User talk:JayBeeEll

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

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

History of combinatorics
I noticed you like Combinatorics. I feel recent changes to History of combinatorics are pretty ridiculous. I thought you might consider working on that article. Thanks, Mhym (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, you mean this edit from a couple days ago? I will try to find time to look it over.  All the best, JBL (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. See e.g. the last sentence.  I seriously doubt that Stanley's impact is in Matroid Theory "and more".  Mhym (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Spring break is just starting, I will sit down and take a good hard look.  (The diff is too complicated to read at a glance, which is my usual editing approach.) --JBL (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * oh it's really oddly focused on poset theory, isn't it? (Like, I'm happy to see Rota and Stanley get mentnioned, but no graph theory or Erdos?  No connections to algebra or other fields?  Very odd.)  Well, I've started with the ancient stuff, but I'll definitely get to the contemporary section eventually and try to do something more comprehensive with that.  --JBL (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of disambiguation pages
You stated. Hyperbole aside, this is not correct.

Per MOS:DABMENTION:

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, 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  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.
 * Apologies for my mistake. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough :). Thanks for fixing it!  Happy editing, JBL (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

IPC
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 (, etc.) to built up proper citations for them, though. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note to future self, in case I should care: this was about and .  --JBL (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

 * Thanks so much for the medal and for your patience and help throughout the process! --JBL (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Affine symmetric group

 * Congratulations! Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 😁 --JBL (talk) 19:10, 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)


 * Dear, thank you very much! --JBL (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - More pics, and today's story is on a birthday, and the real DYK was already on that birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Combinatorial Theory (journal)


The article Combinatorial Theory (journal) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note to future self: . --JBL (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

TheAlienMan2002
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)
 * 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  and everyone else who has been quite clear about the problems and the possible consequences).  --JBL (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My optimism was not validated by subsequent events . --JBL (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Musical key edits
I know bupkis about music; do these recent edits make sense? Last two edits here, last four edits here,. Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:03, 3 November 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)
 * It can stay there, of practically no use in music, so fine at the end of almost whatever article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! All the best, JBL (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Binomial theorem for floor and ceiling functions
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)


 * You're welcome. --JBL (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

0
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&#39;easter (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks -- I'll see what I can do! --JBL (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Help needed regarding Whitespaces
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)


 * 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)
 * Some great guidance, thanking you again :) Billjones94 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Supersolvable lattice
Happy holidays JayBeeEll! I've taken advantage of the mental space given by a few days off to write Draft:Supersolvable lattice. This is my first article on mathematics. You have a lot more experience with such articles, and I'm also pretty sure that you've encountered the definition, though possibly only in passing. Would you be willing to glance through and assess whether you think it's ready for mainspace? Disclosing that I cite my own work in a minor way in one place (for I think good reasons). Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, cool! I personally am very comfortable with the level of self-citation there.  There's something wrong with some of your references -- when I mouse over/click on the harvtxt link, it should highlight/jump to the corresponding bibliography entry.  Maybe you need to give all authors for the harvtxt template to find the right thing, not just the first?  I have only looked superficially so far (packing for holiday travel) but I don't see any reason not to move it in to main-space.  I will look more closely within the next week (but I think it would be fine if you moved it to main-space before then).  Happy holidays!  --JBL (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking a look, and especially for noticing the trouble with harvtxt. I hadn't used that before, and misread the documentation.  Anyway, fixed this, cleaned up a few other things, and moved to mainspace!  Thanks again. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Russ,
 * Ok I looked a little closer, and really that's a great new math article. I see you've done a good job de-orphaning it, and given it the most reasonable category.  I made a few minor edits.  Here are a couple of additional comments:
 * In the section Motivation (about which, by the way, I wish more math articles had), the reference to Stanley is functioning as a primary source; is there a secondary source that could be used to augment it (maybe one of the other references already present?).
 * Is it normal to put the "EL" in "EL-labeling" in math mode, as in the section Properties?
 * Is there a reasonable way to give the EL-labeling characterization within the context of this article? (Maybe not, because it requires giving a full exposition of EL-labelings?)
 * Merry Christmas,
 * JBL (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi JBL. Thanks again for reading.  Apologies for taking a minute to get back: I'm slower over the holidays than I expected, and I needed to think about the Motivation section.  I am actually unsure if I am engaging in WP:SYNTH in that section, although it is minor if I am.  Stanley says not much more "this explains our terminology‚ 'supersolvable 1attice'" (well, a tiny bit more at the front of the article), Stern says something similar in his book.  But the maximal modular chain connection is pretty clear.
 * Anyway: in motivation, I added a citation to Stern. I also described a litte more of the connection with subgroup lattices.  (Here too, the motivation for Dedekind to introduce modular lattices apparently was to generalize behavior he'd observed in abelian/Hamiltonian groups; finding a reliable source that says this straightforwardly is surprisingly difficult.)  As far as the rest, I briefly described the edge labeling, and unitalicized EL (I think I've seen it both ways, but maybe it's just me that usually italicized).
 * It would be good to expand this modestly. It would also be good to describe the fiber type arrangement stuff of Terao.  I'm less familiar with this last aspect of the theory.  Thanks again!  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary, to be sure -- obviously between the two of us you're the more responsive one to messages :). It is perpetually frustrating how infrequently people write down sentences explaining the motivation that is widely understood by experts -- I think your attempt to extract what can be said is great.  Thanks again for this nice article!  --JBL (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello JayBeeEll: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  04:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  04:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Season's greetings, and may you have a happy new year!  --JBL (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
 ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello JayBeeEll: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;and  winter solstice  if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC) ''

