the note. I'll get over things eventually and will be back.  Thanks again, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Fourfold
I have commented there. Thanks for keeping an open mind, please feel free to crit as much as you like. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Square root of 3, upper and lower limits of pi and Archimedes
Kevin Brown's math pages includes a square root of 3 discussion that has a correct answer

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath038/kmath.038.htm

Milogardner (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That link is a 404. And anyway, answer to what?  What does this have to do with anything?  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Logic graphs
Would logic graphs be a good idea? -Inowen (nlfte) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really follow your question. What exactly are logic graphs? and would they be a good idea for what?  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned you in an Arbitration Request for Clarification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a head's up, you did nothing wrong and don't worry at all! This is a follow-up to your RFPP request for unprotection on Great Famine (Ireland). ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, I go away for a few hours and there's a filing at arbcom and everything! Thanks for dealing with this and the heads-up; I couldn't make heads or tails of it myself.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Majeste
The issue is clear, and I'm glad you see it with clarity. Now, if your problem was with the title of the thread, I have taken note and have gone ahead and changed it. Since the RFC tags link independently of the section title, and because it lists only the article page, changing it doesn't affect its RFC linkages. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Deacon Vorbis but I have addressed this and other issue in a response on the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived
An arbitration clarification request concerning the has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Math markup
How would

3x - 7 -      x + 1  ) 3x2  -4x   -6                3x2  +3x                -                 0   -7x   -6                     -7x   -7                            1

be written using  tags? — Eli355 ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Normally, I think you could do this with the  environment (assuming you'd be willing to use a vertical line instead of a curved line for the left part of the division thingy), but you need to use some of the more specialized commands for spacing and for inserting partial horizontal lines, and the limited subset that WP supports just doesn't include much of what you need for that.  You  be able to cheat by using a wikitable to get spacing and lines that you need and then just placing the  stuff you want within the individual cells.  That's about all I can think up, sorry if it's not quite what you were hoping for.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of redirect
Can you please delete the redirect page of Lamborghini Veneno? I have asked this because I have created an article on the subject matter. U1Quattro (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, so I can't delete pages, but as far as I understand things, redirects from Draft space to main article space are generally kept (see WP:RDRAFT). On the other hand, it looks like you essentially performed an article split there (I didn't look in much detail, just saw that you removed content from the main article and created a new article with that subject matter).  If you actually used any of the original content, you need to be careful about providing proper attribution when doing that; please see WP:PROSPLIT for more detail (and the whole page too).  Also taking a quick look, I see the main article has an accent mark on one letter, but the text of the article doesn't use it.  Whichever way is preferred (I don't really know how it's normally spelled), it should be consistent between the two.  (If it is kept at the unaccented version, make sure  to just copy and paste to the new location).  Looking at the unaccented version, it seems that there was already some discussion about keeping as one article, so I'm not sure if this is a good idea after all.  It might make some sense to bring this up on the original talk page and see if there's any objection to it.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond Standardized Orders of Magnitude
Deacon Vorbis, it is great to see that you are back to active editing, having been discouraged recently. You have extensive, valuable experience with Wikipedia. Thanks for your work!

Can you advise me on where Brontobyte and Geopbyte might find a good home in Wikipedia?

In my browsing I learned that Brontobyte appears 121,000 times and Geopbyte 96,300 time on the internet. But they didn't appear in Wikipedia. I wanted to make Wikipedia better (as we all do!) so I looked for a suitable topic.

When I saw the section of Orders of magnitude (data) entitled, "Beyond standardized SI / IEC (binary) prefixes," it struck me that the topic might logically include non-standard decimal terms and factors. (edit Nov 23, 2018)

I understand the reasoning behind excluding Brontobyte and Geopbyte from the standardized SI / IEC prefixes. They are not standardized! What I am wondering is why they might not have a place in the article in a section named, "Beyond Standardized Orders of Magnitude."

Given your far more extensive knowledge in this field and experience with Wikipedia, can you help me find a good topic for Brontobyte and Geopbyte?

