# User talk:Joel B. Lewis

## Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We'd like to invite you to participate in a user study closely related to SuggestBot. User:Another Article is seeking to understand more about the workflow and time commitment of contributors to the English Wikipedia. As part of this study you will occasionally be prompted to answer questions about your editing activity, and these questions should never take more than a minute or two to complete. The intended length of the study is two weeks, but your actual time commitment is totally up to you. If you would like to see more details you can read the project proposal at Research:Measuring editor time commitment and workflow (on meta), but if you are feeling bold and would like just like to sign up right now you can add the line importScript("User:Another_Article/workflowstudyclient.js"); to your common.js. Contact User:Another Article if you have any questions about this study!

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.

137 2.0 Triviality (mathematics) (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Add sources
33 2.0 Deepa Kumar (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Add sources
19 2.0 Monsterpiece Theater (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Add sources
258 2.0 Point in polygon (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Add sources
955 2.0 Health effects of tobacco (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Add sources
244 3.0 Lithium–air battery (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Add sources
5,628 2.0 Iraq War (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Cleanup
29 2.0 Nokia E52/E55 (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cleanup
7 1.0 Nathan B. Scott (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cleanup
408 2.0 NP-hardness (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Expand
42,688 3.0 United States (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Expand
11 1.0 Johann Rahn (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Expand
17,622 3.0 Ronald Reagan (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Unencyclopaedic
4,666 3.0 Condoleezza Rice (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Unencyclopaedic
104 2.0 Vanity press (talk) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unencyclopaedic
59 1.0 Boxcar function (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Merge
59 2.0 Foreign-trade zones of the United States (talk) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Merge
49 1.0 Graded ring (talk) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Merge
30 1.0 Climate of Little Rock, Arkansas (talk) 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Wikify
28 1.0 International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wikify
1,457 3.0 Permutation (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Wikify
9 1.0 Alutila Cave (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orphan
4 1.0 Armand de Pontmartin (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orphan
3 1.0 Ambikeshwori Temple (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orphan
20 1.0 Nokia 8910 (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stub
14 1.0 The Mathematical Gazette (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stub
37 1.0 Nokia Asha 210 (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stub
6 1.0 Gerald McEntee (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stub
6 1.0 Grand 120-cell (talk) 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Stub
12 1.0 Mouseterpiece Theater (talk) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2016 (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))

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:

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribslogs) 16:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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,

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)

"Nonsensical" is a fighting word. I appreciate you have strong opinions, but I don't edit articles on mathematics because it is not my area of expertise. Similarly theology is not yours. In Catholic theology a "dissent" involves formal rejection of a teaching. Prudential judgments are not teachings, therefore the heading "Dissents" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and should be deleted. Unless you have something substantive to add, I will consider this a closed discussion noting your personal though inexpert opinion that you're correct and I am not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talkcontribs)

## editing question

Hi JBL, thanks for your help in formatting my questions and organizing things on the Planned Parenthood talk page ... I have an unrelated mundane question, if you have the time, I'd appreciate your thoughts. I see that you have an in-line web link for the NYT article, but it does not show in the references list. This is a different form of link, I can see the code and how to do it - when would it be better to use that type of link and when is it better to use the < ref > < /ref > reference? I can post this to the Tea House as well but I thought I would venture a talk-page with you and say hello and thanks in the meantime. --Cityside189 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi , thanks for the friendly words. The short answer is that bare links like the one I posted generally shouldn't be used in articles, and instead using the <ref></ref> commands is the right way to reference things (including the link and additional info like the title, author, etc.). On the other hand, on talk pages it is not really necessary to use the referencing when all one is trying to do is post a link for others to look at. Hope this helps, and see you 'round. --JBL (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Your bare link has been corrupted by a section added below yours. Do a visual scan and then a view-source of these two sections on PP Talk and you will see the source content is corrupted and therefore the viewable content is corrupted too: "Collected references" and "NY Times article". This may relate to Cityside's question posted while I was drafting this. Checkingfax (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't entirely understand your comment, but has the edit I've just made fixed things to your satisfaction? --JBL (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, both sections are now uncorrupted however your link is not bare link it was before the corruption. Checkingfax (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

dear Joel B. Lewis!are you mathematician?if you are mathematician!i am m.s in mathematic from shariff university!who are the many people?grothendick is one of the greatest mathematican!not greatest!many people?your mean TATE or Mumford!are you mathematician?or set theory or topology!!greatest is very greater than your opinion!you dont know whats means the greatest?please dont exaggeration!please!this is wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.201.135.124 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

## Fermat's Little Theorem - Chinese conjecture

The original text was something like: "in the expression [p is prime if and only if 2^p(mod p)] the 'only if' is true but the 'if' part is not true".

