User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 14

Request for comment
Your attention is called to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead section. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Dear John, could you please read the article "The R Journal" which you have suggested be deleted, and comment in the talk about why you think the citations, links, and commentary do not make abundantly clear that this is suitable object for entry in wikipedia?. Or perhaps (assuming you are a statistician or computer scientist with expertise to judge?) understanding that the journal is major reservour of open-srouce computing knowledge, add the extra refs that you think are needed to improve the article and make this clear to less astute readers? Tim bates (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The best place to discuss this now is the deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/The R Journal. You should post your reasons for opposing its deletion there.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mahusha
That is more clear proof and not similar to similar triangle proof. Please again insert my edit. Mahusha (talk) 18:41 18 March 2016 (UTC).


 * , it is the same underlying proof. It uses different notation, a different diagram and a different explanation but all of these are clearer in the proof that is already there. It is also not clear whether this is an independent discovery, as proofs of the theorem were known throughout the ancient world, including India, over a thousand years before. It is hard to know with any certainly who actually first discovered the proofs – there is doubt over even Pythagoras’s involvement.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your repeated attempts to delete the cis article
John, this is now the third time that you tried to delete the cis article. We had that discussion before and there was clearly no consensus for this. While the topics are related and there is some unavoidable redundancy (which is normal), the content of the article does not belong into the Euler's formula article, as most of it would be out of scope there. cis is clearly a topic by itself, and has its own history to be told. You are entitled to your opinion that you do not like the function, but this is not a reason to delete the information and in particular not against consensus. You cannot ignore the fact that the function exists (and for about 150 years!) and that other people actually use it when they find it convenient. It is also taught in engineering courses at university. So we need an article about it. It was bad style that you nominated the article for deletion immediately after your PRODing attempt  failed, but it is even more so, that you continue as if this hadn't been discussed already and now changed the article into a redirect against consensus. I consider such editing behaviour as borderline-disruptive and find it very impolite and seriously annoying. You are thereby wasting the time and energy of other editors who are trying hard to increase the coverage and quality of Wikipedia topics in order to achieve our project's goal. I therefore firmly ask you to stop it. Thank you. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Map error
Interesting - I didn't realize that map even existed. Thanks for the alert - I'll work on a fix as soon as I can, which should be this afternoon. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll work out a fix shortly. Shouldn't be too difficult, now I'm aware of the issue. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's it - my checks have discovered no others. Please let me know if you find any more, but I think it's all taken care of. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see above of Dao's theorem
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/234053/daos-theorem-on-six-circumcenters-associated-with-a-cyclic-hexagon

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201424.pdf

http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart3.html#X3649

http://www.journal-1.eu/2016-2/Ngo-Quang-Duong-Dao-theorem-pp.40-47.pdf

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201429.pdf

Edit less, John Blackburne, and much more carefully
Dear John: You have unwisely interfered with my careful edits, based on several week research. I stand with every single word I wrote, so before improving upon my formulations think some more, or better refrain. You simplification has vulgarized an amazing formula and the credit, including its exact date, must be fully given to its author, so please do something nearly as interesting and I'll be glad to credit you, as well. In other words, keep your own personal issues to yourself and do not make them public, as Anits Rivas, once did in the same article. You might find the message that I wrote to her as relevant to you. So please be as kind to read it and spare me from explaining more.PseudoScientist (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In articles we do not credit sources in the body of an article, unless it is especially notable, such as a famous discovery (Einstein discovering relativity for example), or when the topic is named after the discoverer, such as Newton’s laws. It is not “suprisingly simple and exact”. In reverse it is not exact as it an iterative formula and cannot be exactly evaluated. It is therefore not simple - it may look simple but calculating it is non-trivial. And “surprising“ is a form of editorial comment that should never appear in an article. It may be surprising to you. It may be obvious to another editor. Nor is it “amazing”, it is just another iterative formula.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to tell you, John, that none of your arguments stand. You merely demonstrated your utter ignorance. I can tell that science was never you major and, perhaps, not even your minor. The formula is amazing but you do not have to get it. Perhaps, it is as amazing as the formula discovered by Gauss on May 30, 1799, which was discussed in the article (which you most certainly did not read even carelessly). And, believe it or not, this discovery is comparable to "Einstein discovering relativity", although no one can tell what on earth you mean. What relativity did Einstein discover? Tell me or keep silent, so you would not further exhibit your severe lack of education. And, by the way, the formula is highly surprising since it never appeared before 2011, yet and again it would not surprise editors like you. Ignorance is a bliss but do not brag about it and do not tell more competent editors what to do. Get a life!PseudoScientist (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to comment on the content/style dispute, which seems only marginal anyhow, but if you're not adopting a less confrontational and less insulting discussion style, you will most likely find yourself blocked at some point. Having a difference of opinion is no justification for getting personal, being rude or disparaging even if you're correct on the issue. In addition you get more corporation from other editors if you approach them less confrontational (see WP:CIV, WP:PA). As far as the style/content dispute is concerned, settle that by requesting input/feedback from other editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help on the Ellipse article
In reference to the above section, as well as in general: Since you previously reverted an edit which I also did, could you please weigh in on the talk page for Ellipse. There are two "signed" editors as well as an anonymous editor who I think are the same person, and it is getting a little frustrating that we are not converging. Thanks. LaurentianShield (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

