User talk:JayBeeEll/Archives/2016/

Evidence vs. sarcasm
You may have noticed that MastCell and I, who have diametrically opposed viewpoints on the question that led to the discussion, were having a perfectly straightforward discussion, in which each of us pointed to certain evidence, and the other responded, actually processing what the other said, addressing said evidence in a straightforward way. That can be a difficult thing to achieve when talking with someone who does not agree, yet the two of us had done it. If you choose to join the discussion, I would appreciate it if you would do so in the same spirit. CometEncke (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are certainly free to ignore my comments if you do not find them constructive. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

why revert ?
Euler's identity on E (mathematical constant) Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because articles are written in complete sentences, which themselves are written in paragraphs, not by dropping random statements wherever one wants at random. --JBL (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything to do with AGF
Can you please explain your rationale for your hatting here? I don't think I've seen you around the ref desks before. I think the question is perfectly valid; do you agree?

I've reinstated the question. If you think it needs to be removed, please follow WP:BRD, and seek consensus on the talk page before taking further action. My position is 1) the question itself is fine, and violates none of our guidelines. It is in fact somewhat common, as you may have experienced, though good answers are not always readily apparent, especially to people who haven't yet learned how to find good references 2) several users found it interesting enough to provide good answers. 3) I follow WP:AGF. 4) The question is not causing any disruption. If you have hatted it because the IP is from Ohio, then I ask you to please explain how that justifies hatting. We cannot disallow any posts from any IPs from Ohio, that is absurd. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with SemanticMantis. The question looks fine to me. Is there any reason to think that the IP user is not asking the question in good faith ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * please see the discussion here. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks JBL, I was not aware of that thread. My position remains unchanged. Just because one user thinks a post needs to be removed doesn't make it so. We are supposed to operate by consensus here at WP. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine but I suggest you have this discussion with Fut.P. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding
You have been reported for Wikihounding.Aspencork (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to make sure you're aware of my answer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.185.60.38#Fermat.27s_little_theorem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.60.38 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural density, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interval. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Tulsi Gabbard
The edit to Tulsi Gabbard's Early life and education I made is supported by the citation which is http://www.mikegabbard.com/content/about-mike-gabbard Not sure why you said it is not supported.

Here's excerpts from the citation that support my edit: "Mike, one of eight children, was born in 1948 in Fagatogo, American Samoa. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen at one year old."

"Carol was born in Decatur, Indiana to American parents but grew up in Michigan. " Rajo89 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sorry about that -- I because confused while reading the diff, and you are right that my edit summary is wrong.  I would like to suggest that nevertheless this information should be removed -- it's basically trivia with no significance to T. Gabbard directly.  If the point is that she is an American citizen by birth, then you should find a source that says so directly.  --JBL (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
If a sphere is 20/1000 of a mm in diameter and its container is 5cm, what is the maximum number of spheres possible?

Now work this problem another way, what is the total radius of 500,000 of said spheres?

Now, another math equation to compare this to is 20/1000 of a mm in diameters in a row, 3√500,000 on width, hight, length. Do you find my quandary(questioning)?

Use the equation (4/3)πr3 in question number 2, which may omit the negative spaces but will illuminate what I have found in relation to question number 3. Find the volume of 500,000 spheres and then the radius of such a containment space (in which the volume has remained the same while shape may have become ambiguous, i.e. altering the shape of a water ballon does not change its containing volume without compression.).

This all started due to potentially centuries old data on ovary cell count for oocytes(egg cells) which I am trying to refute. The opposing party gave question number three as his explanation of containing such a number (in acuality speaking on the proposed one million oocytes at birth, I broke it down to half of that given I could find the size of a singular ADULT ovarian fossa(space) as 5cm and an adult ovary at approximately 4cm x 2cm x 3cm. Using 5cm to give "the benefit of the doubt", a phrase we have where I am originally from in America.), I however give questions 1, 2, or "4" to refute this data. In doing such I find a delima in the difference between 20/1000 mm diameter in a cube like section of 100x100x100 (relating to the total number given of one million oocytes) and the actual radius using volume and then the reversal of the volume equation leading to radius. (Crlinformative (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC))


