User talk:Jacobolus/Archive 2022

Proposed deletion of File:US Flag All Historical.svg


The file File:US Flag All Historical.svg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Smaller version of File:Flag of the United States of America (1795–1818).svg"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 03:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. My bad for tagging that as dupe. However, after looking at the code, it's basically all the files here. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 05:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Jacobolus spectrum.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jacobolus spectrum.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗ plicit  02:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Gudermannian function
Thanks for your efforts on this page! --2607:FEA8:86DC:80E0:21E1:ADE:6B93:28DF (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! –jacobolus (t) 03:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

For your interest
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07353 An earlier discussionSelfstudier (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I moved this to Talk:Hyperboloid model. Hope you don’t mind. –jacobolus (t) 15:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Indenting discussion
On Talk:Flag of the United States you say "My reply was indented just as intended" - what was your intent, because it doesn't seem to make sense? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Example:


 * Comment A – Signature
 * Comment B – Signature
 * Comment C – Signature

Comment C above is replying to comment A, not directly to comment B. –jacobolus (t) 15:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Spin
Hello; You recently made some changes to the Spin disambiguation page. Your changes included etymology related to the words "spin" and "spinning". I do not take lightly undoing edits made by others, so I want to let you know why I did. Disambiguation pages should only include minimal information about the context and usage of words. They are intended to direct readers to the source they are looking for. The etymology of a word should be included in the Wiktionary entry, or an article on the topic, and should include approriate references and sources. One possibility is to include an etymology section in the article Hand spinning. You can find more information about disambiguation pages at Disambiguation. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but you should take the discussion to talk:Spin, not here. –jacobolus (t) 15:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This was meant to be a courtesy notice. Since you have reverted some of the edits I made, I will take the discussion to the talk page as suggested. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Help
Hello user Jacobolus, I'm very sorry, I came with another account, I'm the same account,( AHEJJWILEMAMALIDGED), I came with this account to tell you something, I made two unblocking requests, still no one answered those two requests. What should I do? AHEJJ1356WJDEJDNSGWTG (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm Very excuse me to talk to you on this account, I had to, I hate playing socks. If my problem is solved, I will personally dissolve this account and have nothing to do with this account AHEJJ1356WJDEJDNSGWTG (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) I have blocked the above account for block evasion. -- Kinu t/c 21:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of edits in n-dim ball volume
Hi Jacobulus,

I see you reverted my change to the page _Volume of the n-sphere_, with a hint that the recurrence relation is somewhere below. The intention of the edit was to put the most revealing, most useful, most accessible representation at the start. Before, the closed form with the monstrosity that is the Gamma function was featured -- I'm not sure that's very useful.

What's your take?

