User talk:JayBeeEll

Raymond_Leo_Burke

Do you have the names of "certain bishops"? With a complete black and white ban on "homosexual activity", how could a teaching be "softened"? In an article on a Roman Catholic bishop, wouldn't it be appropriate to the refer to "the Church's teachings" rather than "the church's attitudes"?

You're in technical theological area and while I appreciate that you know what you like, I am concerned you don't the reason why the current wording is inappropriate, inaccurate, and misstating Burke's position.

As it stands it would fit into an article on a conservative Anglican bishop, but it's off the mark in this context.

(Eblem (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC))

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
209		Kendall rank correlation coefficient (talk)						Add sources
1,225		Irish Republican Army (talk)						Add sources
211		Hermite polynomials (talk)						Add sources
66		Cyclotomic polynomial (talk)						Add sources
8		Unusual number (talk)						Add sources
9		Christopher Caudwell (talk)						Add sources
9		Thomas Givon (talk)						Cleanup
49		William Mitchell College of Law (talk)						Cleanup
11		Association scheme (talk)						Cleanup
20		Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for specific exponents (talk)						Expand
126		Smoothness (talk)						Expand
320		Mersenne Twister (talk)						Expand
122		Gateway Church (Texas) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
168		Incomplete gamma function (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
15		Dr Sir Warrior (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
251		Maxima and minima (talk)						Merge
90		Column space (talk)						Merge
172		Limit of a function (talk)						Merge
39		Murder of Nixzmary Brown (talk)						Wikify
6		Honeywell ARGUS (talk)						Wikify
158		Restoration Movement (talk)						Wikify
29		Douglas D. Taylor (talk)						Orphan
4		Marine Drugs (talk)						Orphan
5		Photonic Sensors (talk)						Orphan
13		Jia Xian (talk)						Stub
28		Aethlon Medical (talk)						Stub
20		Sequentially compact space (talk)						Stub
21		Index Copernicus (talk)						Stub
2		L'enfant penchée (talk)						Stub
3		Life (journal) (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Polynomial recurrence

I'm not an expert in this field and as I wrote I'm far to be sure about its notability/unnotability, but "Polynomial recurrence" counts 568 entries in Google books: 1... probably are all false positive, maybe not... an AfD discussion between users more expert than me could be useful to estabilish the relevancy of these sources and the notability of this concept. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Skew and direct sums of permutations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matrices (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Diophantine approximation

I have answered on my talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Binomial Coefficient

The definition of the binomial coefficient in terms of what it means numerically should precede discussion of binomial theorem. Reader quite possibly may only want to know what it means and have no interest in binomial theorem or Pascal Triangle.

The article at present is either deliberately designed to confuse readers or it is so poorly written that it confuses the reader as much as if it had been deliberate. Saying that the definition of the binomial coefficient, ${\binom {n}{k}}={\frac {n!}{k!\,(n-k)!}}\quad {\mbox{for }}\ 0\leq k\leq n$, where the notation, $n!$, called n factorial is defined by $n!=n(n-1)(n-2)...1$ with $0!=1$, is of less importance than Pascal's triangle and such is a very ignorant and stupid statement. Why would anybody with good sense put material on Pascal's triangle before the definition the binomial coefficient? RHB100 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

vector space and scalar multiplication

There is nothing wrong with what I wrote. Please check your facts before proceeding IPWAI (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Please stop doing this IPWAI (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my request that you please stick to constructive edits while editing Wikipedia, stop writing about stuff you do not understand and above all please stop your wikihounding. IPWAI (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau, very sensible. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Many aspects of wiki-fights are bizarre, but the existence of people who rabidly support intentionally misspelling things like this when automatic redirects are so easy is new to me and particularly strange. Good luck in your efforts! --JBL (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was new to me too. But it perhaps isn't that strange if one considers the "foreign" aspect, noting that few want to intentionally misspell the Brontë sisters. I stick in a couple of RMs of this sort every week and have run out of misspelled Czechs and Hungarians, so left with Vietnamese. First time I've done one for mathematicians, interesting sub-area of BLPs. Thanks again In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WT: WikiProject Mathematics #Square (algebra)