0.999... = 1 page.
Hi John,

I'm concerned by your negative assessment (of the citation I provided) that the person cited "does not understand limits". My reading of his proof of the article topic is that Limits are not part of it, they are simply a personal opinion leading up to the proof.

If you look at the proof itself, its, well, pretty water-tight to say the least. If this entry is rejected, then I would have to complain that the article is so biased toward the correctness of "0.999... = 1" that it is propagandist. You have dismissed this entry on the basis of a complete irrelevance.

I hasten to add that I am of the opinion that this is a formidable proof. Is that what is offending you? The possibility that someone has proved that "0.999... < 1" in complete contradiction of the page's bias toward the exact opposite? How infantile.

If not, then you need to be more specific and substantiate your position. What, in particular, makes you think that this blog poster "does not understand limits", and why does that irrelevant statement invalidate the veracity of the proof that "0.999... < 1" ? If you cant explain yourself, then allow this entry, but if you do neither then I will need to take steps to mark the article as lacking objectivity.

Tnx in advance. Alexander Bunyip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abunyip (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , it would be better to address this on the talk page of the article, rather than multiple editors’ talk pages.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Bunyip (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Well I'll have to take that as a "no" you are not going to allow my entry. You must think I have endless amounts of free time to waste on this. I have no idea what you are talking about ..."multiple editors page"... and who would it be better for... you ? The bias on this page is noted and I'll report it as best I can upwards. I'm not going to start playing mind games with you.

Sparse
I answered to your proposal for deletion of an article I wrote, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sparse_representation_of_a_number Could you please answer my question, in order to help me to improve this article. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking to IPA help pages
Hi, I that it was standard practice to link to IPA help pages from phonology articles. It's done in French phonology, Standard German phonology, Arabic phonology, Russian phonology, Japanese phonology, and so on; though admittedly not in others, such as English phonology and Persian phonology. Is there a policy page that says not to link to help pages from mainspace? Why hasn't it been followed up to this point? — Eru·tuon 18:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:SELFREF: "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places: do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website. Articles may refer to themselves, but they shouldn't refer to Wikipedia in a non-neutral fashion except under special circumstances.". It seems particularly unnecessary in a phonology article which is meant to cover the topic well enough on its own. Also the hatnote is usually reserved for a few narrow purposes, such as disambiguation. Related articles, links to other projects etc. normally go at the end. But even there a help page would seem out of place.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Lower down on the page, it says this: "The self-reference template, Selfref, is used to mark pieces of text and links that wouldn't make sense on copies of Wikipedia. ... This template is most often used as a hatnote template to help guide editors from an article to a related Wikipedia policy or guideline page in the Wikipedia project namespace." The phonology articles certainly should be complete, but they do not provide guidance on which set of IPA symbols editors should use when transcribing pronunciations in Wikipedia articles, when there are several options. (For instance, see .) That's the purpose of the IPA help page. And hatnotes are not just used for disambiguation; they are also used to link to policy or guideline pages related to the topic of an article. — Eru·tuon 20:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Technical Designing
I request you to move the page to Technical Designing from Technical Drawing please. As Technical Design is the more common and recent term instead of a drawing or drafting.