I interpreted this to mean: p is prime only if 2^p=2 (mod p) but not if 2^p=2(mod p) This doesn't make sense because both expressions are the same.

By reversing the sides of the lemma it made more sense to me In the expression "2^p = 2 (mod p) if and only if p is prime" the "if" part is true and the "only if" is not true.

becomes 2^p = 2(mod p) if p is prime, (but not only if p is prime) That is something I can easily understand.

In "if and only if" [if] can live without [only if], but [only if] cannot live without [if]. The original wording had "only if" true while "if" was somehow false, which my brain could not process. Silas Maxfield (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

## Daniel Pedoe

I intend to revert your recent amend to the Daniel Pedoe because it is demonstrably incorrect. The issue was previously discussed at User talk:Niceguyedc#Daniel Pedoe and resolved. I'll do the change in a few days, in case you wish to comment first. Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to get consensus for changes, you should do it on the talk page of the article, not on random user talk pages. Although "demonstrably incorrect" be fighting words, I can't pretend I really care very much about this, so am unlikely to pick a further fight about it. --JBL (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

## Planned Parenthood Funding

No where in the cited article does it say Rep Lummis was incorrect or lying; so, it would be your premise for reversal that is wholly "absurd." Aspencork (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph 5: "[T]he figure ... [is] flawed." This is not tricky textual analysis, here. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi: I'm completely fine with your revert of my edit here, but I wanted to send you a note on your edit summary. I don't think it was necessary to call my edit "inane." You could have simply reverted it, or said something like "restoring better version," or "this version makes more sense to me," etc. We're all volunteers here doing the best we can, so it's really not necessary to use language that can be easily construed as unpleasant and unnecessarily aggressive. Thanks for your time. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, and thanks for your good humor about it. --JBL (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, and happy editing to you! Safehaven86 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## Mixed Electoral Systems

Hello User: Joel B. Lewis,

The integral component of this classification system is "Mixed Electoral Systems", which is a relatively new family of electoral systems.

“Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Best of Both Worlds?” by Professors Matthew Søberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg from the University of California, classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Systems”, “Majoritarian Systems”, and “Mixed-member Systems”. (P.1-2). [citations omitted--JBL]

What are your thoughts on Mixed Member Systems? Please review the above sources.

Thank you for your time, I value your contributions.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

, I have responded

here.

I cannot tell how familiar you are with Wikipedia norms, but you should know for the future that it is not acceptable to revert someone's edits to their own talkpage. Please don't do so again. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Joel. Thanks for your message on my talk page. As this "Ontario Teacher" can't be reasoned, I reported him as a spammer, We'll see if some administrator reacts and puts a stop to his disturbing behaviour. --Minorities observer (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made a more thorough (i.e., not edit summary) attempt. FWIW, I suspect WP:Spam is not the right venue for this sort of thing. Best case is Ontario Teacher responds to one of our comments (though the response to your attempt was not encouraging); worst case is probably WP:ANI. --JBL (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I see (s)he hasn't got it yet, all the useless tables still deface a lot of articles on voting systems, (s)he didn't learn how to answer properly on a talk page and just learned the existence of boxes. I don't believe it's a good policy to let new contributors modify articles without understanding the basics of Wikipedia, they should first be forced to learn some basics and be submitted to an examination, it should be an understandable proceeding for a "Teacher" ;-) --Minorities observer (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I have attempted to respond to your concerns and begin a dialogue on the topic you have disagreed with. This is called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Deleting my attempt to "discuss" while simultaneously accusing me of refusing to communicate is confusing. Filing a complaint against me for "refusing to communicate" and deleting all evidence of my communication attempts is not the best way to begin a healthy dialogue. Please demonstrate good faith by participating in the discussion component of the BRD cycle.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

