This is an archive of past discussions with User:JohnBlackburne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Rockall, a small, isolated rocky islet in the North Atlantic Ocean.
Editing Complex Numbers
What you fail to grasp, Mr. Blackburne, is that Wikipedia is for the enlightenment of people who are NOT experts in the field. That's why they're reading the article. If you insist on making these articles just as obtuse as they would be found in a mathematical text, you're missing the point, and Wikipedia, as an idea to share knowledge with all, suffers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br77rino (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've mentioned in the edit summary, and in more detail on your talk page, why I reverted: each time it was because of a mathematical or grammatical (i.e. the words didn't make sense) error in your change. I.e. it's not as you suggest about keeping the articles obtuse, simply about keeping them correct.
If you have any issues with the article then mention it on the talk page, and then someone can address your concerns at length in the right place, rather than in an edit summary or a brief message on a user's talk page. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
About 4-D rotations
Hi. I recently made two additions, both with a mistake, but instead of correct them you have removed them. I don't know if you really want them to be fixed or if you prefere them not to appear at all.
Would you agree to add the following sentences to the article?
In dimension 2 a rotation is around a given point. In dimension 3 rotations are defined around an axis. In dimension 4 rotations would be expected to be defined around a plane, but in the general case they can also be defined around one point.
A rotation matrix in dim 2 is uniparametric. Given an angle of rotation the whole matrix is defined. A rotation matrix in dim 3 is three-parametric. It is defined for example by the Euler angles. In dim 4 the rotation matrix is defined by two quaternions, and is therefore 6-parametric (three freedom degrees for every quaternion). The 4x4 rotation matrices have therefore 6 out of 16 independent components.
The first sentence is redundant, in that it just says in a different way what's there already. Something's needed describing the general case, e.g. what happens for any number of dimensions in the last section, which generalises these rules properly.
The second sentence is much better now though I'd word it differently. you could put it in but I'd expect it to be edited at least for style. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
G12 speedies
First of all, Robert J. McCann has been speedied as requested. Next time you do a G12 request, though, please make sure you include the URL in the template so that the deleting admin can just jump directly to the page being infringed upon. Otherwise, I have to play find-the-source, usually involving pulling a phrase from the article and Googling it. It saves time to include that URL up front so the deleting admin doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to verify the infringement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry you had to re-Google it. I thought I had copied the URL but must have only done so on the talk page. Still relatively new to this aspect of Wikipedia so hopefully will do better next time. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Word (language)
When the content is as different as that, merging should be considered., Speedy deletion is quite inappropriate, until some expert attention has been given. If the duplication of the content is not unmistakably obvious, it;s not a speedy. -- Just the same as other speedy reasons. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I see now used the wrong approach. I saw the page in the un-patrolled pages log and it seemed a straightforward case of someone making an unnecessary page. I think I should stay away from that log and the AfD pages for a while to keep my deletionist tendencies at bay. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that there are no "better places" for this content. If Economy of Newcastle upon Tyne existed, then there would be. However that article does not exist.
The phrase List of companies based in Newcastle upon Tyne technically refers to companies with corporate headquarters in Newcastle. While the article also lists corporate presences of other companies, it is very likely to be turned into a category.
British Airways's head office is in Hillingdon, London, but it has a large office in Newcastle. Unless/until Economy of Newcastle upon Tyne exists, then Newcastle upon Tyne is the best place for the British Airways office in Newcastle remark.
The problem is there are lots of companies in Newcastle, and to be fair to them all they should all be mentioned, or none should. I removed it from Newcastle after checking List of companies based in Newcastle upon Tyne, which I then added it to. It has a section for companies which are not HQed there but have significant offices there. It's not much of a list but that's one more entry towards it being a useful reference. There's also a mention in Benwell and Scotswood which I added a link to.
As for a new article, I don't know. It seems it does exist for e.g. Birmingham, but not Liverpool, to pick two similar cities. There's not much in the main article to build on, and the danger is unless a lot of work is done finding new info it might be nominated for deletion or merging before long. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, there are a lot of companies in Newcastle. The way to deal with this is to only list operations from notable companies (those that would pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) - and if there are still too many, then list those with the largest operations and/or the most prominent of the companies (British Airways, for instance, is a flag carrier of the United Kingdom) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is anything has not to stand up to WP:NPOV, which in this case I think means not favouring one company over others in a prominent article. I tried searching for large employers and found this which is nice as it's up to date and has numbers. It's only local companies, i.e. ones based in the NE, though arguably those are of more interest when describing the local economy. It's a long list to consider for inclusion: add companies like BA not based here but with a significant presence and it would be much longer (and more difficult to compile).--JohnBlackburne (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV doesn't ban someone from deciding which companies to list in an economy section of an article. WP:NPOV says that one should not add a point of view to an article - i.e. one can't have Wikipedia say "this is better than another" - but when writing an encyclopedia article it is acceptable to decide what to include and what not to include.
