User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 5

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede
I reworded my old RfC. You are welcome to comment. Pass a Method  talk  18:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

e-book questions
John,

If you could CONTACT me via my site (http://home.comcast.net/~k9dci/site/), I'd like to know if there is an acceptable way to let others benefit from my work. That's all I'd like to do since one of my papers was references in the Kochanek-Bartles page. -- Steve -- (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

speed of light
from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/559095/speed-of-light. (re-worded) The speed of light refers to the rate of change of distance of light waves in motion through varying substances Drift chambers (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have commented already on the article talk page: please comment or reply there as it's better for other editors who may be interested.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision of Cross Product Edit
You reverted my edit bringing a section of the cross product page into agreement with our main article on vector magnitude, stating "consistency between articles is not a valid reason to change formatting, esp when it makes this article less consistent". Two things: 1) Is this your opinion, or a verifiable Wikipedia policy? 2) Would you rather have the whole page converted over to this notation standard (where appropriate), as opposed to just one section at time (I wasn't finished editing the page, by the way), or is that you have no interest in seeing the notational consistency between pages?KlappCK (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a general guideline on Wikipedia, that you should not change from one valid style to another without good reason. See e.g. the Manual of style fourth paragraph. Consistency with another article is not a good reason as there are many articles and many different styles. If you think that a particular formatting choice should always be made then bring it up centrally so it can be discussed by many editors, and if they agree it can be introduced into the manual of style.


 * But on the change you made both single and double bars are correct, but the former is more much common at high school level, and when the absolute value is used in physics or other applications. As such it is more widely understood and so appropriate for Cross product. There are other differences like this, such as whether vectors use boldface or not, that occur between less and more advanced mathematics topics. See also MOS:MATH.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. So you mentioned bringing up the topic for discussion centrally (if this hasn't been done already).  Where does one go to do this.  Coming from a strong mathematical background as you do, I too have seen both styles used interchangeably.  As you had alluded to in your response, I agree that the single bar notation is more common at the lower levels of mathematics educations.  However, when we check out what I consider to be our 'de facto' standard on mathematical nomenclature, even this has both notations listed as potentially representing a (Euclidian) vector norm.  I would like to see more consistent use throughout Wikipedia, and this edit was a (naive) piecemeal attempt at doing just that.  Will you help me start a discussion on the subject on the appropriate page?KlappCK (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The best place would be the maths project talk page. Simply start a new section.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to share your thoughts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Consistent_Notation_For_The_Euclidian_Vector_Norm KlappCK (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mug
Hi JohnBlackburne, I do not quite understand why you undid my edit. Can you explain to me what you mean? Lotje ツ (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A DAB page is for links to articles which either have similar names. It is not meant for translations such as you added, otherwise for short words like 'mug' DAB pages would be filled with entries very unlikely to be of interest. The relavant guideline is MOS:DABOTHERLANG, but I've only now found that checking if there's anything on this. Even without that guideline the more general polices of DAB pages cover it. It should be added to Wiktionary, but checking that link it's already mentioned there.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was very kind of you. Lotje ツ (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Root of All Evil
Hi JohnBlackburne,

I added the reference to the quest Root of All Evil which currently exists in the game World of Warcraft (http://www.wowhead.com/quest=8481/the-root-of-all-evil). After adding it to the wiki page for Root of All Evil, you undid my edit / addition. Is there a reason why? I don't understand as the page is making references to uses of "Root of All Evil" and the quest in Warcraft is one of those uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelTacoDude (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of a disambiguation page is to link articles which are related by name, i.e. with in this case titles containing "root of evil". Exceptionally links can be to articles with other names, but only if the item is mentioned in the article. I.e. in this case for it to be added someone should be able to go to World of Warcraft and find out about the "root of evil" quest. But it's not in the article (I did check) so the link should not be added.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary you gave on Sieve of Eratosthenes
Please do not give misleading summary in the history for your edits. (I think there's a guideline for that). You state "removed per consensus" in your removal of a poem from Sieve of Eratosthenes. You know very well there is no consensus on the matter. Thank you. WillNess (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As it's already being discussed on the talk page it is best we continue there.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you writing up a misleading edit summary was not discussed there, and it shouldn't, having no relevance to that article's contents. Giving misleading reasons for edits is not proper. I'll assume it was an honest mistake on your part. WillNess (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