## Re "Floor and ceiling functions" article

Was looking at the revert and was confused by you commenting that it was correct before. Rechecked the way it appeared in the article, and it looked reversed (the bracket feet turned outward). I then opened up Chrome and checked it with that browser, however, in Chrome, the floor brackets are in correct order (bracket feet turned inward). Possible error in Firefox's rendering??? In Firefox, the revert summary showing the lines affected has the correct order, but if you open the section containing the line to see the wiki source, the brackets are reversed there, too (so, it doesn't look, to me, to be an issue with the math template rendering differently in Firefox, but likely something odd with either Firefox itself, or something odd happening in the WP backend when browser is Firefox [which seems less likely]). Have you heard of anything like this, or have an idea what the issue is??? I can screen cap each situation combo and post them somewhere non-WP if that would be helpful. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi al-Shimoni,
Unfortunately I have no idea about what might be going on. Presumably there is a right place to ask about technical questions like this, but I don't even know where to suggest. Maybe someone at WikiProject Math would have an idea? Sorry not to be more help. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Will look into it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

## Evidence vs. sarcasm

You may have noticed that MastCell and I, who have diametrically opposed viewpoints on the question that led to the discussion, were having a perfectly straightforward discussion, in which each of us pointed to certain evidence, and the other responded, actually processing what the other said, addressing said evidence in a straightforward way. That can be a difficult thing to achieve when talking with someone who does not agree, yet the two of us had done it. If you choose to join the discussion, I would appreciate it if you would do so in the same spirit. CometEncke (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly free to ignore my comments if you do not find them constructive. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

## why revert ?

Euler's identity on E (mathematical constant) Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Because articles are written in complete sentences, which themselves are written in paragraphs, not by dropping random statements wherever one wants at random. --JBL (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

## Everything to do with AGF

Can you please explain your rationale for your hatting here? [1] I don't think I've seen you around the ref desks before. I think the question is perfectly valid; do you agree?

I've reinstated the question. If you think it needs to be removed, please follow WP:BRD, and seek consensus on the talk page before taking further action. My position is 1) the question itself is fine, and violates none of our guidelines. It is in fact somewhat common, as you may have experienced, though good answers are not always readily apparent, especially to people who haven't yet learned how to find good references 2) several users found it interesting enough to provide good answers. 3) I follow WP:AGF. 4) The question is not causing any disruption. If you have hatted it because the IP is from Ohio, then I ask you to please explain how that justifies hatting. We cannot disallow any posts from any IPs from Ohio, that is absurd. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SemanticMantis. The question looks fine to me. Is there any reason to think that the IP user is not asking the question in good faith ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
please see the discussion here. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks JBL, I was not aware of that thread. My position remains unchanged. Just because one user thinks a post needs to be removed doesn't make it so. We are supposed to operate by consensus here at WP. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That's fine but I suggest you have this discussion with Fut.P. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

## Wikihounding

You have been reported for Wikihounding.Aspencork (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

## Just to make sure you're aware of my answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.185.60.38#Fermat.27s_little_theorem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.60.38 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural density, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interval (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) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

## Edit to Tulsi Gabbard

The edit to Tulsi Gabbard's Early life and education I made is supported by the citation which is http://www.mikegabbard.com/content/about-mike-gabbard Not sure why you said it is not supported.

Here's excerpts from the citation that support my edit: "Mike, one of eight children, was born in 1948 in Fagatogo, American Samoa. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen at one year old."

"Carol was born in Decatur, Indiana to American parents but grew up in Michigan. " Rajo89 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Rajo89:, Sorry about that -- I because confused while reading the diff, and you are right that my edit summary is wrong. I would like to suggest that nevertheless this information should be removed -- it's basically trivia with no significance to T. Gabbard directly. If the point is that she is an American citizen by birth, then you should find a source that says so directly. --JBL (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

## Clarification

If a sphere is 20/1000 of a mm in diameter and its container is 5cm , what is the maximum number of spheres possible?

Now work this problem another way, what is the total radius of 500,000 of said spheres?

Now, another math equation to compare this to is 20/1000 of a mm in diameters in a row, 3√500,000 on width, hight, length. Do you find my quandary(questioning)?

Use the equation (4/3)πr3 in question number 2, which may omit the negative spaces but will illuminate what I have found in relation to question number 3. Find the volume of 500,000 spheres and then the radius of such a containment space (in which the volume has remained the same while shape may have become ambiguous, i.e. altering the shape of a water ballon does not change its containing volume without compression.).