When writing an economy section you have to decide which companies to mention and which companies not to mention. Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Undue_weight says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." - We are talking about factual information (companies operating in Newcastle) and not points of view, but when discussing companies operating in Newcastle we have to give preference to the largest operations and most prominent companies. WP:Undue weight says so.
Hi, just want to compliment you on your work to the Sixth dimension topic, the only critique I have is that it is no longer a non technical introdution to the topic; and that IMO there should still be a many worlds interpretation X-reference in there somewhere! (not that it means i am right!)
Non technical is fine for the layman, but i concede probably not so helpful for the academic who would benefit more from how it stands now. I had a hand in the original topic's creation, since i noted there was a 4th, 5th and 11th dimension wiki page but for some odd reason the 6th one was missing; (except for some obscure tv/video game footnote) and in my armchair science explorations that was to me the most interesting one of all.
I notice that you have replaced and polished up some of the original muddled examples of common theories to more detailed scientific versions, which is what the non technical version of the page was attempting to grasp crudely at in a caveman sort of way - and you added a lot of material I missed or was unaware of.
Anyway, awesome work; it's nice to see a member actually fix an article, instead of the usual too hard basket approach of /I dont want to fix it/, /think about it/, /or even try to understand it/ so i will just/delete it/ you all too often find here. I shudder to think how many topics have been lost because of emotive/theological/lazy deletes which have then taken place on obscure topics because nobody noticed in time, instead of rewrites or corrections.
Why does my "Website" section on Rob Paulsen keep getting deleted? I wrote that so people would know the history of the making of it. And it is not to "promote" the site. I can't actually validate it because I have no sources other than myself, as I am the webmaster.
I wonder if you have any interest in adding some examples to the Bivector article, either mathematical or physical? As I am presently under sanction, my ability to do this is severely limited. Brews ohare (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
John: There is a variety of views on the topic of pseudovector, and no one of them is "right" I'd guess. On Talk: Bivector I've provided two sources that convey one viewpoint, apparently different from your own. Perhaps we can sort this out on that talk page? Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
On Six-dimensional space, I had intended to assist you in this matter by providing more complete source information. It appears instead that any change from your original text is to be interpreted as a turf war, not an olive branch. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Might you know of "the" (or "a") geometric interpretations of the three main geometric algebra involutions (reversion, grade involution, and Clifford conjugation)? I believe that grade involution corresponds to reflection through the origin, but I don't know about the other two.
ALSO, when representing a geometric algebra using a faithful matrix representation, where ordinary matrix multiplication corresponds to a geometric product, are there analogous matrix involutions to these geometric algebra involutions. When using a sensible basis, the transpose is equal to the reverse, but I've found nothing for the other two.
I don't - those three don't come up very much. I would expect the geometric interpretation, if any, to be along the lines of e.g. a left handed vs. a right handed result for the cross product. you can use either as long as you're consistent. The same with GA: you could e.g. build GA with products which are always reversed, and as long as you're consistent you get the same geometric results and can prove the same things.
I'm not at all familiar with its relation to matrix algebra. I know that every geometric algebra is equivalent to a matrix one, it's not a simple correspondence, so I would think the relationships to the involutions are non-trivial too. But it's not something I've ever looked at. --John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You are right, what you did was not vandalism, and I should not have characterised it that way. But repeatedly removing it while it is under discussion while there is no clear consensus if not vandalism is not the way to edit Wikipedia.
I agree that it turned into an inappropriate edit war; I just didn't enjoy being singled-out and labeled as a vandal (it takes more than one person to have an edit war). Thank you for seeing my point about the vandalism accusations! 90.217.104.238 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record: I am not edit-warring. I restrict myself to one revert per day on a page, and never more than 2 days in a row. I resent any such inference by this anon IP. He may not be a vandal, but his removal of content without consensus is very close to that. Plvekamp (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Please qualify how your revisions are different from mine. Let me guess, because the link being there first means it's different for you? Only inclusion policies are valid without consensus? Essentially, "ner-ner-ner-ner-ner"? 90.217.104.238 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a relatively minor issue. E.g. in geometric algebra which I'm most familiar with, if you study the topic (and the current page is a good starting point) then you'll learn these term as part of its vocabulary. In some ways the GA pseudovector is nothing special: it's just a name for various different things (bivectors in 3D, trivectors in 4D) that happen to be the dual of the vector. The pseudoscalar is more important in GA but even that's just a name for the highest grade element of the algebra, which you usually just assign a symbol to and use.--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that some diambiguation and collection is required. The multilinear algebra article has sufficient breadth for the elementary meanings. The bivector concept may need disambiguation since Elie Cartan and others took it into spinor theory where it has a richer meaning. This nexus is important to mathematical physics so there are many sources to draw from and consider.Rgdboer (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
your sig
Hey, what coding do you use to get 'words' over 'deeds' in your sig? Can we use that for overstrike in the articles? kwami (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Just look at the source, i.e. edit a page after I've used my sig. That's what I did after seeing another sig with the layout I wanted, the tweaked it to fit everything in.