 * "The opposing party gave question 3 as his explanation...." This seems unlikely to me.  What seems more likely is that someone made a calculation in order to answer a question, and for some reason you do not find it satisfactory.  What I want to know is, (1) what was the question? (2) what was the calculation? and (3) what about it do you find unsatisfactory? --JBL (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The question posed by me is how is it possible for one million oocytes to fit in an infantile ovary? His response to explain it, after I did my mathmatical calculations, was that 20μm x 100 is 2,000μm and 100x100x100 is 1,000,000. A variation of what I have typed as I devided the number of cells by 2 to give the per ovary count; I have the measurements of one adult ovary and my mathematical calculations leans that even an adult ovary cannot contain that amount. What I find to be a mathematical debacle is how 20μm x 100 is 2,000μm and with 1003 equaling 1e6 it lends an area with sides measuring at 2mm while of you calculate volume based off the diameter of the cell and then work backwards to obtain a minimum required radius to contain these cells you obtain vastly different values. Do the math real quick and you will see what I mean. In the first question consider the container a sphere as it's actually an ambiguous shape. I will post to you my mathematical calculations for you to compare your math to mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 02:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks, this is helpful and I am closer to grasping what's going on.  In order to make sure I understand correctly, may I rephrase the argument you're objecting to?  I think it is something like this:

An oocyte is a cell, which we may think of roughly as a sphere of diameter 20μm. Therefore, a container that is roughly a sphere of diameter 2mm = 2000μm = 100 × 20μm should be able to contain on the order of 100 × 100 × 100 = 1,000,000 oocytes.
 * Have I correctly characterized the argument? (Obviously I am ignoring some of the details you mention in which you make your calculations conservative (what you call giving the benefit of the doubt) -- this is good practice on your part, but maybe we can set it aside on the first pass through and worry about it later.)
 * Assuming I've got the idea right: I'm afraid I am still not sure what the alternate calculation is that you've done that you believe is in conflict with this one. Would you be willing to share it, as well?  --JBL (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have. The problem was solved on talk. I will have to find another way of disproving that the infantile ovaries contain 1,000,000 primordial follicles or that the embryo contains 4 to 7,000,000 of them. 20μm isn't the size of primordial follicles anyways, it is the size of the oocyte stage located within each primordial follicle. They are actually 30-50μm in size according to reports. The only data I can find supporting this cell count is "books say so" and hand drawn images of size relation. Growing up in America you learn to question mainstream accepted information before you accept what you are told as true information. Anyone can right a book with a degree and who determines what is right or wrong in it, but the book writers themselves. I have yet to be led to the actual RS that yields these cell counts or data. If you still want to look at practical application math you can look at this version of the information: " [image shows] a secondary follicle with an approximate diameter of 0.2mm. That is 1/100 of the 2cm length in 4cm x 3cm x 2cm given as ovary size here on the page on ovary. This is less than ten times larger than size of a primordial follicle at 0.03mm. For the simplification of math lets say that the primordial follicle was even smaller being .02mm. That would make it 1/1,000 of the lesser length in the size of an adult ovary. That gives you the dimensions of 2/1,000 x 1.5/1,000 x 1/1,000 of an ovary as the size of a primordial follicle. This yields the possibility of less than 3,000 total primordial follicles(being that they are actually .03 - .05mm in diameter) in an adult ovary if it contained solely primordial follicles." If you look at the reference given on folliculogenesis after reporting the commonly accepted values it later in the article describes the peak age follicle count at 300,000 instead of 4,000,000 which it is used as a reference for in our wiki mainstream information flow. This is all very important to both mathematics applied to life situations or if you know anyone with a female child that is expected to grow up with accurate information. It isn't original research, just looking into the given references themselves and checking the facts with mathematics. Both of which a mathematician may find delightful to the mind.(Crlinformative (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Hi Crlinformative,
 * I'm glad your question has been satisfactorily resolved. I am afraid that, to the extent that you are still unhappy with the situation, I am not going to be of much help: I have neither any relevant expertise nor a lot of personal interest in the underlying question.  Sorry.
 * All the best,
 * JBL (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Iverson Bracket
Hi. You reverted my changes to the floor and ceiling functions by re-introducting the explicit ranges for the sums (-infinity to infinity), instead of a simple n. However, if you look at Concrete Mathematics and especially Knuth's 1992 paper Two Notes on Notation, he extolls the advantages of NOT specifying explicit ranges. As well, the second example in the "Uses" section follows the convention of NOT specifying the index range. I propose to revert your revert, and using just the simple n as the index. Roger Hui (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * Knuth is a person with many opinions, and that fact that he asserts X does not necessarily mean that X is or should be so. The Iverson bracket article, not being part of a text written by Knuth, does not generally adhere to Knuthian conventions or guidelines (can you imagine what he would say about the mixing of fonts that goes on in most math articles in Wikipedia?).  Readers in general cannot be expected to know that an article is going to follow an un-mentioned and non-standard convention.  Meanwhile, including the range of summation gives an unambiguous interpretation for any reader who is familiar with sigma summation notation, regardless of whether they have been exposed to Knuthian conventions.  For these reasons, I do not agree that removing the summation range is an improvement.  On the other hand, I would not object to including that information in some other form, e.g., in text following the sums rather than in formulas.  You are of course welcome to solicit other opinions on the article talk page.
 * Best, JBL (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I will think about how best to re-introduce the simpler form.
 * Of course, Knuth is just one person, but his opinion on this matter does carry more weight, I feel: (a) Knuth originated the term "Iverson bracket", and popularized the use of the technique; (b) Concrete Mathematics is co-authored by Ronald Graham, another eminent mathematician; (c) Two Notes on Notation didn't just say by fiat that simpler bounds are better, but presented examples and arguments in favor. Simpler index bounds are one of the things by Iverson Brackets lead to "substantial improvements in exposition and technique".  Iverson Brackets themselves are "Knuthian" and "non-standard"; NOT using the simpler index bounds negates much of Iverson Brackets.