(Disclosure: I have a degree in math.) Nschloe (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I switched the order of the two sections after the closed formula. Does that cut it? –jacobolus (t) 19:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. The first recurrence relation should be on the top. It describes the nature of the ball volumes.
 * The closed formula is a derivation of it. It makes matters unnecessarily complicated, highlighted by the fact that one needs to explain what the Gamma function is, for example. Nschloe (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have edited the section again, and added more explanation than last time. I believe the article is more helpful now. Nschloe (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you put discussion at the relevant talk page instead of here. –jacobolus (t) 14:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Original research and Wikipedia
As you may know, Wikipedia requires sources for claims and does not accept original research. Why did you insert unsourced material into the encyclopedia? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a false (or even controversial) claim, nor is it "original research" under any imaginable definition. You shouldn’t remove it without comment or discussion. If you care, please go track down some sources. I didn’t "insert it", I just reverted your unjustified deletion. –jacobolus (t) 16:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jacobolus, no one claimed that it's false. Please re-read my comment. Did you read WP:V? A relevant section here reads (emphasis in original): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." It is not my responsibility to add citations that prove or disprove others' claims. Why are you repeatedly breaking this core content policy? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lazy drive-by deletion of material is a scourge on Wikipedia. See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If you are too lazy to bother or personally incapable of doing the research, please start a discussion. If you want more readers try making a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color –jacobolus (t) 17:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jacobolus, you did not answer my questions. You know that it's your responsibility to provide citations for this material. Are you going to do that or not? The page that you just linked reads: "Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; No original research discusses the need to remove original research". There is nothing lazy about removing misinformation, original theories, and nonsense from the encyclopedia, as it's interspersed with proper, sourced information that is verifiable. Even if it were lazy, as you well know, all information needs to be verifiable and we don't publish original research, and yet, you've re-inserted this material. Why did you do that? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The information in the "dominant wavelength" article is easily verifiable, and does not meet any plausible definition of "original research", but you’re going to have to go hit the books/journals to find clear sources. Wikipedia color science articles are almost uniformly terrible (and most of them are far under-sourced) and I don't personally have time to rewrite them all right now to the standard of a PhD thesis or journal paper, but just blanking them all would also be incredibly counter-productive. If you care, please go do some research or start a discussion. If you spend a week or two on each article I am sure you can bring them up to a high quality standard. –jacobolus (t) 17:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You have again not answered my questions. Did you read WP:V? Why are you repeatedly breaking this core content policy? When are you going to add citations that are your responsibility to add, since you put this information into the encyclopedia? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When are you going to do some useful work instead of making weird whiny demands on my talk page? Please go start a discussion on dominant wavelength or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color, or try doing some research. Here I’ll get you started: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dominant+wavelength –jacobolus (t) 18:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so this confirms that you are not going to read the policy, abide by it, or add the citations that you are obliged to add, it appears. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really want to improve the Wikipedia articles about color science, maybe you can put some effort into recruiting contributions from professional color scientists. The articles that exist on Wikipedia were mostly written 10+ years ago by barely competent amateurs, in an era when Wikipedia was far less full of lazy pedants (and to be fair also had a smaller scale of spam/vandalism/etc.). Most should probably be completely rewritten. But even so, they still provide more than zero value, and deleting them is more disruptive than helpful. –jacobolus (t)
 * I don't appreciate your implicit name-calling or assumption of bad faith. Pleas retract those statements. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your main approach to Wikipedia seems to be “it’s not perfect so let’s burn it down”. I think that kind of destruction is harmful. But I believe you can improve if you try. However, it will take non-trivial effort. Building things is a lot harder work than smashing things. –jacobolus (t) 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are wrong: I can't tell if you're mistaken or lying, but you seem to not care about the difference. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can conclusively prove me wrong by hitting the books yourself and working on dominant wavelength. Let me recommend you start with Schanda (ed.) (2007) Colorimetry or Hunt (2004) The Reproduction of Colour. The most complete technical source remains Wyszecki & Stiles (1982) Color Science. Alternately the Google Scholar search I linked you above should get you plenty of decent sources. Doing this will be straightforward for you, but it will take nontrivial effort on your part, unlike just burning pages to the ground which can be done with a few clicks. –jacobolus (t) 19:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have more time for this today, but here I even flipped you to a relevant page to get you started. https://archive.org/details/0518-pdf-colorimetry/page/65/ –jacobolus (t) 19:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at this resource and it says nothing about my main approach to Wikipedia, which is what I just wrote that you were wrong about. You seem to not pay attention to this conversation and keep on coming back to "well, this section is correct". Please see my first response here: "Jacobolus, no one claimed that it's false". No one is disputing whether or not what was written there is accurate. I am disputing your bad faith assessment of my editing and I asked you to retract your statements about my character, which you seem unwilling to do. Even if you continue to ignore all of the other questions I asked, I would please like you to at least tell me why you think Wikipedia should host unsourced material. You added it in here because you think it's of value and you know for a fact that the onus is on you to provide the citations for it. Why did you do this? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell you cruise around Wikipedia looking for insufficiently sourced sections written many years ago, and then blank them without discussion under the claim that this is "original research", sometimes listing your edits as "minor" or labeling them as unrelated cleanup. First and foremost, unsourced claims and original research are not the same thing, and at best this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about what terms like "original research" and "verifiability" mean. This kind of behavior creates asymmetrical amounts of work for anyone trying to clean up after you. [And often just results in pure destruction, if nobody notices or takes the trouble to fix it later.] Just deleting stuff takes almost no effort, whereas doing the careful research to restore it and meet your apparent criteria takes a significant amount of effort. When called out, you turn to bureaucratic rules lawyering and try to change the subject. The material you deleted is not original research. Nor is it unverifiable. The article was not written / researched to a very high standard, and should by all means be improved, but it is nonetheless much better than a blank page. If you want to make improvements you should try to make improvements. Just drive-by deleting content all over the place is actively harmful, even though I am sure you think you are helping somehow. My basic critique is that you seem unwilling to expend even the most basic effort to try to understand, research, or explain the material you are deleting. Your only interest is (apparently) bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If you are personally incapable of doing the research to improve an article you should bring it up for discussion and try to enlist help, not just blank it out and run away. –jacobolus (t) 22:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I never wrote that it was unverifiable and I also didn't blank the page. You are writing fundamentally untrue or misleading statements repeatedly, for some purpose that I can't fathom. I have asked multiple times and I'll do it again just because I hope that you can be collaborative: why do you think the encyclopedia is better for including unsourced information? