User talk:Bob.v.R

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

fermat's little theorem[edit]

Hi Bob, I'm wondering if you saw my comment on Talk:Proofs of Fermat's little theorem. Dmharvey Talk 00:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dm, okay now I have read it. I will reply over there. Bob.v.R 01:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wilkinson polynomial[edit]

Hi Bobby,

I'll try to answer your two questions on my talk page:

1) Yes in the lagrange form section we are talking about the coefficients of the polynomial in lagrange form which are all equal to zero except for one coefficient;
2) I don't know any root-finding algorithm for which this is relevant. All i wanted to show by adding this stuff is that OK the root finding problem is ill conditioned when the polynomial is expressed in power basis but in the natural lagrange basis it is not. It is just a statement of theoretical "beauty".

On the other hand, as the article is now, it seems a bit ridiculous (for a non specialist reader) to try to compute the roots of this polynomial since the roots can be found in its definition! Actually I think Wilkinson defined this polynomial as the one with equidistant roots and then he found that finding the roots numerically with as data the vector of coefficients in power basis was an ill-conditioned problem. So to me the guy showed that root finding algorithms can be very bad for certain polynomials, but he showed that for a polynomial for which the roots were already known... My point here is that all the stuff about the wilkinson polynomial is not "relevant" as you said but these are just notions that can be interesting for people interested in mathematics, notions with a slice of "theoretical beauty".

Oh and for the very first question, maybe i will try one day to make it even more precise but i don't really see at the moment what is unclear. Maybe you can help.. Julien Tuerlinckx 11:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Julien, in the last days a lot of stuff was added to the part on the Lagrange polynomial (in the article Wilkinson's polynomial), so it looks now quite different from as it was when I posed the question on your talk page. Still, also if I look at the current version, I would be very happy if there was more clearly explained what is exactly being done and why.
If things don't get better than they are now, I will try to be more precise about the things that in my opinion need clarification. Bob.v.R 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Onterechte blokkade door Känsterle (ferm overdreven)[edit]

Het is zo gegaan als Tuvic opmerkt: ik zou enorm graag hebben dat je mij laat deblokkeren door een moderator, alsjeblieft. Nota bene heeft "Limowreck" gelijk: ik wou niet provoceren => dat kopje moet apart staan, en dat staat nog altijd zo, dus mijn terechte wijziging daar blijft staan, maar die rotzak van een "Känsterle" blokkeert mij dan zogezegd daarvoor, en ik loog evenmin. En dan nog dit: LondenP heeft het over altijd maar verdubbelen, doch 14 dagen X 2 = 28 dagen, en géén maand, plus een maand kan 30 dagen bedragen, maar ook 31, en zelfs 28 (soms 29). Extremely sexy 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bart, I hope that you understand that the 'small' irritations that you are continuously producing, lead to an overreacting like that. I don't say that I approve this overreacting, but I can very well understand it. One of the things is that I am not completely sure that if you promise to do something (or not to do something) that people can really trust you in that. Especially north of the Dutch-Belgian border, people really expect that appointments are kept, also if they don't check everyday.
Also your habit of everywhere and always insisting on 'having the last word' is not appreciated by everyone; maybe one day you can realize that this can look a bit childish and/or irritating.
Anyway, indeed a one month block seems very long in this case. As you can see, discussions are still continuing, so we will see if something comes out of that. Regards, Bob.v.R 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Dat begrijp ik, maar waarom antwoord jij in het Engels i.p.v. in het Nederlands eigenlijk, Bob? Extremely sexy 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your reply doesn't convince me that you truly understand what I have written here, Bart. Bob.v.R 04:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not "Effk", but why are you writing in English, for we are both Dutch speaking men? Extremely sexy 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Niks te "handhaven huidige blokkade", en als ik nu niet onmiddellijk gedeblokkeerd wordt (want ik heb wél gewonnen: de "derde weggers" tellen ook mee), dan zeg ik gewoonweg foert tegen dat mentoraat (anders dan was ik daar wél voor te vinden, maar dat kunnen ze nu zeker op hun buik schrijven of vergeten), en mij niet gezien daar op 2 september, hoor, want dat gun ik die zakkenwasser van een Waerth niet: deze belachelijke hypocriet valt nu zélf over een komma). Extremely sexy 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Bart, this is my own discussion page, please don't tell me which language to use here. I also didn't ask you why you use such a strange signature.
As you know, I voted against the one month block. On the other hand, I was hoping that you would be open to suggestions on improvement of your behavior. Anyway, all the best for now. Regards, Bob.v.R 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I am, but I badly want confirmation that my ban will be lifted after 28 days, not a month. Extremely sexy 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists of companies[edit]

A tag has been placed on Lists of companies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This page is simply a copy of a category page and is better covered by correct categorization

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MarkBolton 11:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Ummm just talking to you bout my page you just deleted. I thought Wikipedia was for articles that were about things that mattered. That people wanted to read. And I just made one like that. AND being new to wikipedia.... So please, why couldn't you tell me why it was so bad before deleting it.
The contribution above was unsigned.