Thank you! Wells50 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's already a mention at Unit prefix. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

My recent minor edits
Hey Deacon Vorbis, I know you're feeling stressed a dispondent in relation to Wikipedia and its future, and I don't want to add to that stress so I'll try to be brief and succinct. You recently reverted some my minor edits, the only edit that I have strong feeling about is my edit to Law of cosines. In your revision you say that my edit made it read incorrectly. I'm curious on what you meant by that and so am wondering if you could further clarify. I want to thank you again for reading this message and for honestly contributing to the community. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 04:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (No stress at all; I should just remove it really). The way it's written now isn't really ideal (I may change it again after thinking about it), but what you changed it to was "90° degrees".  This isn't correct regardless of how a link is placed.  If you read that out loud, it would be "ninety degrees degrees", which doesn't work.  The current setup is just trying to give a parenthetical note in case someone doesn't know the degree mark, and it's sort of awkward, but the change made it simply read incorrectly.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its good to hear that you're not feeling stressed. I see the confusion that my edit to Law of cosines could have caused, and agree that your change is an improvement. For my edit on History of astronomy, where I used "the understanding" in the sense of "the collective learning/understanding of humans", I do think it does make at least some sense, and doesn't seem to seem to be uncommon phrasing as a search for "the understanding" turns up some similar usages, some of the first being in Trypophobia and Enviromental science.

Undone edits for "e"
It looks like one of my minor edits was undone with no particular reason attached. "Removed some trivia" is not a reason, it's a restatement about what you did (undid my edit). My edit was properly cited, accurate, and in a section of the page that is at the very end, is succinct, and therefore not distracting to readers. Could you elaborate on why you undid the edit on page e (mathematical constant) (old id 871723709)? You seem to have undone some other edits on the page, attaching a reason to them. --TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have been more explicit. That you called it trivia when making the addition seemed that it would be understood that its triviality was the reason for being removed.  Also, the reference given isn't great; it's just a web page from a monthly problem.  Frankly, it's a cute little factoid, but I don't think it really belongs in such a high-profile article.  I even took it out of List of representations of e, which would be somewhat more reasonable, but it didn't quite fit there either.  Ultimately, I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE has to be realized here.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please return to your 'comments'
Could you please return to your comments on talk:Multinomial_theorem and elaborate a bit further? I searched your talk page but didn't find any issues relating to your observation, "As in my edit summaries". Was it about your section #2, "To Do/Fix"? Very Neat, BTW. That "To Do/Fix" list. However, I am not a dedicated editor as you are. Visit here as a reader, mainly. I noticed that Multinomial Theorem has no section on its history of development. A reference/treatise where it was first mentioned and developed. I don't have resources available to develop it myself. So was looking to draw the attention of the original authors to improve the article further. Obviously, they don't visit one of their own pages. I am presently considering to post my note on their Talk Pages. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You are completely out of knowledge! Take a break!
You are completely out of knowledge! Take a break!

You just know to delete, you are completely useless even harmful!

About waveform page:

You do not know that waveforms apply in many areas, not just sounds, you just deleted this very useful information. There are major confusions, octaves have nothing to do with waveforms. The volume in decibels is something particular and deserves to be specified only if all the units that have to do with amplitude are specified, I mean units from telecommunications and electricity.

About reverberation effect:

You don't read the source or not understand it. From it, the reverb effect has two parts: early and late, this is important. If you really want to do something useful, look for another source as you can understand and complete the page as missing something very important: early and late

I'll give it undo until you start reading or go to school!

Physics Only (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:No personal attacks, which your comment has come pretty close to being, and WP:Edit warring, which your threat of undoing indefinitely would constitute. Furthermore, disputes about article content should be discussed on the  talk page(s), not on user talk pages.  This is so that others can see and participate in the discussion.  I will say quickly, though, that your complaints about Waveform have absolutely nothing to do with the edit you made, which appears to have been inappropriate.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"undoing indefinitely" is your issue, you begin this! Again you show do not understand what waveforms are used for and what does it mean. I don't lost my time with you to teach you anymore

Physics Only (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted my edit on AC power
Hello, I'm Alejandro. I had edited the page on AC power to fix the spelling of complex power. In that article, complex power was written as $$S$$ —which is wrong— so I changed it to $$\mathbf{S}$$ (or $$\vec{S}$$) —which is correct—. However you reverted my edit saying that complex numbers aren't usually written in bold or as vectors. While that's true in complex analysis, in electrical engineering complex quantities do are written as vectors. If you don't believe me, I suggest you read electric circuit theory books like The first two books are extremely popular in electric circuit analysis/theory, and they do write complex quantities (like impedance and complex power) with a capital letter, not in italics and in bold, as in $$\mathbf{Z}$$ or $$\mathbf{S}$$. Actually, $$S$$ stands for apparent power. So, if you say I'm wrong, then you're also saying those successful books are too, which obviously is not the case.
 * Fundamentals of Electric Circuits by Charles K. Alexander and Matthew N.O. Sadiku
 * Engineering circuit analysis by William Hart Hayt Jr., Jack Ellsworth Kemmerly and Steven M. Durbin
 * Basic Engineering Circuit Analysis by J. David Irwin

I hope we can reach an agreement.