Good article reassessment for E (mathematical constant)
E (mathematical constant) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JayBeeEll!


Happy New Year! JayBeeEll, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, -- best wishes to you, as well.  --JBL (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient conversation on the noticeboard :)
I got bit a few times by more experienced people (partially probably justified, partially probably not), so I really appreciate the extra patience you and a few others showed me on the noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! It looked to me you were asking good questions and approaching things in a thoughtful way, so it was pleasant to chat with you.  Happy editing!  JBL (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it was very pleasant for me too! Happy editing to you as well :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Thanks very much! --JBL (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Permutation matrices
Regarding one of your last edits in the permutation matrices article: I think the way that the introduction is written is somewhat misleading in the current state. While you are right that it is true that a permutation matrix multiplied from the left permutes the rows, i.e., $PM$ and from the left the columns $MP$, for the same permutation matrix $P$, this would lead to inconsistent permutations, because if $P$ multiplied from the right leads to a permutation according to, e.g., $1->2->3->1$, permutations with $P$ from the left lead to $1->3->2->1$. That's why I agree with the previous edit transposing the permutation matrix. I'm quite new here, so I am not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, I just think it would help intuitive understanding of the article. J-s-schmidt1 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. The best place to discuss changes to a single article is on the article talk-page (so in this case at Talk:Permutation matrix), so that anyone who edits the page can participate; is it ok with you if I copy your message over there to respond?  --JBL (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @JayBeeEll, yes of course moving my message is alright, thank you for your answer! JS J-s-schmidt1 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I have copied your comment and responded over there. --JBL (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

George B. Purdy
Source - email with archivist Sally Johnson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Hello Michael,

Thank you for reaching out to the University Archives at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign! I understand you're interested in determining if George B. Purdy acknowledged Paul Erdős in his thesis.

I have been able to confirm that this is the case--in the acknowledgments section of Some Extremal Problems in Geometry and the Theory of Numbers, Erdős is the second person listed overall, only after Paul T. Bateman. The acknowledgment states: 'I also wish to thank Professor Paul Erdős for introducing me to extremal problems in geometry and for suggesting the problem solved in Chapter III' (p. 5).

I hope this information is helpful! Please feel free to reach out with any other questions. Thank you for contacting the University Archives!