Your action on Square (algebra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is disputed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, you only just started the thread there. This isn't a dispute (yet). Furthermore this was announced back in 2011 and no-one objected as far as I can tell. Maschen (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Union - image

Hi. You have removed image from union article. Maybe description on it's page and references will give you some counter-arguments. Regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam majewski, I see a number of mathematical comments about the given fractal on its page; can you point me to the ones you believe explain what it has to do with the concept of union (set theory)? The reason that I removed the image is the following: it's trivially true that everything is a union of the things that make it up; it seemed to me that the Julia set image illustrates this principle and nothing more, and as a result it was hard for me to see who would understand more about the concept because of the inclusion of the picture. However, as I said I am potentially open to being convinced that actually it brings something relevant to the article that isn't better explained with a simpler diagram or a sentence. Best, --JBL (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This image is made as a union of preimages of critical orbit. No other method of drawing Julia sets uses this property. --Adam majewski (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a fact about the image, and about Julia sets. It has the word "union" in it, but what does it tell me about the meaning or importance of the idea of a union? --JBL (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe animated version will be more related with infinite unions ? --Adam majewski (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Permutation pattern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Partial permutation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rank (linear algebra), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frobenius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second partial derivative test, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

COI and sock/meatpuppetry

Thanks for your edits at OMICS Publishing Group. Having been away from Wikipedia for a very long time, I've been getting up to speed on the editing patterns and made a few new comments at SPI that might be of interest to you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --JBL (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Reversion Question

Out of curiosity, why do those periods belong at the end of the equations in the permutation page? Exercisephys (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In English, sentences should end in appropriate punctuation. This is true even if the last "words" in the sentence are in the form of a mathematical equation. --JBL (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Vector Space

Dear Joel,

I'm glad to discuss and encourage you to revert any part my edit that you find misleading or awkward. I admittedly do not understand mathematical language to the degree that is likely necessary for editing such pages; I only wanted to improve the style of the writing by paring away unnecessary words and replacing passive voice with active voice wherever I could. E.g., "For X there is a Y such that Z" could be more concisely written as "A Y such that Z exists for X" and "It is X that Y" could more concisely be rewritten so that X follows Y. Thanks for your patience!

--If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Duxwing,

Sorry for the very long response time. The sentence "a Y such that Z exists for X" is much harder to decipher than the other version and because of the nontraditional order of quantifiers; in some cases it may have different meaning as a mathematical statement. (It is also not noticably more concise.) For example, the sentence "An element −v ∈ V for every v ∈ V exists" is impossible to parse because of the strange quantifier placement. I suggest that if you are not familiar enough with higher mathematics to understand the importance of precision in quantifier choice and order then you should tread very carefully when editing technical phrases. (Some of the other edits you made were unobjectionable or improvements, but they were all mixed in together and I didn't want to risk leaving an incorrect technical phrase.)

Separately, the phrase "such X exists that Y" is extremely discordant; I'm surprised that any native speaker of English would use it in any context.

All the best, JBL (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Permutation

I read the immediately following sentences many times, and I cannot tell what are the slightly different meanings, or how they are related. How many different meanings are there? The lede leaves the impression that some confusion exists over the definition of permutation.

I think the lede should start by explaining to the lay person what a permutation is, then explain how other meanings might come up, and how they differ.

Thanks for reviewing my edit. Wikfr (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are only two, not several, meanings given: the informal, and the group theory definition. I simplified the first sentence to reflect that situation. Please take a look. Thanks. Wikfr (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wikfr, sorry for taking so long to respond. I think your new version of the lead reads well, thank you. (FWIW, I think that if I were being maximally pedantic I could distinguish more than 2 different meanings of the word "permutation" in mathematics, but I don't think that I would improve the article by trying to make such a point.) All the best, --JBL (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Taylor series

Let $f:\mathbb {R} ^{d}\to \mathbb {R}$ be a smooth function, $a,x\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}$. Then we define the function $F:\mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {R}$, $F(t):=f(a+th)$, where $h=x-a$. Then the following formula can be proven using induction and the chain rule:

$F^{(n)}(t)=\sum _{|\alpha |=n}(x-a)^{\alpha }D^{\alpha }f(a+th)$

, where $D^{\alpha }={\frac {\partial ^{|\alpha |}}{\partial x_{1}^{\alpha _{1}}\cdots \partial x_{d}^{\alpha _{d}}}}$.