Note: I don't really know how messaging works in Wikipedia, but I think this is the right way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alej27 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments or questions about edits like you have here should really be made on the article talk page. You can get my attention there by using  as I'm using here (or  will send a ping without the @ business).  You should also sign your talk page comments, as you notice I've done for you here (and SineBot did for the other one).  See Help:Talk pages for more information.  However, this should be short and easy, so I'll just respond here this time.
 * You may be totally right; I had forgotten that electrical engineers can't do math notation ($j$ for the imaginary unit springs to mind). Mathematically, representing a complex number as a vector is bad practice. Technically, $$\mathbb{C}$$ is a vector space over itself in a trivial way.  More likely, the authors are considering it as a 2-dimensional vector space over the reals, but that's still not really appropriate notationally.  Anyway, my pedantry aside, if it's a common notation in use in the field, then it's reasonable to use in the article.  If you want to put it back, go ahead (it might be a good idea to link to this talk page section in your edit summary).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be totally right; I had forgotten that electrical engineers can't do math notation ($j$ for the imaginary unit springs to mind). Mathematically, representing a complex number as a vector is bad practice. Technically, $$\mathbb{C}$$ is a vector space over itself in a trivial way.  More likely, the authors are considering it as a 2-dimensional vector space over the reals, but that's still not really appropriate notationally.  Anyway, my pedantry aside, if it's a common notation in use in the field, then it's reasonable to use in the article.  If you want to put it back, go ahead (it might be a good idea to link to this talk page section in your edit summary).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @Deacon Vorbis: Thank you for explaining me how to properly send messages in Wikipedia.
 * You're correct. It's true that ⇭⇭⇭ is used as the imaginary used in EE (electrical engineering) so that it's not confused with electric current intensity, which is written as $$i$$. It's also true that representing a complex number as a vector is bad practice since they're not the same; they are a bit similar only if the vector field is 2-dimensional.
 * I have added basically this same talk to the talk page of AC power. You can view it here. I still haven't changed the notation from $$S$$ to $$\mathbf{S}$$ for complex power, but I suggested we should. I also mentioned you. --Alej27 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversed minor edit on Square root page
Hi. At the beginning of the article on square root, the square root of a number $$a$$ is defined as a number $$y$$ such that $$y^2 = a$$; in other words, a number $$y$$ whose square (the result of multiplying the number by itself, or $$y \cdot y$$) is $$a$$. I changed that article by adding right after the definition "That is, $$\sqrt{a} = y \iff y^2 = a$$". Can you explain why that is an incorrect statement, as you said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alej27 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's incorrect because, for example, $$(-3)^2 = 9,$$ but $$\sqrt{9} = 3 \neq -3.$$ See the information in the article about principal square root and notation.  On a side note, it would have been kind of inappropriate to rephrase in such a symbol-heavy way using the \iff arrow; definitions are always "iff"s anyway.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, $$\sqrt{9} = \pm 3$$. While it's true that the principal square root is $$+3$$, it's a bit wrong to say that's the only square root of $$9$$.


 * If we don't use the two roots, it could lead to confusion on roots of equations. For example, $$x^2 = 4 \implies x = \pm \sqrt{4} = \pm 2$$. Anyways, I won't change the page again. This is just a consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alej27 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (Again, please WP:SIGN your talk page posts. Also, you don't have to use  or related on my own talk page since I get notifications of new posts here automatically).  No, √9 is only 3, not &minus;3.  From the very lead of the article:
 * The √ symbol specifically means principal square root. Saying $$\sqrt{9} = \pm 3$$ is incorrect insofar as standard notation is concerned.  A more fully fleshed out line of reasoning above would be: $$x^2 = 4 \implies \sqrt{x^2} = \sqrt{4} \implies |x| = 2 \implies x = \pm 2.$$  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The √ symbol specifically means principal square root. Saying $$\sqrt{9} = \pm 3$$ is incorrect insofar as standard notation is concerned.  A more fully fleshed out line of reasoning above would be: $$x^2 = 4 \implies \sqrt{x^2} = \sqrt{4} \implies |x| = 2 \implies x = \pm 2.$$  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)