Thanks. ~SB~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct Name Editing
I have done provided the correct title including only first letter capital. I hope now you don't worry at all. OR still any queries? Feel free to talk on my page please.

Thanks.

SB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK!
Okay Pal, you just please get the article read and then told me please. That is this too good or too bad still.

Thanks. SB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Template edit
Hi, what errors did it cause? I checked quickly and could see none. The years need to be not linked. Tony  (talk)  11:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , it added at least two of the three articles it’s used in to Category:Pages with script errors, with on expanding it lots of  errors. Faisalabad was where I saw this, and I can still see it using Template preview with that version.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at it a second time I can see what happened. The year change was fine but AWB also changed a number of hyphens to en dashes, which broke the formulae used to calculate the percentages. I have manually redone the year delinking so it does not cause problems.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * John, thank you very much! Tony   (talk)  02:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You're Wrong
You claimed that the former Republic of China didn't have parts of various neighbour countries, but you're wrong, I even made a map, China formerly had small parts of Russia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bhutan and Burma, you won't see it if you don't look at the map closely, but try zooming in on the map and see.

--Veteran Geezer (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ellipse
Hi JohnBlackburn I've seen that you have removed on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse page a reference I've added in the "external links" section to a page about a proof of the equivalence between the main two definitions of the ellipse.

I think that this link could be useful for other wikipedia users, and that its content is rather original and that it investigate something not easily found on other "more official" web sites.

So I've re-added it removing explicit references to the name of the site. I hope that's ok with you in this new form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaMoro (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , the page is just a link to your personal site, and you should not be using Wikipedia to promote it. Our policy on external links is clear on this; you should never add links to your own site, even if you think the links valuable. If it is valuable then someone else will one day find it and add it. But you are the last person to judge this, and so should not add it yourself. See External links, in particular External links.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I can understand your point and agree with it. Sorry for my mistake. -- LucaMoro

Republic of China (1912–49)
Hi, there have been quite a bit of IP edits on this page recently. I don't know if it is because of this Republic of China (1949–71) and Articles for deletion/Republic of China (1949–71).--Thomasettaei (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * there seems to be a small number of editors with a pro-Taiwan bias who are not familiar with Wikipedia norms. Sometimes this involves promoting Taiwan’s claim to be the legitimate government of the whole of China, by e.g. trying to identify Taiwan with Republic of China (1912–49), the last government of both China and Taiwan when they were unified, or preferring the name Republic of China over the common name Taiwan. Sometimes it involves over-elaborating on trivial aspects of Taiwan, in existing articles or new articles, such as the above now redirected article.


