You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Reverting significant non-consensus changes is not "vandalism". Please stop edit warring or we will have to get some administrators involved. –jacobolus(t)22:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that robots are mindless rule-followers, so when talking to a computer program (such as a proof assistant or computer programming language interpreter), it is necessary to fully and precisely specify every statement or the program will malfunction or break. But human readers are not like that, and Wikipedia authors/editors should not assume that Wikipedia readers will be like robots. You yourself are clearly a human, albeit one who is getting increasingly frustrating to communicate with. –jacobolus(t)23:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you attack me again, whilst this section was started to be about your behavior. And yes, you called people idiots and robots, if
they are not "entirely capable of figuring out for themselves that the term “cylindrical projection” when not otherwise qualified refers to a cylindrical projection in equatorial aspect"
"Statements that would be too underspecified or ambiguous for a computer software proof assistant to interpret" are not "nonetheless [] entirely unambiguous to" them
The motives and actions you are imputing to me are entirely inaccurate ("Wikipedia readers are not robots therefore we can assume they can make basic inferences" is an entirely different claim vs. "if you find this phrasing too imprecise you must be a robot"). It’s really hard for me to figure out why you are having such extreme difficulty understanding me, so I am going to take a break from interacting with you for a while. If you like you may want to try to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia community norms, or you can feel free to make substantive responses to the repeated arguments made against your edits (that they are not supported by reliable sources, that they are not supported by community consensus, that they are confusing for readers, etc.). Please desist from your repeated misplaced defamatory attacks, which are exhausting to respond to. –jacobolus(t)00:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zhang Heng
Hi. In the last month, you mentioned that there are no problems to include with putting partially mathematical topics into the WPM. If that's the case, would it be possible to put Zhang Heng in WPM? The status article is FA, but it explains a little bit about his works on mathematics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: Sure, go for it. Just add {{maths rating |class=fa |priority=mid |field=mathematicians}} or whatever you think the appropriate rating is to the top of the talk page. –jacobolus(t)16:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just in case. I have a difficulty while trying to change the format source de Groot in Supercompact space. The format source was written in manual:
J. de Groot, "Supercompactness and superextensions." Contributions to extension theory of topological structures. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Berlin, August 14—19, 1967. Edited by J. Flachsmeyer, H. Poppe and F. Terpe. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1969 279 pp.
I thought it could be like
de Groot, J. (1969), "Supercompactness and superextensions", in Flachsmeyer, J.; Poppe, H.; Terpe, F. (eds.), Contributions to extension theory of topological structures. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Berlin, August 14—19, 1967, Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften,
Dedhert.Jr: What's wrong with the second one? You could also try:
de Groot, J. (1969), "Supercompactness and superextensions", in Flachsmeyer, J.; Poppe, H.; Terpe, F. (eds.), Contributions to extension theory of topological structures, Internationale Spezialtagung für Erweiterungstheorie Topologischer Strukturen und deren Anwendungen [International symposium for extension theory of topological structures and their applications], Berlin, August 14–19, 1967, Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften
Thank you for the help. Replying "What's wrong with the second one?", I was struggling and confused about putting in CS2 while an editor had wrote it manually. I thought the format CS I just did was right, but I was afraid that it was wrong after I thought about it twice, so I should not put it recklessly. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dedhert.Jr: You should "be bold" and just give it your best shot, without worrying about whether the change is perfect or not. It someone else doesn’t like it, they can make a second fix or revert your change (don’t take it personally), and if you still disagree you can hash it out on the talk page, ask for more editors' input, etc. –jacobolus(t)07:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You've removed my additions, claiming the cited sources are not credible. The story about NAFO's founder anti-semitic comments made strides on Twitter, and I find it important to mention them here. I tried to find as many sources as possible, including Spanish and German language media, as well as verified Twitter accounts. I support Ukraine, yet I do not think that pro-Ukrainian organizations should be whitewashed and sanitized where controversy exists. Rennespzn (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources in English are conspiracist twitter comments by pro-Putin trolls and a conspiracist newsletter put out by Lyndon LaRouche's followers (see Executive Intelligence Review for a summary of this absurd publication). I