Sincerely,

Sally Johnson" Turtlens (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, and? My revert has nothing to do with the underlying truth of the proposition "Purdy acknowledged Erdos in his thesis".  If you'd like to continue this discussion (such as it is), please do so at the article's talk-page, not here. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just hit preview
I didn't want to clutter up a cluttered thread with this comment, especially since I don't know that it even applies. But the remark is a pet peeve of mine so I am just letting you know that depending on the platform, the preview button may not work and on mobile or mobile desktop it is certainly not reliable. Just an fyi. Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Good to know, thanks! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A request for clarification
In this edit you gave no explanation at all for restoring an edit which I had reverted, with an explanation. Can you explain your reason? I'm sure an editor with your amount of editing experience must be acquainted with WP:BRD. JBW (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, my apologies -- I could have sworn I wrote a descriptive edit summary, but obviously I screwed up somehow. Briefly, I reverted for three reasons: (1) your edit summary suggests that the substitution "contradictory" -> "false" was recent, but that's wrong: "false" has been in the article for years, it was changed recently and was swiftly reverted (not by me).  (2) "Contradictory" is a relative term; a result can't be "contradictory" all by itself, it needs to be in contradiction with something else.  So I don't think the sentence works as you left it.  (3) I am not impressed with the idea that it is somehow improper to write, "The statement that the complex number 1 is equal to the complex number -1 is false" -- indeed I think the sentence I've put in quotes is more or less universally understood, correct, and uncotroversial.  If you'd like to discuss this further, may I suggest that we continue on the article talk-page, rather than here?  --JBL (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just saw the note on your talk-page; best wishes for a swift recovery! --JBL (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thanks for your good wishes. Secondly, thanks for your answer to my question. I don't really see any need to discuss it further. I am perhaps to blame for not checking the editing history and seeing that I was restoring a recent change, not a long-standing version. More importantly, though, having thought further about the matter, I have decided that the version you restored is more likely to be helpful to a typical reader than the other, whichever might be considered more justifiable in terms of mathematical formalism. JBW (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, in relation to your remark 'a result can't be "contradictory" all by itself, it needs to be in contradiction with something else', I read 'contradictory results" (plural) as meaning "results which contradict one another", not "results each of which by itself is contradictory", which would of course have been nonsense. JBW (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong
Please explain why you reverted my edit on Sarah Jeong. Are you seriously suggesting the omission of any of her tweets which garnered significant controversy? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You have (sensibly) opened a discussion on the article's talk-page; it was silly to open a parallel discussion here, as we can discuss it there. But you should begin by reading the extensive past discussion of this question in the archives there.  --JBL (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have looked at nothing more than tangential discussions from more 6 years ago. I am only asking you to elaborate, beyond just "it's not consensus". Zilch-nada (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WCM email 17:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for your advice. I've now presented as much evidence as I could scrape up. Hopefully a checkuser will now see the evidence and block the sock. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like it worked! --JBL (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure did, and Ed gave me the green light to add a block notice on the sock's talk page (though sadly, I'm sure they'll sock once more to the point where it becomes a "here we go again" moment). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ordered field
Hmm, the importance of the two choices of sign is that these are the only ways to define an ordering on $$\mathbb R((x))$$ (or, more generally, to extend an ordering of an ordered base field to the Laurent series field); maybe that could be noted there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. I will take your word for it that these are the only two ordered field structures on $$\R((x))$$ (it is not obvious to me, but I haven't thought about it very hard).  That seems to me like a reasonably interesting fact about the ring of formal Laurent series; indeed sufficiently interesting that, if you have a citation for it (because it's well beyond WP:CALC), I would strongly encourange you to add it to the article formal Laurent series.  The place that you did add it is a list of examples of ordered fields.  Generally, the purpose of such an "Examples" section is to quickly introduce readers to important examples; in my opinion, this is undermined by adding too much information about the individual examples.  (If you wanted this grounded in Wikipedia content policies, the one that seems most relevant to me is WP:DUE.)  If you still disagree, I suggest bringing the issue to the article talk-page, and perhaps adding a notification at WT:WPM, to get some additional opinions.  All the best, JBL (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Undone revision 1217137608 from Eight queens puzzle on 2024-04-04
I'd like to apologize for my incorrect correction. I mistakenly interpreted the n^k mentioned to mean width n and dimension k. I looked up the paper cited, and I understand it correctly now. I will try to be more careful with my corrections going forward. Thank you for correctly correcting me.

--Viliam Furík (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. No apology needed, I'm sure!  The sentence there is really not very clear, it's not surprising to me that someone could be confused by it.  Unfortunately I haven't had a chance in the last few days to think about how to write it more clearly.  Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Featured article review for 0.999...
I have nominated 0.999... for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

summary
could i ask your help updating the summary here Tonymetz 💬  23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, that discussion ended and was archived two weeks ago; no one viewing it in the future is going to be confused about whether it ended with any clear conclusion (beyond the warning you received from Bishonen). If it were still on the front page WP:ANI, I might consider adding a closing statement (because it would sit around for a day or two and other editors would have the opportunity to object), but I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to add a closing statement long after a discussion has been archived and receded from view.  (I mean you could restore the whole discussion to WP:ANI on the grounds that it never reached much of a conclusion -- but that seems like a terrible idea.)  I hope these comments are helpful, even if they are not what you requested.  Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern is that a long serpentine ANI thread will be perceived as a blemished reputation. In the end no action was taken.  The warning was given prior to ANI Tonymetz  💬  01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your reputation (not a real thing btw) will survive. If you simply cannot abide with this discussion having been archived without a closure statement, you can restore the whole discussion to WP:ANI and request that; but that seems like an incredibly bad idea for several reasons, and will be most likely to result in drawing negative attention to yourself.  FWIW, any uninvolved party closing the discussion will certainly include in their closure statement that you were warned by Bishonen, as that fact is a prominent feature of the discussion.  --JBL (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * that's my point. but anyway, thanks for helping come up with options. I agree that's not practical. Tonymetz 💬  18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you as ever for the kind reminder! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding No consensus on UAW RFC. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Elissa Slotkin".The discussion is about the topic UAW Strike Quote. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

andrew.robbins (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back from break
Discussions are as fun as ever. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


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

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


 * The WP:RSN thread is about the reliability of the TimesNowNews source; your comment did not address that question at all, instead you continued an argument from elsewhere about the Western Standard.
 * Is English your native language? (I ask because you seem to have some difficulty communicating clearly.) --JBL (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)