 * It’s often IP accounts or new editors but not always. And sometimes their edits are not of the highest quality. But none of these are problems; all editors are new at some point, and everyone makes mistakes until they gain some experience. I think the biggest cause of the problem is China. Normally POV editing is countered by editors with the opposite POV cancelling them out, together with neutral editors that get involved. But editors with a Chinese, as in pro-PRC, POV are largely absent from Wikipedia due to the Great Firewall, which makes it much harder to counter any anti-PRC/pro-Taiwan bias. If an issue rises up to the level of attracting the wider community it becomes much easier, but otherwise it can be hard to counter even a handful of determined editors.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 06:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the the recent edits ? I undid some of the changes.--Thomasettaei (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I undid a couple more, or more accurately I fixed a couple of things introduced recently. Not sure what else can be done, except keep an eye on it and deal with any problems with the article that need addressing.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Be honest there is no unify in present years. never since 1911 when the Republic of China Began ,the two times coperation has fail direct after words. Chang Kai Shek manage to fly over to Taipei in 1949,which the Republic of China did not end in 1949. Chang kai Shek become a president after words in Taiwan, how come Republic of China is not with him then ? he has his first identity card in 1965,http://www.nownews.com/n/2014/04/01/1173253. It truly approved this article is given by People Republic of China History and spreading communism history tho. and it is lack of Republic of China side of Information. http://www.mofa.gov.tw/default.html ,this is ministry of Republic of China, you can still clearly seeing it with Republic of China flag ,you can identify Republic of China citizen with Traditional Chinese , especially if he is from Taiwan. the accent of he speak .there are Chinese which in China they believe in Republic of China, but ,some. the PRC culture Revolution has wipe the family out .how dare they speak for ROC? my family in China in my Grand parent era has got rip off before in PRC. if the person who is nationalist military, PRC heard it , then it will be in worst condition. and Republic of China side has the communism spy as well, which in Chang era, they will send them back to mainland or jail them up worst cases is to killed them. if you are neutral, I believe you can not tell the Republic of China has ended and there are lots people believe it can long live in present, because I do believe in Republic of China will still save the country as what presidents of Republic of China believe with.please read 三民主義.it is what Sun Yat-sen believed.what Republic of China Citizen believe as well. if you written ROC has end in 1949, un you bias ? you speak what PRC tells you .you educated communism education to civilization to global in Wikipedia. To be honest, we still sing the Republic of China anthem till today, even though the world press for not letting us. you can come to Taiwan and listen it in elementary School or in military. we all known what actual anthem are in Taiwan. what you heard of in Olympic Chinese Taipei anthem is not the actual anthem same as the inappropriate flag .it is the flag song. it is what PRC Pressed on after the state of we have to change the song. please given Republic of China a true justice .we need world support then there will be more people whom stand out. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.194.203.50 (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Accidental deletion
My apologies, I've had this problem before when doing mobile edits. I'm not sure why the mobile app seems to delete swaths of content sometimes. I was just trying to correct a couple words that didn't sound right. I'll have to figure out what I'm doing on mobile that's causing that. Pariah24 ┃ ☏  10:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Republic of China on Taiwan
Hi John, I noticed that this Republic of China on Taiwan became an article, and it was previously a redirect. Can it really be differentiated from articles that already exist, such as Taiwan after World War II? Should it be redirected? It seems there are a lot of duplicating/similar ones that came about lately.--Thomasettaei (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Republic of China in Taiwan is a redirect to Taiwan after World War II, Republic of China on Taiwan should redirect to it as well (it was previously redirecting to it). What do you think about this?--Thomasettaei (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have redirected it, which would be my first step if I think a page should be a redirect. Then if it is disputed start a discussion at articles for deletion. I have not looked at it closely so don’t have a view, but might participate in any such discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi John, I'm wondering which is the way to do this. Should I request at articles for deletion or Redirects for discussion?--Thomasettaei (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion would be my call.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delete the article. As you see on Talk:Republic of China on Taiwan, a suggestion of mine is to create a more specific title for the present content that is on Republic of China on Taiwan, because right now it is just about a political term, whereas more people are probably looking for Taiwan or Taiwan after World War II where it comes to the title of Republic of China on Taiwan. I think the article about the political term perhaps just needed to move to something like Republic of China on Taiwan (political term), and let the Republic of China on Taiwan be a redirect.  What do you think of that idea?--Thomasettaei (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Update material
Update material for editing..

http://www.rappler.com/nation/150646-filipino-fishermen-access-scarborough-shoal

http://m.inquirer.net/globalnation/99689

http://m.inquirer.net/globalnation/148314

http://m.inquirer.net/globalnation/148314

Bebe0114 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have sent a whole lot of material  But seems like a whole lot of the Rea is still claimed by China.. For somebody who won the Hague ruling surely not much written about the Philippines Bebe0114 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't like editing this page but with bold edits by the Chinese that is very much aloud seems like something is wrong here.. I even sent videos that are more expounded instead oof these short articles or periodicals.. Or are there really employees in here.. I might have to ask help from the whole country to get a reasonable editing done here..