don’t have any familiarity with the other sources you cited ("Fuser news", "News Factory", and "The Press United"), but they don’t have Wikipedia articles about them and the headlines are breathless clickbait so I don’t have high hopes for their credibility either. The whole subject is a Russian-sponsored attempt to undermine a large grassroots organization via an overhyped guilt-by-association conspiracy theory. I didn’t carefully read the article in Der Standard, as far as I can tell the only remotely credible source you cited. If you care about this, you should start by finding more credible sources, ideally in English so other editors can easily evaluate them, and then perhaps start a conversation about this on the talk page; this was discussed before, and the consensus was that there was not any relevant credible discussion in reliable sources. –jacobolus(t)22:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I looked at the Der Standard article (under machine translation). It says in the subhead "A founding figure has been criticized for anti-Semitism", but then does not address the topic at all in the body of the article. I don’t think that’s sufficient to make it a useful source here. –jacobolus(t)22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we are at it, your text is mischaracterizes what was said in the most inflammatory possible way. It’s hard to see it as a good-faith effort. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons carefully before you write about this or similar subjects. Defaming people on Wikipedia can have serious real-world consequences. –jacobolus(t)00:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter, @Koavf. Yikes: 2600+ of them (~2000 by Philoserf). Do you have any ideas of places other than admin noticeboard for recruiting some help skimming these for problems? I only have bandwidth to check a dozen or two at a time, so handling all 2.6k would take quite a while. Maybe we should add a column to the table for marking ones that are unchecked / checked okay / reverted / need further action. –jacobolus(t)17:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter – okay, done. There are a few oddities in some of these, with the namespace or delta column including [[Special:Diff/ in them where I wouldn't expect. Looking at the earlier versions, it looks like those were already there (not mangled by me). Do you know what that is about? ––jacobolus(t)18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to do some find-and-replace to make the diffs in the original data dump into working links, and that might have garbled a few other places. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one on Los Angeles is a beauty: ... last1=NW |first1=1615 L. St |last2=Suite 800Washington |last3=Inquiries |first3=DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media ... –jacobolus(t)03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On personal comments
On their talkpage, I have asked sbb to back off from the personalized aspect of your discussion at WT:WPM. Since your latest comment is entirely about sbb (rather than HTML, math, ...), I put the same request to you. You two are clearly rubbing each other the wrong way, and one of you has to be the adult and be the first one to drop the personalized aspect of the dispute. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope things improve in the near future! (My behavior on WP gets worse -- indeed, plenty worse than yours has been -- when I am grouchy for external reasons, so I empathize. I wish I were better at telling myself to knock it off when that happens :).) --JBL (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I honestly never even went to your talk page, until something in my head nagged me after User:JayBeeEll's kind and smoothing comments on both our talk pages gave both of us reason to pause, and breathe, and I decided to snoop your talk.
re: crummy couple days for personal reasons unrelated to Wikipedia, I hear you. I thought I wrote that, until I reread it twice. Again, and unreservedly, handshake. 🤝. I don't think we're going to agree on the math stuff issue, but I'm confident we can reach an amicable détente. Kind regards, sincerely. — sbb (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they clearly did. If you want you can tell golden.com it's a copyright violation. Wikipedia doesn't need to mention it anywhere, as nobody is going to be confused about this point. –jacobolus(t)03:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't see how reflection symmetry necessitated the adjacency of the equal length sides, but upon reflection I get it. Kites include rhombuses and squares, but exclude parallelograms and rectangles. Iismitch55 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightoil The top two lines of the talk header are: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the «Title Here» article. ¶ This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Which is exactly the same thing the the "not a forum" template says. Littering pages with more banners that nobody reads does not solve any practical problem. In particular, it does not discourage anyone from making forum-like comments. –jacobolus(t)20:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey y'all! I sure hope y'all are havin' a mighty fine day today. I just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you for takin' the time to contribute to Wikipedia by creatin' that there article.
I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Now y'all can rest easy and enjoy the rest of your day, along with your kinfolk! Y'all take care now, ya hear?