Noting that $F(1)=f(x)$ and $F(1)=F(0)+F'(0)+{\frac {1}{2!}}F''(0)+\cdots$, we can conclude that the taylor series of $f$ in $a$ is

$Tf(x;a)=\sum _{|\alpha |\geq 0}^{}{\frac {(x-a)^{\alpha }}{|\alpha |!}}D^{\alpha }f(a)$

instead of

$Tf(x;a)=\sum _{|\alpha |\geq 0}^{}{\frac {(x-a)^{\alpha }}{\alpha !}}D^{\alpha }f(a)$

, where the difference is between $\alpha !$ and $|\alpha |!$ in the denominator.

This is why I edited the article Taylor series. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: You were indeed correct. I missed to count the double occurances of the derivatives in the formula of $F^{(n)}(t)$. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathmensch (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Differential poset may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• poset. This construction also preserves the lattice property. It is not known for any ''r'' > 1 whether there are any ''r''-differential lattices other than those than arise by taking products
• |booktitle = Invariant theory and tableaux (Minneapolis, MN), 1988)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there wikiperson

I thought I would seek out people who recently had contact with me to ask them for assistence. You joined the talk page on Anthony Holland Composer.

I wanted to make a page about novocure A company unrelated to anthony holland but the do manufacture a device that is FDA approve to treat brain cancer and published phase 2 lung cancer results and they are doing the same thing as holland is doing or researching and experimenting into doing via an alternative emission route. I feel the reference creation of a page about novocure will provide validation that this is emerging scine not fringe scince nor conspiracy nor quackery. To say nothing about the notablity of a new modality that makes established treatment methods much more effective when they are not contraindacted as this device was made with those people in mind. This is a new and emerging field of medical science and is currently in practice . I think that should be well known.

How about it with a please on top :)

Do you think you could review a stub for me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Novocure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk)

Tone?

I honestly don't know if you deliberately intended to offend in your talk page replies regarding the Euler's identity page, but the tone certainly comes across to me as being unnecessarily sarcastic. Fyi, I have worked on that page due to genuine lay interest in the subject and (our shared) commitment to Wikipedia. It's never nice to see one's genuine queries trashed in that way. Regards, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for taking the time to make a respectful reply on the article talk page. :) 86.173.146.3 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you post on my talk page. Yes, forum communication is notorious for this sort of misunderstanding I'll happily strike/remove some of my comments elsewhere. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, we both independently wrote the same thing about the pitfalls of internet communication.
I'd like to explain where I was coming in trying to improve the page... I genuinely love this stuff because of its intrinsic fascination. And it was also my introduction to the concept of mathematical beauty as a schoolboy - something deeply memorable. Both subjectively and objectively, I do "feel" that the page really deserves careful editorial treatment. Hence, my efforts to raise these formal points, which I can well understand may seem pedantic. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Taylor Series

That's a good point about the distinction between both complexes and reals; I totally forgot about that, thanks. Walrus068 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Tajik Text

Hello,

In regards to your question regarding whether or not the Tajik text is the same as the other examples, it most certainly is.

Have a good day.

Negahbaan (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

JBL from AoPS?