List of motion and time sequence analysis related concepts
I think this proposed deletion could be controversial, and also useful as a list, so I removed your prod. I agree with the other prods, mostly, so I haven't deprodded those. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I AfD'd the only one CVonline that I thought worthy of discusion but clearly we need to talk about this one so to AfD it goes too.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow
Putting XScreenSaver up for deletion? Just because you don't know what it is doesn't make it something that should be deleted. Every single major Linux distro ships this software. Nice going. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Chinese characters's image shpuldn't be 去除.
Hi,sir.I think the image is ture to life,it isn't a bad example to describe Chinese character,so I have a disscuion on your user talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A0110110010 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the reasons I gave in my edit summary it really does not belong. There are hundreds if not thousands of better examples on Commons, but even they are not needed in a factual article which mostly uses text to show characters. And please only use English when posting on a talk page here: it is the English Wikipedia and few editors here know any Chinese.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your contribution to the navigation page Pig (disambiguation)! Chrisrus (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

CVOnline
Got your note at my user page. I userfied that article mostly so that its fairly extensive history would be preserved if there ever were to be a thought of reviving an article on the subject. The discussion in the AfD seemed to suggest that there might be some possibility that it could qualify at some point. I don't have a strong opinion on the article itself, but if you want to take it to MfD you certainly can. I would suggest that if the moved page is deleted, that it first be moved back to main space. That way admins would at least see that the former article had a history should another ever be created. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

About deleting my editing (1 November 2011) in your article “Euclidian distance”.
I do not understand what do you mean saying “you should not combine two sources. ” “The metric spaces of non-natural dimensions ” and “The indefinite sum” have one source, my head and are placed at one site actually (www.oddmaths.info and www.oddmaths.info/indefinitesum ). You yourself can verify the sources. In the case of metric spaces the task is simple. In the case of indefinite sum I constructed an alternative simple way of verifying it. To verify it one mast have a general knowledge of calculus, to make a couple of clicks (3 actually) to calculate, and to believe that if you take a function at your choice and have obtained two results that coincides up to 30 digits after decimal point then it is not an accidental coincidence. At the site www.oddmaths.info/indefinitesum at the bottom of a page there is a button “examples”. When you point cursor at it there will be a drop-down menu with instruction (short instruction for dummies) and two examples. First for summing an analytical functions with integer boundaries with extended commentaries and instructions before each step. 1. You insert an analytical function at your choice and process it (first click) 2. You calculate the sum of the function (second click) 3. You calculate the sum of the function with traditional method (third click) and compare the results. --Ascoldcaves (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I did check the sources and they are not reliable sources. per WP:RS academic sources are those published in e.g. peer reviewed journals, books by reputable academic publishers and occasionally other sources such as reliable news sources and blogs by academic authorities. See also WP:OR. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, i.e. from your head. Because you uploaded it to a web site does not make a difference, it is still your own work so original research, as was clear before you identified it as such above.
 * Lastly the way you added it to Indefinite sum was very disruptive: you did not edit the article you simply replaced all of it including links, categories, sources and other important parts of a page with a badly written, badly formatted essay. This suggests you think more of your own work than the stability and quality of Wikipedia. I am sure you can contribute something to Wikipedia. But first take some time to read over existing articles and making smaller changes to improve them, and participating on article talk pages, to learn how Wikipedia works.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

About authority and reliability
I am from a wilderness. I suspect my behavior is a savage one. Excuse me please. I like to think and sometimes to share it with the others. Please let me talk informally. I was struck by your referring me to something academic there. The highest authority there it is our own brain. I had proposed you to verify my thoughts yourself. Have you? If you are not interested in it tell it.

--Ascoldcaves (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really have anything to add to what I wrote above. What you added fell far short of what's required for this encyclopaedia. In particular on sourcing your own head/brain/thoughts are not a reliable source. See again the links I posted above.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
--Ascoldcaves (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My work is still in the article, than I´m not promoting
User: Diego Moya "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies." here.

Hi, JohnBlackburn. I´m not promoting my self because the result of my research is still present in the article Stress (mechanics) and haven’t been removed by another user. If my research isn’t worthy of a reference than you must prove it wrong and remove the section, "However, models of continuum mechanics which explicitly express force as a variable generally fail to merge and describe deformation of matter and solid bodies, because the attributes of matter and solids are three dimensional. Classical models of continuum mechanics assume an average force and fail to properly incorporate "geometrical factors", which are important to describe stress distribution and accumulation of energy during the continuum.", from the article.