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Cool. The material is not amazing, and not well sourced, but I split it from content that has already been here for many years (it was out of scope for the page it was on before), and I didn't want to just delete it outright. I'm sure someone else can improve it dramatically with some work. –jacobolus(t)01:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spherical circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hemisphere.
Yes, because there is no proper article about hemispheres in spherical geometry, so the disambiguation page is the best we can do for now. –jacobolus(t)10:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Blackboard bold in print in Loomis and Sternberg (1968).jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, user Jacobolus! I have an important question. Would you please allow me to relocate the Hyperbolic Lemniscatic Functions section to a separate Wikipedia article? I ask this question to you because in the current form this article is indisputable very huge. Therefore I thought about a relocation. But what is your opinion to this suggestion? Please answer me in a very clear way! Yours faithfully and sincerely!! Lion Emil Jann Fiedler also known as Reformbenediktiner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reformbenediktiner (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Would you like to help me and give some explanations how to cite a {{cite conference}}? Here's the example of a reference
Graph Structure Theory: Proceedings of the AMS-IMS-SIAM Joint Summer Research Conference on Graph Minors, Held June 22 to July 5, 1991, with Support from the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research, p. 205.
Here's the link of the reference: [1]. Honestly, I do know how to format references in books and journals, but I do not know how to format conference. Thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr I always kind of wing it with conference citations. I'd do something like:
McCuaig, William (1992). "Intercyclic Digraphs". In Robertson, Neil; Seymour, Paul (eds.). Graph Structure Theory. AMS–IMS–SIAM Joint Summer Research Conference on Graph Minors, Seattle, June 22 – July 5, 1991. American Mathematical Society. p. 205.
If you need it on an article with citation style 2, you can add 'mode':
McCuaig, William (1992), "Intercyclic Digraphs", in Robertson, Neil; Seymour, Paul (eds.), Graph Structure Theory, AMS–IMS–SIAM Joint Summer Research Conference on Graph Minors, Seattle, June 22 – July 5, 1991, American Mathematical Society, p. 205
Hey Jacobolus! Putting this here as I didn't want to call you out in front of the other editors contributing to the peer review. I'm not sure if you meant it, but your response to my comments came off to me as fairly defensive. We can agree to disagree about whether whatever changes I suggested should be implemented, but I just wanted to make it clear that my comments were not intended as an implication that your work on the article is sub-optimal. I genuinely want to help make the article better, which I daresay is the same reason you're editing it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 Sorry, not trying to be prickly. (And feel free to call me out.) I just don't quite understand the issues with "intersections" and "prolific" (of course, feel free to rephrase these if you have language that seems clearer). The wayback thing is a bit off topic, sorry if it seems like I'm swiping at you. I am genuinely quite annoyed at the wayback bot (even though the internet archive is among my top favorite institutions ever), and I wish Wikipedia would tell the archive to save but back off on indiscriminately linking archive links to still living web pages. It feels to me more like it crosses the line from genuine service into pro-wayback spam. –jacobolus(t)17:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly plausible that there are still some bits with a bit too loose a tone. Take a look at the previous article state; I've been trying to cut out vague adulatory material and keep the article from veering into promotion, but also don't want to completely trample what was there previously that other editors put effort into. –jacobolus(t)18:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subtracting the Wikipedia list still gives 1385 colors to add to the Wikipedia list of colors. Provided you don't object, I'll add in the remaining 1385 colors. SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(a) You are linking some random web page, not Crayola. (b) Crayola does not as far as I know publish anything like detailed color measurements of their art supplies. –jacobolus(t)17:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 20-year-old text file published on a defunct university web page, which doesn't tell anything about what these color coordinates are supposed to represent, beyond mentioning that they come from Resene (a paint store in New Zealand). –jacobolus(t)18:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a more up to date list at [4]. Another list of over 8,000 colors from several other sources is available from [5]. You can filter by source, there are around 15 sources in total. However, I can point out that 99Colors is a circular reference back to Wikipedia’s list c. 2011. Computer Hope does not mention where their colors came from, so I can dismiss it as unreliable. Crayola does not produce any list of RGB values, the values shown on Wikipedia are inspected from the “Exploring Colors” section of the website. “Colors by Kristen” is just made up and therefore unreliable. And the “Other” sources is questionable at best. The rest seem to be okay. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your second source is someone's personal webpage. The Resene excel file is better, but still very problematic. You have a list of RGB coordinates associated to a company's list of paint names. What are these RGB numbers supposed to represent? What light spectrum you get from a painted surface depends not just on the pigment but also the lighting, and varies depending on surface finish. How that spectrum is interpreted by eyes/brain depends on context. Converting spectrophotometric measurements (assuming that's where this came from) to RGB coordinates involves a series of choices. RGB coordinates are only meaningful if you know the context where they will be displayed. None of the steps, criteria, or choices involved here are obviously documented anywhere.