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn’t completely delete the article, only more than half of it. –jacobolus (t) 02:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "I have asked multiple times and I'll do it again just because I hope that you can be collaborative: why do you think the encyclopedia is better for including unsourced information?" ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are vast swaths of Wikipedia which are currently unsourced, poorly sourced, misleadingly sourced, sourced based on poor sources, etc. Even so, those are often nonetheless broadly accurate, verifiable, and valuable to readers. Removing them all on that basis is very easy (a few clicks per article) and nominally "fixes" problems by the rules; but it is still a senseless tragedy. If you have time and motivation, please instead go improve those articles by adding material instead. Making careful improvements takes a lot of work (time, energy, emotional investment, ...): learning the basics of the field for context, tracking down sources, reading the sources carefully, cross referencing them, writing prose, linking specific bits of prose to specific sources, editing, drawing figures, collaborating with other authors, and so on. Otherwise, at least try starting productive conversations. If you have specific content concerns, other Wikipedians are likely willing to engage with you. But just blanking large sections of pages without examining them first is destructive. It wastes your time, wastes other editors' time (past and present), and does a grave disservice to readers. –jacobolus (t) 04:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, the material in question is not anything I added. I personally have much higher standards for adding stuff to Wikipedia (partly because I know pedantic rules lawyers are always on the hunt, and it's emotionally easier and much less time consuming in the long run to avoid fights instead of giving them any excuse). I just restored what you blanked out. If I had infinite time I would go rewrite every color science related article on this site, as most of them are pretty terrible. But they are nonetheless better than nothing, even when they are under-sourced, link to crummy sources, perpetuate misconceptions, or even contain inaccuracies. If you hunt for every unsourced claim from Wikipedia, you’ll surely find tens of thousands if not millions of them, including both lots of good information that just happens to not be written to the highest standard (and also plenty of nonsense). Just deleting every unsourced claim impoverishes the overall project of writing an encyclopedia and does a disservice to readers. If you find something that is verifiable but unverified, you can tag it or start a conversation, or (better still) make some effort to verify it yourself. If you find specific claims that you think are complete nonsense or are sure could never be verified you should go ahead and delete them, but that's not what happened here. –jacobolus (t) 22:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that you initially added it, but you seemed to think that it's so great that it must be re-added, making you responsible for citing it, per WP:V. You also seem to refuse to do that. Why do you think inaccurate, misleading, and unsourced material is better than nothing? I think it's clearly actively harmful and it would be better to have no article on a topic than one like this and evidently, so does the community, who have developed WP:V and WP:OR. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not “so great”, but it’s better than nothing. It’s neither “inaccurate” nor “misleading” (and definitely not “actively harmful”), though I agree the text is currently not very clearly sourced, and I am sure it could be elaborated, better organized, and more clearly written (the current style is also sort of chatty and not quite matching typical Wikipedia voice; feel free to rephrase for style or clarity if you want). Did you even bother reading what you deleted? As far as I can tell, you neither (a) know anything in particular about the topic, nor (b) are particularly personally curious about it, nor (c) particularly care whether Wikipedia does a good job explaining it to readers. Your deletion seems to be motivated by bureaucratic rules for their own sake, rather than anything about writing an encyclopedia – if you cared about the latter you could easily either make improvements yourself or ask others for some help. At any rate, you have not demonstrated any of the above, nor made any effort in those directions. You are misconstruing Wikipedia policy and consensus (whether maliciously or through ignorance it is hard to tell). Wikipedia does not have an “all material must be immediately removed until it has been exhaustively sourced line by line” rule. Content that doesn’t belong and must be deleted is that which is unverifiable, not merely currently unverified. (To quote WP:VNT: Verifiability: In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable if it can be directly supported by at least one reliable published source. Verifiability is not determined by whether the material has already been supplied with an inline citation.). Everything in this article is reasonably clear, accurate (albeit a bit informal), and straightforward to verify. Someone can without any doubt come back through and add appropriate citations if they put the effort in. If you truly care about Wikipedia, that someone could be you. Instead you are spending your time and effort making pushy demands (at approximately zero effort on your part) that other volunteers drop whatever else they were doing and spend hours fixing this right now under threat of having useful articles deleted. Such behavior is aggressively hostile to other editors and harmful to the community and the project. But it seems like you aren’t much interested in consensus or collaboration here, so I’m about done with this topic. Please take further specific content comments to talk:dominant wavelength or to Wikiproject color. –jacobolus (t) 02:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions are again all three wrong. Additionally, "your deletion seems to be motivated by bureaucratic rules for their own sake, rather than anything about writing an encyclopedia" is also mistaken: I'm concerned about things like misinformation and its spread online, the subtle effects of learning the wrong thing on the ability to learn the right thing later, the integrity of Wikipedia, etc. Instead of bad faith assumptions about my character, which I have asked you to stop making, you could maybe assume good faith and that what I was motivated by was not something malicious, but something constructive. "Wikipedia does not have an “all material must be immediately removed until it has been exhaustively sourced line by line” rule.": When did I write that it did? I did not ever write this, so it's odd to me that you keep on responding to things that I never wrote, such as when you kept insisting that the deleted passage was accurate and I kept on writing, "Okay, I never disputed that". I am not "making pushy demands (at approximately zero effort on your part) that other volunteers drop whatever else they were doing and spend hours fixing this right now under threat of having useful articles deleted": I am asking you to abide by WP:V which says that the onus is on you. When did I ask for this article to be deleted? I must have forgotten when I proposed that. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which specific part of the text you removed do you consider to be "things like misinformation"? –jacobolus (t) 04:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question, so I am not answering yours. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nerd271 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hsl-hsv-examples
Template:Hsl-hsv-examples has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Abusive spacing around display formulas
Hi, re your revert of today, in case you wish to see the point of the abuse charged, note the math MOS lack of spacing in Manual of Style/Mathematics. Surely the manual is not intended to proffer the bad example. This is how embedded formulas are meant to render in mainstream platforms; I cannot vouch for cell-phones. With extra lines, the cornerstone principle of math typesetting "math is text" is completely subverted and the formal discussion is forced to stumble. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Move on
Unless you're interested in finding yourself blocked for disruptive editing, I suggest you get that chip off your shoulder and move on. Consensus was not on your side and the template was deleted. Move on. ✗ plicit  07:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am on the point of reporting you and all of your friends to the wider Wikipedia community. This is a total farce. There was NO CONCENSUS the discussion, and you are dramatically abusing whatever authority you have. Why don't you move on. Neither you nor your friends have ever before had any interest (as author, editor, reader, ...) in this article and template, nor will you ever have any interest in it in the future. –jacobolus (t) 07:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Hsl-hsv-examples