Hi, it occurs to me from other comments on this talk page, showing your editing interests, that we may "know" each other from the Art of Problem Solving forums years ago. And I think I have heard that you and I have a mutual acquaintance, an undergraduate student at the university where you have been teaching recently, if I'm not mistaken about who you are. I use a different screen name here from anywhere else, but maybe we should talk to each other about improving articles about mathematics on Wikipedia. I'm mostly working on articles about psychology, where I just saw one of your edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail. (I am not able to figure out from your message who you are, but I think my real-life contact info is not hard to come by.) By the way, I re-reverted your edit: the notions of category and measure in mathematics have nothing to do with the notions of categorization and measurement in the article, one of the links is a redlink whose intended target is totally unclear, and I am very skeptical that anyone reading the article would benefit from a link to articles as broad as space and Cartesian coordinate system. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria

Before concluding that the changes i made are weird please visit the sources and read up a little on the recent events happening in the country (economically), maybe seeing an African country with a trillion dollar economy flashed a red flag in your mind but do well to visit the sources provided. Nigeria rebased its economy earlier this year and thus became the largest economy in Africa along with the world bank changing their base year meant that Nigeria has a trillion dollar economy (PPP) or a 522 billion economy (Nominal). So please do well to leave the numbers up, we are in the hobby of updating information and since this is the most up to date information it is best to be whats presented. Hagato (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit on compact space.

Please see Talk:Compact_space and respond there. I'm not sure why you didn't read the edit comment I left with my edit. Thanks! TricksterWolf (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 31 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

re: WP:INTDABLINK

WP:INTDABLINK requires that a link intentionally pointing to a disambiguation page go through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, in order to prevent the link from showing up as an error needing to be fixed. Nothing is ever supposed to point directly to a disambiguation page from article space. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

de Moivre's formula is (as of your revision) grossly incorrect

I was wondering why you have reversed my corrections to the erroneous de Moivre's theorem page. Your summary of "not improvement" is vastly insufficient (and also false). My corrections were perfectly valid whereas the previous (and now current) version of the page are wrong in their majority. For proof that de Moivre's theorem is true for all ℚ at the very least (though no actual proof is given) please see pg 36 of book with ISBN number: 978-0-435519-21-6. Un-fortuitously I am unaware of any books that provide a proof beyond an integer power but I have already provided a proof and if you find that insufficient I can provide you with other internet sources that cite it. I can understand and forgive a non-mathematical page containing errors as non-mathematical phenomena are not clear cut nor are they ever entirely obvious and often it is plausible to find support for all sets of contradicting information. However this is not the case with mathematics which is the only subject that can have all of its information conclusively proved or disproved. As such maths should never be quoted incorrectly in any Wikipedia article as it is extremely black and white, i.e; things are either purely correct or incorrect and as it stands my corrections were correct whereas the current page reversion is not. I am amazed at how this page is able to pertain information of such mass, gross inaccuracy especially given the simplicity of de Moivre's theorem and the prerequisites needed to understand it. It is after all something that all students of complex numbers by extension of studying further mathematics learn at the age of 16 in England, UK. Though I appreciate that even a graduate of a masters in mathematics may be mis-informed on this subject given that they have never studied complex numbers but as such they should not consider themselves versed enough to be able to misinform others by way or publishing erroneous statements in this article. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

This is explained quite clearly in the article itself as well as in the discussion on the talk page currently numbered 1 and 6. I suggest you read those discussions and post your comment there. (I am currently on vacation and am not able to respond at length.) Best, JBL (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have previously read the corresponding section in the article and found it to be false hence my heavy edition and renaming of it.

I have also previously read the corresponding sections in the talk pages and found that there were many whom agreed with me but also opposing factions including yourself whom disagree despite being provided with nigh perfect proofs and sound logical explanations in their multitude. My proof and explanation alone via my edit of the main page should have been sufficient to convince you of its validity -providing the assumption of your competence on the area in question-.

I wished not to add to the discussion on the talk page as I believed you would be less likely to respond to my question, I apologise for taking up your holiday time and understand if you may not be able to reply in full for some time though I would like to know when you plan to respond to me in full which I assume would be after the conclusion of your holiday unless it is a long one where you might find time during to reply to me. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George B. Purdy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

What does "Pure OR" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.245.229 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's wikipedia shorthand: "OR" is "original research." WP is not a venue for publishing original research. You can read the policy about it here: WP:OR. Hope this helps. --JBL (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not "original research" in that sense at all. The source I cited (not my work) is just one of many I could have cited. Multiplication of Pythagorean triples using complex numbers (a,bi,c) x (d,ei,f) is well known and should be covered somewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.245.229 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you cited is a research paper someone self-published on their own webpage, and therefore is OR under the Wikipedia definition (even if it's not your personal work). To include this sort of material in Wikipedia, it should be supported by references in secondary sources (e.g., papers published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, or even better textbooks or similar).