Now the question is: what makes this company's paint name to paint color list encyclopedic? There are many paint companies, each with their own made up list of names. Is this particular list constructed based on scholarship? Widely adopted? Historically/culturally significant? Are there "reliable sources" about it (i.e. independent secondary sources attesting to its accuracy or significance)? If Wikipedia were to present its content to readers as authoritative, would that give a fair impression of what those color names "mean" in some kind of absolute way?
Personally I think almost all of the lists of colors on Wikipedia should be eliminated, and only added back carefully with much better explanation of what they represent so readers are not tricked. But I don't care so strongly about this that I want to get in a giant fight about it. –jacobolus(t)19:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lemniscate elliptic functions
Good morning, dear user Jacobolus! I really appreciate you and thank you for not deleting anything but maintaining everything. I say this because there are some other users who have all too often labeled and judged my entered formulas as theory finding and original research and then these users deleted all my entries again and again. I am very glad you are not one of those destructive types of users. Before I mention the hyperbolic lemniscate functions in the aspect of the Hermite research result and the quintic equation, I just took the Hermite source on page 258 and copied the formula out of his essay. Then I just made regular calculation algorithms that are very well known and everyone of us could create. In the last step I just saw immediately in the results that the modulus and the Pythagorean complementary modulus can be presented in a very easy way by using the hyperbolic lemniscate functions. And it was listed at a special point in the same article in a section above. So I decided to enter these results exactly in that article. Reformbenediktiner (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reformbenediktiner – this discussion probably belongs on Talk:Lemniscate elliptic functions. just made regular calculation algorithms that are very well known – If the relationship to lemniscate functions hasn't been pointed out in published literature, that sounds like original research to me. This section might still be better to remove, and the general subject left to the article Bring radical. –jacobolus(t)06:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove this! Read it carefully! You can understand the calculation steps in a good way. I believe in you. If something is unclear, please ask me! But I don't want to see the issue of quintic equations erased again. The user A1E6 already erased far too much. And this user already persecutes me. Therefore I tought that I could enter something that really only contains aspects that are definitely no original research. And I was careful. It's been a kind of back-and-forth process going on between me and the other users all along. Please maintain at least that what is written down in the current form of the article! I've already accepted the limitations when user A1E6 has already removed way too much from my posts. But I don't want to lose what I have now written and which is much shorter in this article now. So I ask you sincerely to keep everything as it is at the moment. Because the reader should at least know that there is a connection between the halving theorems and the modulus generation at the quintic equations. And Hermite really found out how to generate the modulus in relation to the corresponding quintic equation in Bring-Jerrard form. Reformbenediktiner (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reformbenediktiner – this is not about whether someone can understand what you wrote, but about whether there is a published source for it. Nobody is persecuting you. The "No original research" policy is a subject of widespread consensus, not the personal agenda of an individual editor. –jacobolus(t)07:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton You may want to read Wikipedia:Edit warring: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." –jacobolus(t)00:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want editors to template you, then don't accuse them of edit warring in your edit summary, especially when you are clearly editing against consensus, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions on the article's talk page. There are limits to how much people can put up with. M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, can you explain why a circle is not a region? I see that a region is defined as a non-empty connected open set. A circle is clearly non-empty, so it must be either disconnected or closed (or both). Can you explain why a circle does not satisfy the definitions of connected or open? Klauscougar (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Klauscougar A circle is not an open subset of the plane. Any neighborhood (or if you prefer, arbitrarily small disk) you draw around a point on the circle contains points which are not part of the circle. By way of comparison, an open disk (interior of a circle) is a region, and a closed disk (the union of the circle and its interior) might be a region depending on your definition (or might be called something like a "closed region"). –jacobolus(t)01:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