$$ \lfloor x \rfloor = \sum_{n = -\infty}^\infty n\cdot [n \le x < n+1]$$  versus   $$ \lfloor x \rfloor = \sum_{n} n\cdot [n \le x < n+1]$$ Roger Hui (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your question
Hello Joel B.,

Regarding your question about why I reverted those edits; though Farsi and Western Persian are "the same" it should be mentioned that Western Persian is alternatively used as designation apart from Farsi. The IP removed this alternate designation. Furthermore, it should be stipulated that Dari and Tajiki are viewed as dialects, varieties and/or offshoots, and are not merely "almost the same thing" of one continuum. The same goes for Western Persian. I believe the revision prior to the IP's edits presented these points more appropriately.

Btw, one more thing; there's clearly some socking going on here, given that Sharaqw1 reinstated virtually the exact same edit that was made by the IP some hours later, as well as on the Dari language page.-. Anyway that's all. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Tendentious editing for sure. Ogress 23:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi &, thanks for your comments.  I have no substantive position on the questions raised here, and I agree about the dubious behavior of the other editor.  However, I can't help but find the construction "The Dari language or Dari" extremely odd -- no one would ever write "the French language or French".  And if the odd wording is supposed to be drawing a meaningful distinction then I'm afraid it is not actually clear in the text.  The same holds (maybe to a lesser degree) for "the Tajik language or Tajiki."  Is there some way to rewrite or clarify that avoids these constructions?  (I have no problem with the restored "Western Persian or Farsi."). Thanks, JBL (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We should take this to talk; I commented here. The T.E. messed it up again. I set it as "WP or Farsi ... Dari ... Tajiki", and hopefully that's acceptable. I wanted to comment that Tajik language and Tajiki are actually different names; you can say "Tajiki" but saying "Tajik" alone is like saying "speak Arab", you have to either add the ezafe or a term like "language" after it. Likely Dari was doubled as a parallelism to match the other two dialect names, but I think we should dispense with them except for "WP or 'Farsi'". Ogress 03:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Persian language
I reverted your edits only because I wanted to revert the entire mess back to an earlier version, not because I disagreed with you. Edit: Also, I just saw a previous post that sums up my reversion just now: it's tendentious editing for sure. Ogress 23:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding John Coleman (news weathercaster)
Hi Joel~