I reverted once, gave my reasons in the edit summary, and gave further information on my reasons in the thread on the talk page. I was pleased it was then taken to the BLP noticeboard as it seemed to me worth elevating, but then bringing it to AN/I seem hasty at best. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you were acting in good faith, but it seems very unwise to me to respond to a news article that says "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood ... is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors" by removing that information from his Wikipedia page. It exposes Wikipedia to ridicule, frankly. I suggest working with the other editors to find a way of including that information, rather than deleting it and confirming the worst impressions conveyed by The New Yorker's article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not worried by ridicule from a satirical magazine that can't even get its facts right (I read through the piece and apparently he finished the Graveyard Book "several years ago" - or maybe that article needs to be updated too ?). Seriously, I'm sure it's fun for them to take pot-shots at us as a dull encyclopaedia, compared to a magazine not fettered by finding reliable sources, but we don't aspire to be like them and they don't aspire to be like us. I would simply ignore any such comments. It's not a "pivotal fact" because a magazine says so.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd agree with that - I was under the impression that The New Yorker was a pretty well-regarded journal. I note that Priscilla Coit Murphy describes it as "a bastion of well-researched and serious writing" with a "legendary" fact-checking department.[1] If a journal with that kind of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy takes a crack at Wikipedia then I think we really do need to respond appropriately to it. But since the matter now seems to be well in hand on the article talk page, I've marked it as resolved on AN/I. Best wishes with continuing to develop the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
"Consistent formula sizes"?
Hi, in Cartesian coordinate system you added a "\," at the end of several formulas. Just curious, what was the point of those edits? (The edit summary says something like "make formula sizes consistent", but, for what I know of TeX, the "\," at the end should make no difference.) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The "\," is a TeX invisible space. At the end it has no effect except it forces the renderer to render as a bitmap. This depends in part on your browser and preferences, but when I looked at the page some of the formulae were normal sized but some simpler ones were smaller.
Hi John, You new sig links (wordsdeeds) give me a little problem: the link to your talk page doesn't work anymore. It's sort of too deep. I had no problem with your previous version (John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds)). I use standard Internet Explorer IE8 on XP with SP3.
Hm, odd. I just tried IE running on Vista and the contribs link mostly doesn't work: it works only at the rightmost extreme where talk isn't above it, even at the largest font size. I've tried moving it sideways so it mostly doesn't overlap, but I'll try it again with IE when I get the chance. Thanks for mentioning it or I would never have thought to look at it. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Speed of Light
ArbCom felt that it was the proper place to ask for comments regarding the narrow unblocking of Brews, and so do I. I have tried to argue those points that are directly relevant to the content of the page, and alongside this to simultaneously ask that editors go to the administrative page, and try to get Brews unblocked, so that other people don't have to argue for his position.Likebox (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You're an editor, you can go and raise it there. Then if you have a good case other editors will join you in support, or if not in opposition. This happens every time: all these cases attract support and opposition from other editors. But you are the only one who cares about it enough to make an issue of it, so if you feel strongly about it raise it at Arbitration yourself. I think no other editor will expend the time and effort on your behalf. And your repeated raising of it on Talk:Speed of light will make editors less likely to support you due to your continued disruption of that page.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to raise it unless I have your support--- I am asking for your support. If you say "yes", and whoever else says "yes", then I will do it. I don't want to go there with hostile editors against the motion.Likebox (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Also--- I do not wish to disrupt "speed of light", just to explain the position of the two editors better so that there will be more sympathy. Their position is cogent, although I don't agree with it 100%.Likebox (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't support you (and I'm therefore not saying I will) until you actually try it, as it's your statements there I'd be supporting, plus any other points raised by other editors. There's a good chance I'll stay out of it - I've only got involved in two arbitration discussions, one I started and one started about me, i.e. I don't join in others.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds21:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough--- I'll ask Finnell and TimothyRias, and if they are similarly neutral on the issue, I'll bring it up.Likebox (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello John, I nominated the above article for DYK on Jan 24. If you have time, can you look into if it has any problems with its hook. Thanks a lot Taprobanus (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:The_Wolves_in_the_Walls_Cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:The_Wolves_in_the_Walls_Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The request to add links as I said came from someone Wikipedia, not come from me; I followed the instructions and placed links to all relevant material I could find concerning European culture as it relates to religion and to politics; that is a wide area;
I don’t know what “orphaned” means, but this was not relevant to implementing what appeared to be an instruction; I am also unaware of the maximum number of links you expect to a topic: what is the number?