A tag has been placed on Template:Hsl-hsv-examples requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Templates for discussion/Log/2022 September 26. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Do not restore templates deleted in TFD without resolving the issues discussed. It is long standing practice to delete templates used in only one article. Just because you disagree with the TFD outcome does not mean it was abusive as you have been saying in edit summaries. Repeatedly recreating it is disruptive. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * THERE WERE NO ISSUES DISCUSSED. You and your small cabal of busybodies deleted this template for literally no reason, without making any argument in favor of it. –jacobolus (t) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were discussed. The issue was that it was used only in one article. Templates are used to prevent duplication of content in multiple articles. If it is of use only in one article, it does not provide any benifit to host it in template namespace. Take a look at TFD archives and you will see lots of single use templates being deleted. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Templates are a generic feature of the Mediawiki software which allows content from one page to be transcluded into another. One possible use of templates is to de-duplicate markup repeated across many pages. But another (equally valid) use of templates is to move a giant block of illegible markup (not of text content) out of the main article page so that it can be maintained more easily separately without burdening authors/editors of the main page with constantly examining it. There is absolutely nothing against this use of templates among Wikipedia policies. it does not provide any benifit To the contrary, it provides tremendous benefit, which I explained (and which were not disputed in this alleged “discussion”). –jacobolus (t) 07:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. ✗ plicit  07:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jacobolus,
 * If you disagree with an WP:TFD decision, the appropriate action is not to edit war your version (which has resulted in you being blocked) but putting forth an case at Deletion review where you can argue why you believe the deletion discussion was closed improperly. Consider taking this route when your block is over instead of launching personal attacks and edit-warring. Use the processes available to handle disputes just like this one. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Grayscale
Template:Grayscale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)