Thanks for the revert -- it was my opinion. How else would you suggest modifying the comment, because as it stands, it appears to unfairly target Coleman.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the message. To be honest, I am pretty comfortable with the sentence as it stands: Coleman's views on this subject are fringe, at odds with the scientific community, and the sentence captures this accurately.  If anything, it's a bit soft: we don't, for example, include a (true) statement that Coleman's claims (in the previous sentence) are false, and the criticism is attributed to "critics" rather than in WP's voice.  If you want to try other options out, I'd be happy to look at them, of course.  Or you could try raising this question on the article talk page to see what other people think. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

They reported us as sockpuppets
LOL, the UBF self promotion team reported both of us as sockpuppets... lame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bkarcher Bkarcher (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * :) -JBL (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Minneapolis
I removed that sentence from the climate section of the article because it constitutes a personal analysis of Minneapolis's climate. I personally disagree that Minneapolis's summers are warm (warm to me begins at 85 F), and 54 in of annual snowfall is hardly that snowy, at least in my opinion. Without a source stating that X or Y climatologist considers the climate objectively to be the subjective words currently in the article, it boils down to an opinion and, based on my understanding of Wikipedia's own policy on opinions, it should be removed.

Thank you,

YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 10:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I don't feel very strongly about this and I think it makes more sense to discuss it on the article talk page, so I put a short note there to see what other people think. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Analyzing the multiple choice test


You kindly provided the formulas
 * $$\sum_{x=0}^y 2^x\binom {n-x}{n-y}

=\binom n{n-y}{_2}F_1(1,-y;-n;2)$$
 * $$\sum_{x=0}^y x2^x \binom {n-x}{n-y}

=2\binom {n-1}{n-y}{_2}F_1(2,1-y;1-n;2)$$
 * $$\sum_{x=0}^y x^2 2^x\binom {n-x}{n-y}

=2\binom {n-1}{n-y}{_3}F_2(2,2,1-y;1,1-n;2)$$ They are valid for $$0\le y <n$$ but not for $$y=n$$. Can you please help me understand what is going on? Thanks! Bo Jacoby (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC).
 * , I have read your message and will look into it, but it may take a couple of days due to real life busyness. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your patience. Yes, you are right, there is an issue: the hypergeometric expressions are infinite series, but putting the negative integer -y as one of the top indices adds a factor of $$(-y)_k = (-y)(1 - y) \cdots (k - 1 - y)$$ and causes the sum to truncate after only finitely many terms.  Usually.  The problem is that when y = n, there is also a factor of $$(-n)_k = (-y)_k$$ in the denominator, these two cancel, and so we don't get the needed truncation.  For the first two (the 2F1s), we can use a Pfaff transformation to rewrite $${_2}F_1(1, -y; -n; 2) = (-1)^y {_2}F_1(-n - 1, -y; -n; 2)$$ and something similar in the other case, and I believe these should behave correctly in the desired parameter range (let me know if this is wrong!).  I will have to look around more to find a transformation that will fix the third one.  --JBL (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC).


 * here's the last one. Probably we don't need to go to higher hypergeometric functions if we're willing to take sums.  In this case, we can write $$x^2 = (x + 2)(x + 1) - 3(x + 1) + 1$$ to write your series as
 * $$ \begin{align} \sum_{x=0}^y x^2 2^x\binom {n-x}{n-y} & = \binom{n}{n - y} \sum_x \frac{(-y)_x \cdot ((x + 2)! - 3(x + 1)! + x!)}{(-n)_x \cdot x!} 2^x \\

& = \binom{n}{n - y}\sum_x \frac{(-y)_x \cdot (2 \cdot (3)_x - 3\cdot (2)_x + (1)_x)}{(-n)_x \cdot x!} 2^x \\ & = \binom{n}{n - y} \cdot \left(2 \cdot {_2}F_1(3,-y;-n;2) - 3 \cdot {_2}F_1(2,-y;-n;2) + {_2}F_1(1,-y;-n;2)\right) \end{align} $$
 * and then we can use the Pfaff transformation to write each of the three things on the right side as terminating series. (I don't know of a way to do it as a single series, but I'm not particularly expert in hypergeometric manipulations.) --JBL (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again! Bo Jacoby (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Following your computation.
 * $$\begin{align}\sum_{x=0}^y x^2 2^x\binom{n-x}{n-y}