madhava of sangamagrama
There is lot of problems in madhava of sangamagrama article.In the section of Kerala mathematics and astronomy it is mentioned something of integration and says that the area under the curve is integral and Kerala school had lead the foundation of integral calculus but the reference are either junk nor it supports it Leveinhockerkerala (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect anyone would revert this change. It looks to me like you mainly replaced lists of formulas with more fleshed out explanatory text. Someone might do further copyediting or reorganization though. –jacobolus(t)02:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all an expert on making "good articles". I often find listed "good articles" which seem okay but nothing amazing, and often find excellent articles that have not been promoted. I think it mainly depends on going through the process and working to meet any concerns of whoever reviews it. If I were trying to write the best article I could about square pyramids though, I think I'd try to hunt down another few dozen sources, at least to look at if not to necessarily include. –jacobolus(t)02:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real improvement. I'm afraid I've come across as a very unflattering personality. I'm no language maven (I certainly don't need to tell Eppstein that), what I was primarily trying to address was the way that section starts: "Suppose..." I tried to reframe it as "Supposing that..." but, as our friend pointed out, that falls short grammatically. Assuming that you, also, feel that directly addressing the reader is not ideal, any ideas as to how that could be rephrased? Primergrey (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've come across as a very unflattering personality. – David can be a bit blunter/pricklier than I'd prefer sometimes (note: I sometimes can be myself). You're both clearly trying to help the page, but it can be tough to stay cool (and tough to read people's intent) when disagreements arise in the depersonalized medium of text-based wiki edits.
directly addressing the reader – Personally I don't have any problem with technical Wiki articles using imperative constructions such as "Suppose ...", and wouldn't really consider them to be directly addressing the reader per se. Such constructions are extremely common in technical and especially mathematical writing ("Let ....", "Assume ....", "Set ....", etc.). Scientific and especially mathematical writing also frequently uses similar informal seeming conventions such as the author's we, which I think is fine in Wikipedia. –jacobolus(t)22:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it must be tough to write math and technical articles and not have them read like a textbook, when the people who know have little reason to read the article and the people who don't know, really don't know. Primergrey (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's manual of style urges people to avoid this kind of construction in general, but my personal feeling is that the requirements for mathematical writing are substantially different from other kinds of writing (and the community norms are different from other scholarly writing), and a strictly "encyclopedic" tone is not always appropriate for mathematical encyclopedia articles. YMMV. –jacobolus(t)03:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't really speak any North American languages (California alone had more linguistic diversity than all of Eurasia!). My parents speak Tzotzil, but I only ever learned a handful of the most common words and phrases. French is useful for some old math books, but I sure wish machine translation did a better job with Latin. –jacobolus(t)02:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cite book or cite conference
Hi, @Jacobolus. I apologize again for asking how to format the CS1. I have found the source here, and the reason I asked is I really confused about whether use {{cite book}} or {{cite conference}} to format this source. Would you like to help me a little bit? Also, can you tell me the difference between the format of both citations? Any explanation would be appreciated. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could use either one for this. It depends whether you care to list that these papers came from a conference (called "Daniele Barbaro e lo Studio patavino. Architettura, arte e scienza in occasione die 450 anni dalla morte", hosted by the University of Padua, 11 December 2020; the conference was a Zoom call in the middle of the pandemic). If so, you would use {{cite conference}}, otherwise, you could use {{cite book}}. –jacobolus(t)09:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yuktibhasa
In the sub section of mathematics of section contents of yuktibhasa article it's given as
Proofs for the expansion of the sine and cosine functions
Thanks. I haven't done much here, just a bit of biographical touch-up, most credit goes to other Wikipedians. But there is certainly a bunch more we could add, e.g. we should have synopses of works other than the Elements, etc.