I am completely happy to accept the idea that this sort of operation is well-known in some circles. I am much less convinced that it should be covered in WP (assuming you are correct and it has been written about in some appropriate secondary source). The reason for this (and now I am speaking just personally, not about WP policies) is that Pythagorean triples have attracted a very large amount of attention over the years. As such, there are a huge, huge number of theorems relating to them. For the WP article on them to be usable by anyone, it is important that it not be comprehensive and instead focus on the more important aspects. So, probably I would try to limit this material even with appropriate sourcing. Possible places you could look for other opinions are on the talk page for the article, and at the math project talk page. --JBL (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your critique of my addition seems to hinge on the source I cited. Fair enough. But in my opinion, the sections titled "Square-Difference Generation" and "Generating triples when one side is known" are of even more questionable value since both are just applications of (or extensions of) the Euclid and Plato/Pythagoras formulas previously given. Moreover, neither section is referenced in any way, not even with "pure OR" as you call it.

On the other hand, Multiplication of Pythagorean Triples Using Gaussian integers is taught in many high schools and is hardly an arcane topic. It deserves coverge in this article. However I won't argue the point further. Instead I challenge you to write your own section on this topic using whatever sources you deem worthy. You might start with Jackson, M.(1987), Complex numbers and Pythagorean triples. The Math Gazette. V71, No.456. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.245.229 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

About the other two sections, I couldn't agree more -- the former is a recent edition, was quickly deleted by another user, and then for some reason was restored; I've removed it again. I'm not sure how long the latter section had been there, but there has been a comment on the talk page pointing out an obvious error in it for over a year; I've removed that section as well.

It seems that you have convinced me to soften my earlier view; I now think that a short section is probably supportable. (The Jackson reference would be a good start; do you have others?) Probably less emphasis on notation than in your first version would be good. (It is ok to write, "other similar formulas exist[appropriate citation]", for example, without including every single variation on a theme.) If you take another stab at it (particularly if you can find a second reference that is not just self-published), I promise I will edit it constructively and not just wipe it out in one fell swoop :).

By the way, thanks for engaging in this discussion in such a pleasant way. --JBL (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling

I am coworker of the author of the theory that you have deleted. The author is currently sick, so I am doing him his favor. I have noticed that you are a mathematician. Could you give any specific reasons why you are deleting the wikipedia page with proper referencing? It is a new theory in origin of language. Do yo have any conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.229.25.202 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Fundamental theorem of arithmetic page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks…

For bringing Duxwing's singular incompetence to my attention. I will definitely be on the lookout for him or her in the future. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. The fact that this edit managed to last so long suggests someone should probably go over Duxwing's history to see if any other damage has survived. But I am not volunteering :). --JBL (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Since 95% of the individual changes in that "copyedit" were crap, I expect that a review would turn up a lot of similar crap. —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I just mean that at least some of them were reverted immediately, rather than sitting unnoticed for months. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I was sympathizing with your distaste for the job. My idea was that anyone that went back over Duxwing's history would find they had stepped into a giant morass and might never come out again. —Mark Dominus (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Got it -- internet communication is impossible ;). --JBL (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Open street map

Thank you for sharing that link on your user page! I had never heard of it. It is excellent. You literally made my day. Thank you very much indeed. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, and you're very welcome! --JBL (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

floyd algorthm

My correction of the Floyd Algorithm are correct. The entire artcle needs a rewrite to be both understandable and correct. As it remains, it is confusing my students and I spend a lot of time correcting their errors gleaned from this article. This is a simple to understand algorithm when explained clearly. Instead we don't only have mathematical snobbery, but truly inaccurate information. I am SICK of wikipeadia inability to just tell wrong from right. Mathematical truth is not a matter of a VOTE. When k = 1, it is not equal to zero. Fixing this page requires a complete rewrite because the graph and the agorthms don't match and the explanation doesn't inform the reader of facts. Not having fixed these problems in the article has been called not passing a litmus test. The only litmus test here is if the article is informative and educational. It is NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now, your refusal to explain yourself clearly and your insistence on edit-warring means that you are going to end up blocked and all your edits reverted. If you actually are interested in improving the article, it is necessary for you to act in accordance with the rules here. This means that when your edits are challenged, you must build consensus. The fact that you believe very strongly in your position is totally irrelevant. --JBL (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Heads up.