&=\sum_x\frac{(x+2)!-3(x+1)!+x!}{x!}2^x\binom{n}{n-y}\frac{(-y)_x }{(-n)_x}\\&=\binom{n}{n-y}\sum_x(2(3)_x-3(2)_x+(1)_x)\frac{(-y)_x}{(-n)_x}\frac{2^x}{x!}\\&=\binom{n}{y}\left(2\sum_x\frac{(3)_x(-y)_x }{(-n)_x}\frac{2^x}{x!}-3\sum_x \frac{(2)_x(-y)_x}{(-n)_x} \frac{2^x}{x!}+\sum_x\frac{(1)_x(-y)_x}{(-n)_x}\frac{2^x}{x!}\right)\\&=\binom{n}{y}\left(2 F(3,-y;-n;2)-3 F(2,-y;-n;2)+F(1,-y;-n;2)\right)\end{align}$$ Bo Jacoby (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC).
 * $$\begin{align}

M_Q &= \sum_{x=0}^y \binom{x+Q}{Q} 2^x\binom{n-x}{n-y} \\&= \sum_x\frac{(x+Q)!}{x!Q!}2^x\binom{n}{n-y}\frac{(-y)_x }{(-n)_x}\\&= \binom{n}{y}\sum_x\frac{(Q+1)_x(-y)_x }{(-n)_x}\frac{2^x}{x!}\\&= \binom{n}{y} F(Q+1,-y;-n;2)\end{align}$$ for Q=0,1,2. Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Yes, that looks right to me. --JBL (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Brute force calculation of MQ for Q=0,1,2 and y= 1,2,...,10 and n=10: +/"2 Q+ .*(2^i)*|:(!/~)|.i[Q=.Q!(Q=.i.3)+/i=.i.1+n=.10 1 12 67 232  562 1024  1486  1816  1981  2036   2047 1 14  93 392 1186 2772  5282  8584 12381 16398  20481 1 16 123 608 2186 6144 14198 28064 49029 77808 114687 Hypergeometric, for Q=1,2,3 and y=9 and n=10.   (9!10)*(1 _9 H. _10)2 2036   (9!10)*(2 _9 H. _10)2 16398   (9!10)*(3 _9 H. _10)2 77808 These results are correct. But the formula doesn't work for y=n. A work-around is n=10.000001, for Q=1,2,3 and y=10.   (1 _10 H. _10.000001)2 2047   (2 _10 H. _10.000001)2 20481   (3 _10 H. _10.000001)2 114687 Bo Jacoby (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC).
 * it's the same issue as before: use Pfaff to change parameters and I think it should be ok. --JBL (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The transformation
 * $${}_{2}F_{1}(a,b;c;z)=(1-z)^{c-a-b}{}_{2}F_{1}(c-a,c-b;c;z).$$

gives
 * $${}_{2}F_{1}(1,-10;-10;2)=-{}_{2}F_{1}(-11,0;-10;2)=-1 $$

which is not 2047.

The number of knowns answers is estimated by
 * $$x\approx \frac{M_1}{M_0}-1

\pm\sqrt{\frac{M_1}{M_0}(2\frac{M_2}{M_1} -\frac{M_1}{M_0}-1)} $$  H2=.4 :'x H.y 2' ms=.[:(([:<:{.),:[:%:{.*([:+:{:)-[:>:{.)2%~/\(1 2 3,&>/[:-[)H2"1[:-1e_7+]  3":(i.11) ([,ms) 10 0 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10  0  0  0  1  1  2  3  4  5  7  9  0  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  1 If you answered 8 out of 10 questions correctly then you knew 5±2 of the answers, the others being lucky guesses.

Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC).

Parity of a permutation
Please carefully read the section that you are changing again. The "size" of a n-cycle is clearly defined as n-1, not n. If you think this is awkward terminology, I agree, but I didn't write this part. Someone else did. The only reason I altered it is because the variables r, s, t were not defined in the original version. All I did was to rename them to $$k_i$$ and define them rigorously.

