User talk:dcljr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Discussion more than (approximately) one year old can be found at User talk:dcljr/Archive.

Wheel sieves[edit]

I'm wondering if Paul Pritchard is still alive? Also have you considered using the reduced residue systems modulo the products of the first n primes to easily build the system for the first n+1 primes. Example {6(n)+{1,5}|n=0,1,...,4} - {5,25}? Once arrived at a ladder rung any number can be factored by throwing into the form (bx+r)(by+s) = bz+t where t is congruent to rs mod b. Then it follows that bxy+sx+ry = z. If sx+ry is less than b this separates immediately into two equations sx+ry= z mod b and xy = z div b. When sx+ry>b there are several ways to parametrize the search for factors, one of which eliminates the xy term leaving only a need to know s+r. Clearly the totient of the product of the first n primes grows quickly but there are easy methods for calculating the set {(r,s)|rs mod b = t}, and entirely specific methods of optimization allow exact calculations of the number of steps to factor any number N. I am currently working on wheel sieves and the way in which the sequence of powers of consecutive primes relates to many elements of elementary number theory. I'm afraid I am not as mathematically sophisticated as to use asymptotic methods, but I also do not see the practical value in their use if the goal is simply to factor a specific number. LACornell (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Exposition of bundling[edit]

I like your exposition of bundling (here). But I would add an example (of the use of short cites), and make some minor revisions. Hopefully before it attracts a lot of attention. Not enough time today; I will get back to you on this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Some alterations I would like to make in your bundling exposition. I suggest these in part for clarification, but also with a view towards their possible inclusion in the documentation.

1- Number the examples. E.g.: "#1: This example ...."
2- Add an example (#2b?) showing use with short cites.
3- Revise or replace your first two "sources" with something more like what would be seen in an article, including an author(s) and date (year).
4- Separate the first two sections (through example six), which describe what bundling is and its variations, and presumably not controversial, from the remaining sections, which are arguable.
5- Change the headers of the first two sections from the faux question style to a definite statement. (I.e., something like "Bundling illustrated", and "Bundling variations".)

Are you okay with these? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but you should probably just copy what I've done, paste it into a new section, and then modify it, rather than trying to change it "in place" (in other words, I'd rather keep an unaltered version of what I wrote). Then interested parties can discuss it further with that goal (possibly adding it to the guidelines) in mind. - dcljr (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to do these to the version that everyone refers to (and before we get many people get to referring to it), and without creating multiple variants. E.g., bold numbering really would make the parts clearer. And I think it is really important to show that bundling applies to short citations as well. If we do these tweaks now it will aid the hoped for discussion on bundling/refn, and (assuming a consensus is reached) and avoid having to explain any post-consensus modifications. How might I talk you into this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
So just make your version the "version everyone refers to". Seeing as how I posted my comment almost a week ago, I don't think there's much risk of a bunch of people suddenly coming out of the woodwork now to comment on it. OTOH, if you post a "better" version in a new section — especially one marked and announced as a Request for Comment — then you will almost certainly see more people showing up to weigh in on the matter. (I can also post a short "warning" that editors should discuss the issue further in "your" section after you create it, much like you did in this edit.) Please note that I have not simply dismissed your request without serious consideration: I actually tried making some of the changes you requested (none saved, ultimately), but they were so extensive that it would have completely changed the nature of my comment. That being the case, I really think it would be best to simply "start over" (yet again) with a dedicated "RFC" section formatted exactly the way you want. - dcljr (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have been trying to avoid attracting any comment until we have something really solid to comment on. And as a multiplicity of variants would be confusing, I would like to build on a single version, namely yours. I don't believe any of my proposed alterations change the nature or essential content of your example, except for items #4 and #5. I think these are warranted in that they remove the recital of "what is" from the parts that may be contested, but please tell me of any qualms you have about that. I think I will try to do these revisions on my Talk page, and then you can see if they are acceptable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So see what I have done at my sandbox, implementing my alterations 1, 4, and 5. Most notably, I have split the first six examples that illustrate bundling (and should not be controversial) from the examples you use for your argument. I also made the first two headers declarative. I don't believe these make any substantial change in your comment, or the argument you present, but tell me what you think. (Even if we don't get back to the current discussion I am hoping to get a good example for future use.)
I haven't yet added the short cite example (#2) because I was getting tangled up in the {refn} templates. For an argument against the use of {refn} it is odd to be using it in the examples. I am thinking the examples should be revised to do without it. Does that change anything for you? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Let Me In[edit]

Actually on my DVD version its harder to hear that song sung than on the online version of the ending I've just checked. Certainly less apparent. Thanks for correcting me.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: reverts[edit]

user 79.43.96.157 is a crosswiki vandal: see [1] [2], [3], [4]. Thank you. --Euphydryas (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of edits[edit]

Just to let you know...You are still there...in last place. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Shocking. [grin] - dcljr (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fisheries organizations has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Fisheries organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

On Gymnastics article[edit]

I love your enthusiasm and love of the Gymnastics article however I would like to point out why I changed the heading from International Competitive Gymnastics to FIG Recognized forms. The reason is because the other forms are in fact competitive and most are on an international scale. There is a Men's Rhythmic Gymnastics World Championships held in Japan as well as an Aesthetic Group Gymnastics World Championships and a Wheel Gymnastics World Championships. TeamGym has a European Championships as well. Rather than start an edit war which would bring us nowhere I thought I would bring up these points and allow you to show me your reasoning. Anyone who loves Gymnastics is a friend to me. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. - dcljr (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, so much I havn't been editing as much as I used to. I will eventually add some sources about the World Championships in each of the disciplines once I find some good sources.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Mathematics[edit]

Wouldn't be better to keep all captions beginning with a majuscule? Those captions are sentences after all.

Also, more important:

Portal talk:Mathematics/Feature article Lbertolotti (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, none of them are complete sentences. I see the last 5 are capitalized (and one even has a period), but that doesn't match the first 18, which are not. I'll think about it… As for the feature article issue, you should probably talk to User:JuPitEer about that. I've never edited that page. - dcljr (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Dcljr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Dcljr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mathematical statistics for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mathematical statistics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical statistics (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

European Artistic Gymnastics Championships (disambiguation)[edit]

I hope I wasn't too overbearing with what I was trying to relay here. I wanted to make sure that I provided the proper information to you as I wasn't sure what you were trying to accomplish and tried to guide you to whatever information or resolution you were looking for. (Unfortunately, I had to do so over more than one edit since I realized I forgot some things.) But, I did see that you added a comment to the discussion, so I assume you know what you were trying to accomplish. But, either way ... yes, sometimes, guidelines can be confusing, especially if read wrong; can't say I haven't misinterpreted a guideline before. Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I coulda sworn that the guideline was calling for something that could only be accomplished by the switch I was asking about. (If a redirect and its target needed switching, that would indeed require a discussion at RFD.) Not sure how I misread that. - dcljr (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't admit that I haven't been confused on that myself in the past. I think the WP:INTDAB guideline was written that way because of bots that flag links to disambiguation pages as links that need disambiguating ... unless the link ends with "(disambiguation)". (Also, for what it's worth, any discussions that require a page move seem to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, even if the move is to overwrite an existing redirect. See this recent example of another discussion closed to "wrong forum" for reference: (1), as well as redirect deletion reason "D9".) Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Encrypt urls listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Encrypt urls. Since you had some involvement with the Encrypt urls redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)