I've mostly been trying to learn about spherical geometry and the stereographic projection and their history, which mainly begins in ancient Greek geometry. –jacobolus(t)14:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted edit at "Logarithm"
Hi, you reverted an edit that literally just removed a duplicate line; the exact same formula is two lines above. I want to avoid an edit war, so would you mind reverting your revert? Note that the sum symbol is not actually a shorthand – it contains more info, namely where the sum stops. As such, your revert actively adds inaccurate wording back. Thanks for you understanding MüllerMarcus (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, your change makes the page significantly less accessible for non-technical readers, and as such is not an improvement. Notation, including a summation sign, is always a kind of "shorthand"; before the invention of the summation sign, the common convention was to explicitly write out terms of a series or the partial sums, followed by ....; this is still much easier to interpret for laypeople and early students – the summation sign becomes natural after a few years of experience but is often daunting to newcomers. It's even non-obvious to early students that means that in the limit the partial sums converge to This is a somewhat tricky concept which people generally don't learn until quite a bit after the initial introduction of logarithms. Try to keep in mind that Wikipedia is read by a very wide audience, not only people with expert technical training. If you have more to say about this, please discuss on talk:logarithm rather than here. –jacobolus(t)19:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you're still ignoring that there's now two *identical* lines just interrupted by what you call to shorthand. Yes, let's discuss this on talk:Logarithm. MüllerMarcus (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should start a discussion on that editor's talk page or on the article's talk page? I don't have any special expertise about this topic. –jacobolus(t)13:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being intemperate toward you at WT:TECHNICAL. At this point, I don't even remember what the other discussions were in which I thought you were being intemperate, and even if I thought I had a legit issue to raise, I should have done it in user talk. At this point, your input over there seems fine, and I find my own to have been less constructive than it should have been. I've had a persistent flu or nasty cold for two weeks running, and it may have affected my mood or judgment, but I'm not actually entirely sure what it was that "set me off". Seems more sensible to just issue a mea culpa than to go diff-digging for some kind of elusive rationale to defend my behavior. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton – the IP user clearly doesn't entirely understand how Wikipedia talk pages work, and just clicked the "add new topic" button instead of clicking a "reply" link or directly editing the conversation source under the previous heading. These comments are about the same topic and part of the same conversation. It's much clearer for anyone else who comes along to figure out what's going on with the conversation consolidated. If you want feel free to take out the horizontal rule. –jacobolus(t)18:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@PicturePerfect666: Please don't just randomly spew maintenance templates around. They are eyesores distracting to readers, they rarely result in any positive development, they make everyone grumpy, and they are generally not actionable unless backed by concrete and specific discussion on the talk page. The vast majority of Wikipedia pages have significant problems which are immediately apparent to anyone who tries to read them, but just adding a large pile of distracting disclaimers at the top of each page doesn't do anything to solve those problems, and is pretty much entirely unhelpful to either readers or other editors.
The maintenance template fad started a decade ago or more, and for a while there was a critical mass of template-obsessed editors who would plaster them all over every article they could find and then pick a fight about it anyone tried to remove them. In practice this accomplished almost nothing except a lot of wasted meta-argument about the appropriateness or usefulness of the banners. Over time most of the banners were deleted for being demonstrably useless. As a general rule, I'd say any tag which hasn't accomplished anything in a year or two or isn't backed by a concrete discussion on the talk page is fair game to remove, irrespective of what that obnoxious "help" page says.
As a new Wikipedian, there are many (many!) more useful tasks you can undertake than putting up maintenance templates. In particular, you can BOLDly try to fix the issue you identified, or if you don't know how to do that, you can start a talk page discussion.
With respect to the specific "research paper" banner you added to division by zero. No, the article does not at all read like a research paper, so the banner is not appropriate there. (Source: I spend hours every day reading research papers.) However, there are quite likely related issues with the article's organization or writing which you are welcome to concretely critique in full sentences in a new talk page section, which others can then meaningfully respond to or try to work from.