You can check this yourself by comparing my latest revision to the latest revision before I edited the article.

Secondly, the reason I removed the part about computing the parity of a permutation via the determinant of a permutation matrix is that matrix determinants are ***defined*** using the concept of permutation parity so there is a problem of circularity in using the determinant of a matrix to compute the parity of a permutation. Anyway, the most important point is that I don't think anyone would compute the parity of a permutation by working out the determinant of a permutation matrix, since there are far easier methods. ALongDream (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. First, yes, you are absolutely right about "size", my apologies.  (Though, frankly, I think it would be better not to include this non-standard name.)  You are wrong, however, about the variables r, s, etc. -- they are (implicitly) defined in the first equation in which they appear.  Also, you are wrong about the determinant: there are many very good ways to define the determinant that do not use the sign of a permutation, such as the expansion along the first row.  For any such definition, the Leibniz formula is a theorem, and not necessarily an obvious one.  That this is not a sensible computational strategy does not mean it is not an important or interesting fact!  In any case, I think the current state of these sentences is basically fine. All the best, JBL (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. For future reference, discussions like this are best on the article talk pages (so other editors can see them, weigh in, etc.).

Predary journals and lack of peer review
Joel -- I don't feel strongly about your revert on Predatory open access publishing, but if people criticize non-peer-reviewed information they should not do this on a non-peer-reviewed blog. That's hypocritical and I think it should be pointed out. In fact, that kind of source should probably not be used on a Wikipedia page at all. Cheers, Peteruetz (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. The problem is that you have put your own personal feeling (that something is hypocritical) into Wikipedia's voice (maybe implicitly).  Frankly I think the complaint of hypocrisy is not very convincing (it is completely not hypocritical to believe that peer review is important for some things and not for other things), but that's neither here nor there.  On the other hand, it is possible you could drum up support for removing criticisms sourced only to blogs by using the talk page.  Best, JBL (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. The cited blogs are non-peer-reviewed (like almost all blogs). That's a fact. Period. There is nothing emotional about this -- although it may seem so. (It's like criticizing the biblical Genesis for being wrong scientifically -- which an atheist may do out of emotion -- but that doesn't change the fact that the Genesis is wrong scientifically.). In any case, I won't insist on the hypocrisy. Just ignore that part. But I would still argue that blogs are no reliable source of information and are similar to "original research" in Wikipedia's definition, given that anybody can post anything on a blog. Howeve,r it's not important enough for me to rally for it. Peteruetz (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Katie Wheeler
I have created a perfunctory article on Shaheen's NHSen successor that was previously redlinked as per your recommendation. You are welcome to have a look over at Katie Wheeler.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks! --JBL (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

SEIU and AFSCME
You have some valid thoughts. I did not say this occurred in August. Merely indicated the date of the article. IMO, your deletion because of the format mistake (which was there) is not how I would have handled it. But make changes and make it better. I don't purport to owh any of this. Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe in positive loading or negative loading.
What makes all the things that the article says are important so important?

I believe that positive loading and negative loading and editorializers and other statements should only be mentioned if reliable sources mention those words.

I removed recent from recent readings because it is not specified in the article when the readings were conducted.

It may be considered recent a while back, but later on that will be outdated. The word however would question the previous statement.

We should not use the word conclude since that gives the assumption that such statement cannot be debunked. Use stated instead, it's more neutral and accurate.

We should only use words like that mentioned in WP:W2W if reliable sources describe the subjects as such and be in quotations so as to avoid being mistaken for ruining the accuracy/neutrality of the article.

We should be aware that the advice in the WP:W2W guidelines shouldn't be applied rigidly, but that is no excuse to say that someone is a radical leader without citing any sources that refer to them as such.