Bebe0114 (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the Chinese have a strong hold to get their editing to stick more than the Philippines do even when they wony won and used the place for a long while.. Even with a legal and enforceable International Ruling. Bebe0114 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Surely Philippines did not spend gazillions of money paying top dollar to international lawyer in addition to its top local lawyers, win its case just so a a country hungry for oil all of a sudden can just try to occupy our territory because their economy is starting to fail.. Bebe0114 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

They acted strong all of a sudden when the Americans left our territory.. Americans and Filipinos been all around the plCe for decades.. Then all of a sudden they owned it..

What a mess.. Bebe0114 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I sent dissertation videos that are more extensive even in the Spratlys page.. Please somebody look into that..

Bebe0114 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If there is anybody who can have at least the closest claim to the Philippines, then it is USA.. They actually occupied the Philippines and not these out of nowhere Chinese.. They just came in the country to find work before and now they are wannabe rulers all of a sudden.. Some nerves these cowards are.. They just waited for US to leave too start making claims out of our lands.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_MacArthur_Jr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur

Bebe0114 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, lots of typos.. Typing while on the run.. Bebe0114 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Only time can tell.. AMERICAN BASES

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/philippines-reopens-subic-bay-as-military-base-to-cover-south-china-sea

Bebe0114 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Territories claimed by Philippines..
Lots of falls entries by Chinese news or are they falsified news.. Supposedly book materials does not seem authentic.. With all their falsified claims.. The UNCLOS where they signed and agreed with their provisions thus nullifies all their historical claim..

They should have not signed if they diasagree to their provisions.. They were brought in Court but dismissed and refused to represent themselves.. In so doing in any local or international setting.. Whatever their pleading was they should have argued about in Court.. They have the chance to do so and wS given sevral times to do so.. Therefore the court proceedings continued Ex-parte..

Ignorance is not excusable to the Law.. Even US was made to pay even as much of a big country it is.. US was also made to pay to the Philippines when their ship hit the corals off our shore.. What difference is it with China.. They think they can nust ignore the law.. US case against Philippines is not all that long too.. The damage China has done to Philippines resources will influence the World ecosystem.. A very heartless ambition..

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/34369/scarborough-belongs-to-ph-old-maps-show

Bebe0114 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Flag confusion
Hello there, despite the AfD outcome, you are more welcome to discuss the Flag of China article name change. There's a situation two de facto Chinese states exist even though the One-China policy is in force. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Another discussion is welcome here about the flag of the ROC. Leave your comments there. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)
This is clearly a long-established page subject to a usage dispute, and MFD is the wrong place to discuss the appropriateness of having this page in the first place. Deletion of essays is only appropriate when the content itself is inappropriate: are you seriously arguing that the contents of this page need to be removed entirely from the publicly accessible parts of the project, need to be made invisible to everyone except administrators? If so, you need to present evidence for that argument (quickly renominating a speedy-kept page for an entirely different reason is appropriate if it would have been appropriate before the first nomination), but if not, you're continuing the disruption. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am saying your speedy close and citing of policy was incorrect. If the consensus is that it should be deleted then it should be deleted, which should be determined by the discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Kashmiri6925
How dare u!, I'm from Kashmir and those particular towns of Chitterpari and Mirpur , I know the Facts! You haven't even visited there have u! Kashmir is India's ! Kashmiri6925 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . As I am sure you know it is far from that simple. The changes you made were not constructive, introducing errors and using terms not commonly used in English, links that did not work, pushing a particular point of view that does not agree with the history or the current reality, and so I had to undo your changes.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Tau article
Hello,

Considering that the last discussion was three and a half years ago, I suspect a quick discussion on the merits of the article might be in order. Could we take the tau article to an AfD instead of simply redirecting it? That should bring in fresh eyes who have not yet formed an entrenched opinion on the subject. An AfD should also avoid devolving into the massive time sink the last RfC turned into.

Cheers,

Tazerdadog (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don’t think anything has changed in the interim. If anything the interest in the constant has died down after the burst of activity a few years ago, and the draft article confirmed this with sources retrieved in 2012 and 2013. Nor had the article changed significantly since when it was last discussed. Consensus can change but it is usually for a reason, such as new evidence of notability being found, or facts in the real world changing such as a person or company doing enough to justify an article on them.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 09:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)