If you feel this strongly please discuss this in that way on the talk page. I also not you removed the other banner without making an improvements to the article, it was just a tag removal and a tag there for that length of time should not be removed without discussion or improvement. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PicturePerfect666 that banner was sitting there for seven and a half years accomplishing precisely nothing. It didn't lead anyone to add footnotes. It didn't spark a talk page discussion. It didn't cause any concerted hunt for sources. What length of time do you think is appropriate to leave it there? Actually, please don't bother answering that. Instead, cf. User:Jorge Stolfi/Templates that I sorely miss.
As always, please feel free to improve writing, references, diagrams, or whatever other aspects of articles you please, or start discussions on the talk page. Every minute we spend pasting or removing banners or yapping here is another minute we're doing meaningful productive work on the encyclopedia. –jacobolus(t)17:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please contribute to the discussion here. Also the fact a "banner was sitting there for seven and a half years accomplishing precisely nothing. It didn't lead anyone to add footnotes. It didn't spark a talk page discussion" is not a reason to simply remove it. A better way would be to start a discussion on the matter and if that yields discussion or not then remove the tag. I have taken the liberty of starting the discussion herePicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers vs. numerals
I don't know what you meant by your revert, on the last part of your summary. In number articles, as I am sure you have become aware, there is a longstanding issue with adding information that has been specific to the numeral, rather than the number, so I added these hatnotes to make that more explicit. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Extra-mathematical associations for a discussion of this if you are not aware. I feel, you meant just for the article at −1, but come on, obviously I know negative one is not a numeral, B.S. aside; seems like people whenever they get the chance to tack me on something minimal, they do; should let go of that prejudiced dead horse, and just be kind, and intuitive. Radlrb (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The addition to the hatnote seemed misplaced and so I reverted it. The word numeral has multiple overlapping definitions with somewhat fuzzy boundaries and inconsistent use (in society and on Wikipedia), but I can't think of a context where I'd ever call "−1" a "numeral". YMMV.
I don't understand what you mean by "come on", "B.S. aside", "get the chance to tack me", "prejudiced dead horse", or "just be kind, and intuitive". Reverting a Wikipedia edit is not a personal attack. –jacobolus(t)02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, only numbers can be numerals in a given base that exhausts the digits used in that base, i.e. 0 through 9 for base 10, and combinations of these; so "−1" is not a numeral, as I had just described, yet you either did not read it right, or are still pushing the same, which validates my point. I guess what I meant by all of the other stuff does not make sense to you, and I am alright with that, it doesn't have to. Maybe in the future signs will be considered part of a numeral, and indeed −1 would be a numeral. Anyways, I'm really not going to keep speaking to you if you are going to be so uninclined to acknowledge my inputs here in Wikipedia. Your dead-tone here speaks what you don't want to speak with you mouth, or through your fingers. I rest my case, and reverts on Wikipedia can definitely be personal attacks, if you don't understand that, I can't help you there. Love, Radlrb (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pushing anything. I'm not sure what has you so wound up, but your interpretation has nothing to do with my edit or my intentions, and I am not sure what else to say. I agree with you that this doesn't seem to be productive. All the best. –jacobolus(t)03:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to retract some or all of your comment after it has been replied to on another user's page, on an article talk page, or the like, you can use the {{strike}} template, like this, and/or add a parenthetical message or additional explicit comment doing the retraction [edit: example of a later editorial comment added parenthetically –jacobolus(t) 03:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)]. Please don't ever just delete other people's talk page comments. –jacobolus(t)03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unf. that is a Wikipedia policy, that doesn't make sense. In real life, if you build a building, you can build another in its place, without the visual burden of the history of the old building, and otherwise. One can add a diff of a past comment to keep its record, but that is not practice. Useless comments on article or user talk pages that are nonsensical or vandalism can be removed, though, as is practice many-a-times. I accept your explanation, and take it as me being sensitive, today several things got to me, and I genuinely believed you were being facetious, I see it is not the case, and I'm sorry. Good night. Radlrb (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}