--Turkeybutt (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , here is a sentence that you changed:
 * "The Italian Giacomo Leopardi, one of the most radical and challenging thinkers of the 19th century."
 * If you click on the link in the reference, here are the first two sentences:
 * "Giacomo Leopardi is widely recognized as Italy’s finest modern lyric poet, for many the greatest after Dante. He was also one of the most radical and challenging of nineteenth-century thinkers, acknowledged as such by readers from Nietzsche to Benjamin and Beckett."
 * Should I say more about this? --JBL (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. But I think this positive loading could've just been quoted like this:
 * "The Italian Giacomo Leopardi, is 'acknowledged as [one of the most radical and challenging [19]th century thinkers] by readers from Nietsche to Benjamin and Beckett' according to the University of Birmingham.[1]"
 * I don't think that Wikipedia articles should read like whatever sources it cites, especially sources with a bunch of positive/negative loading and editorial opinions. Although Wikipedia encourages undue weight, Wikipedia articles should not directly highlight, honor, harass, emphasize, praise, demean or discriminate on anything. Wikipedia articles should have an impartial tone on all things and read from a neutral perspective on all things. Any and all non-neutral loadings and statements should only be reserved for quotation or stating that a particular source says that. --Turkeybutt (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , I do not have grand theories of editing, and I have no interest in debating the details of yours. I primarily edit in the following way: something (an article, a typo, an edit on my watch list) causes me to notice something that can be easily improved, and then I make a small change.  Right now, many of your edits have the property that pressing the "undo" button on them will improve things.  The examples I've focused on here and on your talk page are incredibly clear-cut.  I would like you to stop making edits that have the same problems.  (Otherwise, I'm sure we will eventually find ourselves in the various drama boards.) And yet this morning I see already that you have been changing the meaning on sourced statements and deleting words in ways that destroys meaning.  Your edit on judicial restraint was particularly notable  ) because your usual theories don't even make sense here (nothing was labeled "obvious" in the WP voice).  This is why you need to stop mechanically mass editing, slow down, and think more about each edit you make.  You obviously  ) have the capacity to be a good editor, but you have to cut the BS. --JBL (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am more than happy to engage in constructive discussion with you about any one or two particular edits at a time. I'm just not down for philosophizing about universal rules.
 * P.P.S. "the radio home of [a sports event or team]" is a common US expression for "the radio station with the rights to broadcast that [event or team's games]." One usually hears it in station self-promotion.
 * But Wikipedia needs to read like regular speech or that of college textbooks, and writing that someone argued seems inaccurate. Why isn't Wikipedia allowed to be in an impartial tone?
 * Minimalists argue that judges should make only minor, incremental changes to constitutional law to maintain that stability. I don't agree with this statement because no sources are cited to support it.
 * --Turkeybutt (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first paragraph looks like general philosophizing, and I have nothing to say in response. Your second paragraph is about a particular edit, and I have two responses.  The first is nonconstructive and pedantic and you may want to ignore it, the second is actually about editing Wikipedia.
 * I find it very difficult to believe your statement at face-value. It might be true that you don't believe that sentence (I don't know), but almost every sentence you have ever believed in your entire life has not been accompanied by a citation, so I rather doubt that it is true that the lack of citation is the reason you don't believe it.
 * The article judicial restraint has a few sources listed at the end, but not many inline citations. This is an indication that it could be improved by finding sources and adding citations (and also by adding new material)..  If one is not able or willing to do that, tagging can be one step in the process of improving things.  I think your individual taggings in that edit are defensible, that the collection of all of them is excessive, and that if all you had done was tag one or two sentences then I wouldn't have reverted.  Separately, most of the wording changes you made seem harmless; none of them struck me as a clear improvement, but most of them are also not disimprovement.  Finally, the very topmost changes you made, involving the word "obvious," clearly make the text worse, and absolutely needed to be reversed.
 * I understand that it's irritating to make many changes and get reverted because of just a few of them, and you have my partial apology for that. But, there are reasons that other editors keep asking you to break your edits into little bits!  (In my case, I often edit on a tablet, with limited ability to use tabs, find-replace, copy-paste, etc., and therefore limited ability to do reliable partial reversion.) --JBL (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'll just put a tag telling readers that it needs citation so the "well-known" doesn't ruin the neutrality of the section.
Apparently you seem to be of the opinion that the little-rock river crossing is well-known, but we can't verify for sure. So I put a [citation needed] tag there. --Turkeybutt (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Journal h-index
Please note that SCImago Journal Rank uses an h-index (or H index ?) in their journal ranking: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?order=sjr&ord=desc

I therefore reverted back the list of 5 best ranked journals on Hindawi Publishing Corporation.