Are you mathematician or have skills in deformation mechanics of materials? If you have some knowledge it may be interesting to address the conflict between the 3dim mass and the acceleration vector which “attributes” are 1 dimensional. This notion has great effects on the handling of the units in Newtons F=ma.

The questions is if the system must be handled mathematically discrete or as a continues system. --Haraldwallin (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are going over multiple articles and adding multiple links to your publications, promoting one as "a free PDF" with lots of detail how to obtain them. They are not reliable sources and even if they were the way you are adding them and describing them is disruptive and a severe conflict of interest. And this seems to be all you're doing: adding links to your writings, not expanding articles or doing anything else to improve the encyclopaedia.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Listen JohnBlackburne, try to understand.
 * The question is if it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida.
 * The answer is Yes!


 * For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

And do you JohnBlackburnere really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research? --Haraldwallin (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If JohnBlackburnere think my peer viewed scentific report isn´t a reliable sources, JohnBlackburnere must delete all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the galling, wear and Stress (mechanics) articles because they are closely linkt to my research.

Conesus means that every editor must agree
You clearly doesn’t understand that Conesus means that every editor must agree. Clearly I don’t agree with you.

Wikipedia is primarily about making new correct and useful information public for a brooder amount of people quicker than ordinary dictionaries.

Do you agree we have "Conesus" on the above?--Haraldwallin (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't; see (read and understand) Consensus.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism patrol
Thanks for catching User:90.208.164.22. I have blocked again, but as it is an IP address, only  for 72 hours. If it resumes afrer the block expires, please let me know and I'll reblock directly. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

discussion of math categ-s
Hi,

although I agree with you in substance (on most of the issues), I think the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics has become too personal (esp. taking into account that Brad7777 is a new user). I think many of his edits are productive, and as to non-productive ones, he has reverted many of them himself (such as the splitting of Category:Theorems in calculus). So we (= the community) could be more encouraging to new editors, esp. to those that participate in discussions and agree to much of the critics.

Best, Sasha (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin Closure
Hi John. I notice that you did a speedy keep on Articles for deletion/List of Columbus Crew head coaches on the grounds that the article was linked to the Main Page, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Have I missed something? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was linked in the "Did you know?..." section, it no longer is, so feel free to re-nominate it if you think it appropriate.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for prompt reply, I didn't realise it had been a recent DYK. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent reversions
Hi John: You recently reverted this comment on the talk page Talk:Speed of light. I take it that you interpret my reinstatement as not re-entry with a clean bill of health, but with restrictions from the past. I don't agree with that view, but rather than argue about it, I wonder if you might yourself raise the points I have indicated, which I think you will agree, are very pertinent issues for this article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tokens on a String
You are correct that 8000 BC was far too early for most of the description of tokens. But tokens first appeared about 8000 BC. Lots of improvements were made during the 4 millennia before tokens on a string were sealed in clay envelopes after 4000 BC. I just corrected this by citing two different pages in "How Writing Came About". Greensburger (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear JohnBlackburne: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 December 2011/String theory.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, bobrayner, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Large numbers
Thanks for responding. Would you care to scan the current article (Mersenne prime) and change any anomolies to the format dictated by MOS:NUMBER#Delimiting (grouping of digits)? I read the article and noticed several discrepancies in the formatting/display of large numbers. Not being an editing expert I was hoping that someone could make the relevant changes themselves instead of me possibly antagonising someone with my point of view. Cheers. AirdishStraus (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Booknotes
Hi John, I just noticed your at Albert Einstein. Earlier yesterday I had removed 30 or so external links to Bookstores from various articles, which resulted in a bit of a mild conflict with a few experienced editors about this on my talk page at User_talk:DVdm. Could you please have a look and tell me whether you think I was somehow off the mark here? Cheers and thank in advance - and happy holidays!. - DVdm (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
A second start?

Diego (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)  We had an interesting and constructive debate last year about the intro. I was hoping to expand on the ideas and unresolved points on that debate to improve the lead, but found you now much more to the defensive. I was irked by your calls to stop conversation based on the number of editors supporting each side. Shall we start again with a cool head? Diego (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:China
Just ignore them :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

One Last Edit
Re your warning to. Given their interest so far in celebrity and page-blanking of sock warnings, I can't help wondering if this is yet another sock of ? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did wonder and had some look at their history. There's some overlap in topic but the editing seems much more mature than what I saw and apart from the IP talk page edits I could see no obvious correspondence. I've no experience though of sock puppetry so am probably not the best judge.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems constructive so far, hence I'd not warned them myself. Something to watch though. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)