Hi there, this topic is already covered by a category [[Category:Lists of companies by country]] there for there is no requirement for the page as the category pages are automatically updated. I notified it for deletion and obviously an admin agreed with the reason for deletion. Please sign messages on talk pages with ~~~~ so people can know whom has posted the message MarkBolton 11:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking mediation[edit]

Dear and learned Bob, with hesitation herewith disturbing you, I will have to draw your attention to the fact I already have been replying your questions three times, although none of the involved six administrators published their identity and/or c.v. nor even answered or responded equally, with the exception of mr. Robotje, who in the meantime abandoned, so to be assumed that they apparently feel elevated superiorly above your mediation. Considering the fourth more and absurd blocking again, I'd have to conclude too much opposition and class-justice to take seriously into account a sufficient and proper or sound judgement, which (but) consequently ought to be reserved. In addtion: watch- or black-lists, or such warning-templates are totally incorrect, and so the like have to be removed to erase, before I 'll start to write again. With utmost regards and esteeming sincerely yours D.A. Borgdorff from: (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Beste Bob, nu maar even in het Nederlands: bedankt voor uw ondersteuning. Door al die rare acties wordt ik nu zelfs verdacht uit onverdachte hoek. Waar gaat dit in vredesnaam nog over.? Hoe kun je nu nog representatief en rustig werken bij voortdurende verdenkingen of verdachtmaking met blokkades, die het schrijven en bijhorende discussies als met Mdd of Tom blijven verstoren. Ik moet me maar telkenmale -- als ware ik crimineel -- blijven verantwoorden en daar heb ik géén zin en tijd meer voor. Als dat huidige blok niet snel wordt opgeheven, zal ik me moeten beraden op andere stappen wegens bijv. laster en andere overtredingen van recent bekend gemaakte internetverplichtingen. Vorenstaande doelt slechts op geconstateerde feiten. Alsnog hartelijke groet in hoge achting: Borgdorff (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Bob, because you have not reacted to above requests to abolish the blocking in direction with involved administrators,.. I deleted the last part of my objections, and will continue to proceed -- but for the fact of duration of time too long. With best regards, D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - etc. (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles[edit]

Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012#Suggested_reform_of_decade_articles, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have added my view on the talk page. Regards, Bob.v.R (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Bob.v.R! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,985 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Johny Schleck - Find sources: "Johny Schleck" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Johnson solids[edit]

Hi Bob.v.R.

I reverted your accurate but verbose changes in the Johnson solids with explicit regularity added to the stat tables. My reasoning is (1) All Johnson solids have regular faces, so its redundant. (2) It takes more room, causing table lines to wrap. (3) The polygon articles themselves have stat tables for their regular form first. (4) If we want to improve the articles, it ought to be in the sparse text. (5) If you want to be explicit in the table, you can use use shorter names in the text to longer links, even down to a Schläfli symbol like {3} rather than triangle or {5} rather than pentagon. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, in all my edits today, dealing with the Johnson solids, I have stated a reason for the edits. In my view, none of your 5 remarks, refers to the main justification for my edits! Does this mean that you basically agree with me? In that case please do not revert the edits that I did. It is true that the new lines take more room, but being accurate and handling equilateral triangles the same way as squares are treated is more important I would hope. That the main text of an article is still short, is not a good reason for holding back on correcting imperfections in the tables. I hope that we can agree on this. In addition to all this: a reader might have overlooked that a Johnson solid has regular polygons as its faces, not in the least place because this is not mentioned in the individual articles! So accuracy and equal treatment of the different polygons, can be a great help to the reader. So as you can see there is more than one reason to keep the more accurate version. Regards, Bob.v.R (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, if its needs clarity, #4: put it in the sparse main prose rather than the compact table. There are HUNDREDS of polyhedra and tilings on wikipedia with regular polygons, and its insane to imagine needing being explicit on every case. And I don't think you responded to #5. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's one suggestion, since the articles are so sparse, add this template {{Johnson_solid}} as a second paragraph. Then users don't have to click to Johnson solid to see its definition. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
A Johnson solid is one of 92 strictly convex polyhedra that have regular faces but are not uniform (that is, they are not Platonic solids, Archimedean solids, prisms or antiprisms). They were named by Norman Johnson, who first listed these polyhedra in 1966.[1]
To use the template is indeed a good idea. But once more I mention that currently in all these articles the (regular) quadrilaterals are treated differently from the other (regular) polygons. Do you agree with me that this is an undesirable situation? Bob.v.R (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree English is an undesirable situation, but here we are. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The articles deal with mathematical items, so without any mathematical justification I don't see why this discrepancy is supposed to persist. Bob.v.R (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is not helpful to replace square with quadrilateral!!!! Tom Ruen (talk)
If you want to be consistent, I'd recommend replacing the stat table face names like pentagon and square to their Schläfli symbol names, {5}, {4}. This is done in many other places, like Truncated cube. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Legend issue and misinterpretation[edit]

There is anything in the Greek legislative election, 2015 talk page about the edits you are doing. I have opened a discussion here. Impru20 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, answer it or I'll have to revert your edits to the last consensus version. Impru20 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

On the corresponding Talk page I have opened a new discussion item called 'Additions'. Bob.v.R (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Johnson, Norman W. (1966), "Convex polyhedra with regular faces", Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18: 169–200, doi:10.4153/cjm-1966-021-8, MR 0185507, Zbl 0132.14603 .