User talk:Jackfork

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

South China University of Technology[edit]

all the information have cites. Also in my own word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihalper1942 (talkcontribs) 06:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of your long poorly written edit cited no references. Jackfork (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

fuck off, jack 159.242.66.76 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding 173.176.42.17[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continuous addition of weakly sourced controversial content by IP. Thank you. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Irreducible element[edit]

I noticed that you recently reverted some edits to Irreducible element. The same editor has again revised it. The article was fine before the new material was added. It now appears confused and not very mathematical. Take another look.--75.190.143.205 (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jackfork and 75.190.143.205. This is the editor of the article Irreducible element whose edits you reversed. I took another look at the edits I made and I cannot find any (mathematical) mistakes in them (id est, a statement that is false). Although I do agree with the above critique by 75.190.143.205 in the sense that my edits made the article more complex, but this is because the subject itself (the behaviour of irreducible elements in non-integral domain rings) is inherently complex. I actually think that I explained the subject rather well; if someone can do better, then by all means they should edit the article. The other point of criticism by 75.190.143.205 considered the non-mathematicity of the article; I of course agree that I do not provide self-contained proof of all my claims, but then again, I have not yet seen a mathematical Wikipedia article that does. I provided references for the non-trivial claims; those that I did not provide references are usually considered good exercises for undergraduate students.

As for the need to expand the article in the first place: the article was labeled as a stub, and it did explicitly asked to be expanded. The study of irreducibility on integral domains is classic algebra from the late-19th early-20th century, and the more modern research of the subject (since 1970s) has focused to the subject in non-integral domain rings, so this is a natural direction fo expansion. Also I think it is uselful to showcase the subject of irreducibility in non-integral domain rings as there are many contradicting and erroneous discussions on the subject in the internet; this is understandable, since as I tried to convey in my edit of the article, the subject of irreducibility on non-integral domain rings is very delicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.72.131 (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Materialscientist to have a look at the edits. I think he has the necessary math and editing skills to make the call. Jackfork (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I will not have time to check the math, but the addition is unsourced and unencyclopedical (shouting, bolding, phrasing). Materialscientist (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, but thought that most of it could be fixed if the math was OK. Thanks for your time Jackfork (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I still think that the math is OK, and I can agree that there are quite many boldfaced parts (the idea was to boldface all the parts where different definition of "irreducible element" was invoked). I still think the main material of my edit would be a constructive contribution to the article; some editing of my text is obviously called for, but the facts stated are true and relevant.

Anyway, many thanks for you Jackfork for calling for a second opinion from another Wikipedia-editor. We have not made anykind of official voting on whether to add my edits to the article or not, but I believe Materialscientist's vote is no, and mine is yes, so if you think that the material of my edits should be added to the article in some edited form, let me know and I will make a second attempt. Otherwise I think the dicussion of the matter is concluded. 128.214.72.131 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility[edit]

I posted an explanation for my edit on the Talk page:

Removed claims that German and Dutch are partially mutually intelligible upon reading the source: "Two years earlier however, Ház (2005) tested German and Dutch students with little or no pre-knowledge of the neighbor language.." Yet, two sentences later the text then states Dutch students scored higher "due to most participants having had mandatory German education at schools". Also the German participants that scored best spoke a German dialect (some of these are more similar to Dutch than German) or English (Dutch is somewhere inbetween German and English): "He found that those with a high level in a dialect and/or a high level in English scored best in interlingual interfering." The article states that mutual intelligibility means "mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without intentional study or special effort". The source that was cited clearly doesn't show this in my opinion. This combined with my experience of being a native speaker of one of the two languages and not being able to understand the other language made me decide to edit this page. Also, many native speakers commented on the 'Talk' page of the article that they cannot understand the other language.

Next time you make a change like this, ref the talk page in the edit summary, or you will be reversed again. Also be sure to sign your comments that you leave on talk pages. Jackfork (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)