Maybe the h-index article should be updated accordingly. (Simiprof (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for leaving a comment here. I have never heard of a journal version of the h-index, but it seems that you are right that it exists.  To be frank, I think there are several issues with your addition -- as you can see, another user has tagged it for failing verification, and also the particular choices (why precisely five journals?  why h-index and not more common journal metrics?) seem worthy of discussion.  At the moment I am overwhelmed in real life and not ready to tackle improvements, so please treat these comments as constructive criticism/something to think about.  --JBL (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ordered pairs
Hi Joel, I wanted to thank you for your response on the ordered pair talk page. I'm not sure that the disclaimer was absolutely necessary as there are aspects of this that are helping me frame how I would like the lead section to look. With Ladislav's agreement to drop the mathematical term in the first sentence most of my response has become moot and would not now be appropriate for the talk page. However, I did want to say that I understand your position (feeling?) on the matter and appreciate your willingness to express it. My own position would be that if you take "set" as being a primitive notion (as I do) you forfeit the right to say anything about the elements of the set and must focus instead on the criteria for set membership (I probably have the jargon all wrong but I hope my meaning is clear). In any event, I am a bit amazed that the first sentence of a rather prosaic concept has led to these philosophical nuances. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, thanks for your comments. Yes, your meaning is clear (and your position seems perfectly sensible).  Actually I am quite pleased with how the discussion has gone so far (though real life is overwhelming me at the moment and I may not participate further); it has been my experience that sometimes these niggling little philosophical questions can end up in very long arguments here.  All the best, JBL (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Xizhimen Station
The removal of this section seems reasonable as it contains subjective statements and original research. It was also backed up by a decent edit summary. Yet you reverted without leaving any edit summary. It is your right to revert a harmful edit, but you do need to provide an explanation for it. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of citation in the article about Polynomial
Hi, you removed my edit on the page about Polynomial that added a citation for the claim that in a polynomial, 'x' is called an indeterminate. On page 14, the book read "Although x is regarded as obeying the same algebraic rules as the elements of the ring R, we do not think of it as assuming values from R. For this reason it is called an indeterminate".

Could you explain me why this citation is not appropriate ?

Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, you added your citation at the end of the following sentence: "It is thus more correct to call it an "indeterminate"." The cited source makes no comment whatsoever on the relative correctness of the terms "variable" and "indeterminate."  All the best, JBL (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't see it that way but I totally agree. Considering that the 'x' in a polynomial is really called an indeterminate, should we try to find a more appropriate citation or rewrite the sentence without making comment on whether "indeterminate" is more correct than "variable". Regards, Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Apologies for the delayed response, I have been overwhelmed in real life and forgot about your message. Yes, I agree that it would be good to rewrite this so that it does not contain editorialization without good supporting sources. All the best, JBL (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem :). I'm myself lacking time but I will see if I can find the time to try to change this. Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Snark
JBL, if you wish to continue pointless snarky trolling, you can do it on my discussion page. Please use article talk pages for their intended purpose, which is discussing article improvements. Thanks, Sławomir Biały  (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is quite clearly inappropriate to remove from an article talk page a user comment that you dislike because you consider it pointless, snarky, or trolling, and if you had actually read the WP:... page you threw around you would know this. (In fact it was at most one of these things, and your insistence on being unpleasant to other editors for no reason  is quite mystifying.)  --JBL (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Whydoeswikipedianotletmechooseagoodusername
No, they aren’t a bad editor, they are an editor who does not know how to discuss. As far as I can tell, the main issue with this article is not factual errors, but that it gives WP:UNDUE weight to one side, the side that says that the series does converge. RedPanda25 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is extremely clear that the series does not converge, beginning with the first sentence. The only other things to say about the summability of the series will necessarily concern summation methods other than "evaluate a convergent series to its sum."  You are welcome to begin a discussion on the talk page if you think there is something left to discuss, but there is no world in which "tag but don't post to talk page" was going to be appropriate. --18:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as there is no undue weight, then the issue is settled, and the editor is simply confused about how Wikipedia presents different views. Thanks, RedPanda25 01:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)