User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 1

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. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:23, 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.

--Juansempere (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

AFD

Hi,

I do not wish to create an account hence the request for somebody to AFD it for me. 122.107.114.116 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryan C. Gordon

In case you missed this from the (now closed) deletion discussion, I have added some more text to the Ryan C. Gordon article to address your "looks un-encyclopedic" complaint. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

British Airways and Newcastle

Hi! I saw this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newcastle_upon_Tyne&diff=331409648&oldid=331361209

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.

I have an idea: Why not break off economy of Newcastle upon Tyne into a new article? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'll come to agreement, and I suspect any solution will involve more editors, so I've started a discussion on the article's talk page --JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Work on Sixth dimension

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.

If this is your usual quality of work, keep it up. --58.96.65.210 (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

bivectors

Please see comments on Talk:P-vector. The use of i in bivectors has some adherents. Brews ohare (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob Paulsen

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've posted a message already on the talk page with my thoughts on it. Please reply there as it's a better place for us to talk about it. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Applications for bivectors

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)

Yes, I've been watching your work, tweaked few things, but can think of a few things that could be added when I've time. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bivectors, pseudovectors, and cross products

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)

Arb request

Hi John: I am sorry you felt it necessary to take this action. I think a collaboration on Bivector was possible and would have been productive. Involving Arbitration produces heat, not light. Brews ohare (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

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)

I have already replied at Talk:Six-dimensional_space, please see there for my reasons for reverting.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Triangle Side-Angle-Side Question

Is there an equation that tells you the length of the third side if you know the lengths of the first two sides and the angle in between? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes: Law of cosines --JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Theories

Is there a place we can post our theories? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk, WP:RD/MA, is the place for all general queries on maths, so probably best, though there are probably better places not on WP at all. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Programmer

I saw you are a programmer. I'm assuming a computer programmer? What do you do? What programs? Would you be able to program something for me? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do whatever anyone pays me to do, at a rate depending on the job. Do yes, if you paid me. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Geometric algebra question - involutions

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.

Thanks. --Leon (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Accusations of vandalism

Vandalism is not the same thing as seeing an edit you don't agree with, even if it does come from an IP. This edit is no more vandalism than the edit you reverted to, especially when accompanied by this discussion (which you are fully aware of, having taken part in it). The word "vandalism" isn't there as a tool for you to use for humiliating other editors; it's for addressing genuine cases of vandalism. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 20:24, 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)

[Further argument moved to User Talk:Plvekamp#Quarrelling goes here. Apologies to User:JohnBlackburne. ] Plvekamp (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

n-dimensional space

I've also marked the higher dimension article as a candidate to be merged into the n-dimensional space article.

Perhaps this article could mention values of n with interesting properties: for example, 24-dimensional space as the home of the Leech lattice, the various values of n for the spaces postulated by various versions of supersymmetry and string theory, and so on. -- The Anome (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Multivector, k-vector, n-vector and p-vector

Hi John: The articles Multivector and p-vector along with pseudovector bivector & trivector along with blade (geometry) and probably others form an impenetrable jungle of isolated tidbits. Also, k-vector &n-vector don't relate to this topic at all, and no disambiguation page exists. Is there a way to sort them out and provide some overview navigation article to guide the reader through this labyrinth? Geometric algebra might be a start, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 00:09, 8 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.

There are templates though which might do what you want. E.g. Template:Overline, Template:SubSup from Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates, especially Category:Mathematical_function_templates. If there's not one that does exactly what you want then it should be possible to make one.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Duh, didn't think to do that. kwami (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

I'm concerned about your recent edits to Neil Gaiman, particularly in the light of The New Yorker reporting that Wikipedia editors are repeatedly removing pivotal information from the article (which you seem to have just confirmed). I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#The New Yorker takes a swipe at Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:58, 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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:20, 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.

I learned about it here: Help:Formula#Forced PNG rendering and since have used it myself and corrected a couple of pages where I saw it like the one you noticed. It's not a big deal, but it does make the pages look better for users with particular preferences.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your sig - revisited

Hi John, You new sig links (^words_deeds) 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.

Just to let you know. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:03, 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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:26, 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)