Thanks for the heads up about the RfC! Capitalismojo (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rewording. I took liberty of deleting your own "done" and my own request, just to reduce the size of the thread. Hope that was OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and of course it's ok. --JBL (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stars and bars (combinatorics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Word problem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Roscelese that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Abortion

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

More explanation, please

Hi there. First off, I want to apologize first for violating the 1RR rule. I don't normally edit controversial articles, so it didn't even occur to me to be wary of it. My mistake. That said, with this edit you undid several of mine. I explained most of them in the edit summary, and they were in several different places. Would you be kind enough to elaborate a little on how I misrepresented the sources? To which source are you refering? Which edit? Are there some that can be saved and others set aside to work on? Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi BrianCUA,

Sorry for the delayed response, and also for the fact that it's going to be a bit long and rambling. I'm sort of cynical about editing in battleground areas like this one, in that I don't really believe that consensus-based editing can ever work with something so contentious. Generally speaking, I think one sees that most editors and edits in any such area are addressed to the goal of making the tone "right", and people who think PP are baby-killers are probably never going to agree with people who think PP is a noble organization doing important work about what the right tone is. About your edits, my objection is essentially the same as that one the talk page discussions related to the RFC you started. What we have (as I see it) is a group that has gone and produced some videos that they hope will make it look like PP is engaged in nefarious acts. There's a tradition on the right of this sort of thing (you can see that BullRangifer is still worked up about an old example involving ACORN), and for whatever reason this group no one had ever heard of until two weeks ago managed to get its version to have some national coverage outside NewsMax or whatever, so here we are. Of course news articles by reputable outlets about these videos are very careful to not say that the videos show anyone at PP doing anything illegal, because they don't. And so instead you get people like Art Caplan being asked hypothetical questions about ethics. Now if, like me, you think that what we have is an elaborate failed attempt at entrapment, you're not going to think that hypothetical questions about things that don't happen are very interesting (and, in fact, you'll think that writing long paragraphs about them is about trying to give a false impression that some boundary has been crossed). If, on the other hand, you already basically think that PP is a bunch of bad people doing bad things, you'll think the question of exactly how close PP operates to various ethical boundaries is really interesting (even if there's not concrete evidence they actually crossed any). And this leads to really weird situations like we have on the talk page, where a couple of editors seem convinced that using ultrasound during an abortion is malfeasance of some kind, or something. I don't know if this is helpful at all to you (I kind of doubt it), but I hope we can have pleasant interactions on some less-contentious subject in the future.

Best, JBL (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

Hi Joel,

I am still monitoring a stripped down watchlist to see how the AE actions play out, and was about to hit the generic "thanks" button, when I realized that wasn't quite enough.... so I just wanted to say "thank you" for the kind words. Perhaps I'll make time for Wikipedia after my self imposed 12 month break but that's still TBD. Carry on, and thanks for your service. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha, well, you're very welcome. I hope real life treats you well during your break! --JBL (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Laudato_si'

You misunderstood the edit. The sourced material describes a criticism, not a dissent. In fact it uses the term "criticizes". The heading was corrected and the sourced material left.

The editorial gloss about "dissent" was removed since the criticism was not a dissent.

I will be happy to explain Catholic teaching on this topic if you wish, but rejection of a binding teaching is "dissent" while disagreeing with the Pope's personal opinions is "criticism". The Pope cannot bind Catholics to his personal opinions.

(Eblem (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC))

No, I did not misunderstand anything: you gave a misleading and nonsensical edit summary, and removed a sourced sentence. --JBL (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)