User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 8

Untitled
Hi, John. You told me, that you removed Cloud Party link in WebGL page. I don't think, it's inappropriate, because it's just a virtual world (even a bit boring one). In my opinion, it's a great example, what you can do using WebGL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.7.27.63 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ref: JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, John. ref: JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC), User talk:91.63.255.143 You told me, that you removed Renderosity.com link in Computer graphics page. I don't think, it's inappropriate, because it's a fantastic site which shows what can be created whith state-of-the-art Computer Graphics Programs. I spent quite a bit of time on Renderosity's member content. In my opinion, it's a great example and I did a great effort to represent its content properly.

Best regards betinoterranico@gmx.de

Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion
Hello, I notice you've just nominated an article for deletion. However, you've missed out a stage of the process. Can you go to Articles for deletion/💮 and add  to the page? It'll make the process run smoothly. For the edit summary, add. In the template, replace 'Why the page should be deleted' with your reason for wanted it deleted. You can read more on nominating for deletion by visiting WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, and if you need any more help, just ask. drewmunn talk 13:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The page creation process failed. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion for details, if you've any idea why and how to fix it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone seems to have done it for you, but for future reference, it's most probably the fact that it is a strange, single-ASCII name. drewmunn talk 13:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Block?
See {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=541726311&oldid=541725776]. and others...TY. ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a level 3 warning, so normally they will get at least one more warning before getting a block. They had two previous warnings and were engaging in a series of non-constructive edits so I thought it best to highlight the consequences of continuing.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Rotations in 4D
Hi! I've been thinking of trying to make the article Rotations in 4-dimensional Euclidean space more comprehensive by adding some of the material from the (fantastic!) work you did on the article Bivector.

In particular, I'd like to better present how the three main ways of representing such rotations (ie orthogonal matrices; bivectors; and the (rather odd) quaternion formula) relate to each other.

But first I need to make sure I've got a really good hold on the material.

With this in mind, I've started a sandbox page, User:Jheald/sandbox/GA/Rotations in 4-dimensional Euclidean space, where I've put raw material from the two existing articles, plus Rotation_(mathematics), with annotations in green as I try to work through it.

But I'm needing a bit of help... (as well as going to need a lot of help when it comes to actually starting to put together a revision draft).

In particular, a couple of things that I'm currently puzzling over:

Firstly, this paragraph from the bivector article: "... every plane is orthogonal to all the vectors in its dual space. This can be used to partition the bivectors into two 'halves', for example into two sets of three unit bivectors each. There are only four distinct ways to do this, and whenever it's done one vector is in only one of the two halves, for example (e12, e13, e14) and (e23, e24, e34)."

-- the orthogonality is straightforward enough. But I'm not sure that I see where the paragraph is going with the partitioning, and the being four distinct ways to do it. Is there somewhere this is meant to be setting the reader up to get to?

Secondly, not relating to the material at bivector, but I'm hoping you can help, I'm trying to relate the bivector formulation to the rather unique quaternion formula R(q) = a q b formula, where a, q and b are all quaternions.

So far, I can get (see here), when v is specifically a vector, to
 * v' = ½ (1 + e1234) eBL/2 v e- BR/2 + ½ (1 - e1234) eBR/2 v e- BL/2

which is tantalising, but not there.

If the R and the L were only swapped around in the second half of the formula, I would have
 * v' = ½ (1 + e1234) eBL/2 v e- BR/2 + ½ (1 - e1234) eBL/2 v e- BR/2
 * = eBL/2 v e- BR/2

which would be a lot nearer -- but I can't see why this should be so.

Is there anything you can spot? (Or any other way you can see to 'explain' the quaternion formula, starting from the bivector perspective?)

And how would you think of going about restructuring the 4D rotations article? Jheald (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * An update: by separating the different grades, I have now got the 4D rotation formula to
 * v = &lt;eBL/2 v e- BR/2&gt;1 + e'1234 &lt;eBL/2 v e- BR/2&gt;3
 * -- which is starting to look really quite close, though there is still a bit more plumbing needed. Jheald (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange Yobot changes explained
Hi. I replied to your question at User_talk:Yobot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 1894–95 World Championship for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1894–95 World Championship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1894–95 World Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the one which was won by Sunderland. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Promotional Stuff
Dear John,

The content on Pi to which you refer has been removed. Srich32977 sent me some helpful articles about Conflicts of Interest. I have placed direct links to the worksheets (which have been designed for students to gain direct experience with calculating pi using polygons) without any mention of the school where I teach or the side business I am involved with. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiro Liacos (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello John: Spiro sent me a similar message. I have a favor to ask -- would you be so kind as to remove your Pi promotional warning? I had already posted one. It is above the cookies. Let's not create the impression that Spiro has violated no promo even after he had been warned. In lieu of the no promo, you could advise him on how to ~ sign talk page postings. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw your first warning, and that he had posted links again despite the warning, so felt the second level warning was appropriate. That he added links after your warning suggests he didn't take note of it, so needed a second message. And if his editing persists in being problematic other editors will see the two warnings and so be made aware that they have been issued and the reasons for them.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked at the Pi history. Your warning was quite appropriate. In fact, I would have posted a level 2 disruption message. In any event, I am hopeful that Spiro will behave. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Template
see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Capitalism(Thepalerider2012 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC))


 * That is not a reason. But I have explained my removal on the template talk page.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Land Reform Ordinance
Thanks for you comments on the Land Reform Ordinance redirect. At Wildfox's suggestion I have posted it at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 20. --Bejnar (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)