The fact that this is new work and that others say that it is influential and original material does indeed mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia; this is open media and yours is no more or no less of an opinion than that of others, and for the moment you are in the minority;
The novelty and the complexity of the work means that I, as the writer, am indeed the best qualified to launch the article to ensure that the base correctly reflects the work; as time goes on, it will be added to by others;
You have not read the book and until you do so are unqualified to talk about it; you do not know how the content relates to the work of Hofstede or of Trompenaars, so your opinions on my use of the word “complete” are both gratuitous and personal opinion; my opinion and that of others is that it does in fact complete their work and there is statistical analysis in the book to prove this;
The article seeks not to promote the book, but to illuminate thinking on European cultural typology and the ideas are totally new and dissociable from the name of the book;
I am not sure what power you hold over the future of this article, but I assume you mean it in your home page when you say in you are in good faith; I will go straight to the dispute resolution procedure if you insist on destroying this work.
The content is infinitely more important than what you have got away with inserting on "Blueberry Girl"
If you want to contest the deletion nomination the place to do so is here. Other than that I don't think I've much to add except, as you've raised it, Blueberry Girl is there as it's a notable work. It's been covered by e.g. Wired. the Daily News, Boing Boing and probably other major news organisations, and placed on some 'best of the year' lists. It's also by a famous author, and published by a mainstream publisher, but these are secondary. The book alone is notable based on the coverage it's received. Machiavelli and The Mayflower has no such coverage, or at least I could not find any.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds15:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your values on famous or mainstream are not mine; I am concerned about the vindictiveness of your attack on my article and about your lack of knowledge of the book: I don't want you going into my article and removing the fact that I am disputing all the libellous comment you are making about me or about my work and trying to exploit my lack of knowledgeabout how Wiki works; I don't like the cabal you have created with arnouft; I want you to remove all of this unwarranted, unfair, unprovoked and destructive comment from my site.--Bgillesp (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC) bgillesp
You seem to be confusing the two main ways articles are deleted
* WP:PROD - proposed deletion. Any editor can propose an article for deletion, and if there is good reason, it is uncontroversial, and no-one disagrees, then it is deleted. To contest the deletion the Template:hangon template is used, but only for speedy deletion.
* WP:AFD - deletion discussions. For any other situation a discussion is started, and any editor can participate, either to support the deletion or oppose it. Once this is started all discussion on the article deletion should take place there, so all editors involved see all the arguments.
At the same time any editor can do what they can to improve the article - in fact this is often the outcome of a deletion discussion as it e.g. turns up new sources with stronger evidence of notability.
Please, do not take this personally as neither I nor any other editor are participating with any other agenda than improving Wikipedia. It is clear you are relatively experienced here, which is why I and others have done what we can to carefully point out the issues with the article, with reference to the policies and processes we follow.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds12:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do take it seriously because what you have done is malicious and personally embarassing; you know nothing about me nor about my work, yet you have taken it upon yourself to dispute it; this is genuine scholarship with many years of research; I have done nothing to deserve such criticism, and I deeply disagree with your value judgements; please just get off my site and remove all of your malicious comments. Thank you--Bgillesp (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp
Again, please do not take any of this personally, and please read again what I've written above. But I would also add it's not "your site". It's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Anyone asserting ownership over a particular part of it is generally rightfully ignored. See e.g. WP:OWN. Even your user and talk pages can be edited by anyone, though generally they and only they are considered owned by an editor, so the editor can control what's on them within reason.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds12:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Since we are apparently together in a cabal, just wanted to say hi. But to be honest I think we both have tried to be open and fair to Bob Gillespie, so I think his aggressive tone is a bit over the top. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel a little sorry for him as he's started off in exactly the wrong place, editing an article about something he's made, without learning first how to do so by working on established articles and participating in WP more generally. But also he's been given plenty of time and chances to catch up on his reading of policies, practices, even just other articles to see how an article on e.g. a notable book looks. He's clearly knows a lot about his subject, he's just gone about adding it to WP the wrong way.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that; it is sad that people feel not welcome on Wikipedia.
On the other hand he is not helping his own case by going about outside all policies and guidelines, even after being pointed to them rather politely. Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Plane of rotation
On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plane of rotation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On February 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Wolves in the Walls, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:JohnBlackburne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
){kind=link}