This all started due to potentially centuries old data on ovary cell count for oocytes(egg cells) which I am trying to refute. The opposing party gave question number three as his explanation of containing such a number (in acuality speaking on the proposed one million oocytes at birth, I broke it down to half of that given I could find the size of a singular ADULT ovarian fossa(space) as 5cm and an adult ovary at approximately 4cm x 2cm x 3cm. Using 5cm to give "the benefit of the doubt", a phrase we have where I am originally from in America.), I however give questions 1, 2, or "4" to refute this data. In doing such I find a delima in the difference between 20/1000 mm diameter in a cube like section of 100x100x100 (relating to the total number given of one million oocytes) and the actual radius using volume and then the reversal of the volume equation leading to radius. (Crlinformative (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC))

"The opposing party gave question 3 as his explanation...." This seems unlikely to me. What seems more likely is that someone made a calculation in order to answer a question, and for some reason you do not find it satisfactory. What I want to know is, (1) what was the question? (2) what was the calculation? and (3) what about it do you find unsatisfactory? --JBL (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The question posed by me is how is it possible for one million oocytes to fit in an infantile ovary? His response to explain it, after I did my mathmatical calculations, was that 20μm x 100 is 2,000μm and 100x100x100 is 1,000,000. A variation of what I have typed as I devided the number of cells by 2 to give the per ovary count; I have the measurements of one adult ovary and my mathematical calculations leans that even an adult ovary cannot contain that amount. What I find to be a mathematical debacle is how 20μm x 100 is 2,000μm and with 1003 equaling 1e6 it lends an area with sides measuring at 2mm while of you calculate volume based off the diameter of the cell and then work backwards to obtain a minimum required radius to contain these cells you obtain vastly different values. Do the math real quick and you will see what I mean. In the first question consider the container a sphere as it's actually an ambiguous shape. I will post to you my mathematical calculations for you to compare your math to mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talkcontribs) 02:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi thanks, this is helpful and I am closer to grasping what's going on. In order to make sure I understand correctly, may I rephrase the argument you're objecting to? I think it is something like this:

An oocyte is a cell, which we may think of roughly as a sphere of diameter 20μm. Therefore, a container that is roughly a sphere of diameter 2mm = 2000μm = 100 × 20μm should be able to contain on the order of 100 × 100 × 100 = 1,000,000 oocytes.

Have I correctly characterized the argument? (Obviously I am ignoring some of the details you mention in which you make your calculations conservative (what you call giving the benefit of the doubt) -- this is good practice on your part, but maybe we can set it aside on the first pass through and worry about it later.)
Assuming I've got the idea right: I'm afraid I am still not sure what the alternate calculation is that you've done that you believe is in conflict with this one. Would you be willing to share it, as well? --JBL (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have. The problem was solved on talk StuRat (talk · contribs) . I will have to find another way of disproving that the infantile ovaries contain 1,000,000 primordial follicles or that the embryo contains 4 to 7,000,000 of them. 20μm isn't the size of primordial follicles anyways, it is the size of the oocyte stage located within each primordial follicle. They are actually 30-50μm in size according to reports. The only data I can find supporting this cell count is "books say so" and hand drawn images of size relation. Growing up in America you learn to question mainstream accepted information before you accept what you are told as true information. Anyone can right a book with a degree and who determines what is right or wrong in it, but the book writers themselves. I have yet to be led to the actual RS that yields these cell counts or data. If you still want to look at practical application math you can look at this version of the information: " [image shows] a secondary follicle with an approximate diameter of 0.2mm. That is 1/100 of the 2cm length in 4cm x 3cm x 2cm given as ovary size here on the page on ovary. This is less than ten times larger than size of a primordial follicle at 0.03mm. For the simplification of math lets say that the primordial follicle was even smaller being .02mm. That would make it 1/1,000 of the lesser length in the size of an adult ovary. That gives you the dimensions of 2/1,000 x 1.5/1,000 x 1/1,000 of an ovary as the size of a primordial follicle. This yields the possibility of less than 3,000 total primordial follicles(being that they are actually .03 - .05mm in diameter) in an adult ovary if it contained solely primordial follicles." If you look at the reference given on folliculogenesis after reporting the commonly accepted values it later in the article describes the peak age follicle count at 300,000 instead of 4,000,000 which it is used as a reference for in our wiki mainstream information flow. This is all very important to both mathematics applied to life situations or if you know anyone with a female child that is expected to grow up with accurate information. It isn't original research, just looking into the given references themselves and checking the facts with mathematics. Both of which a mathematician may find delightful to the mind.(Crlinformative (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC))

Hi Crlinformative,
I'm glad your question has been satisfactorily resolved. I am afraid that, to the extent that you are still unhappy with the situation, I am not going to be of much help: I have neither any relevant expertise nor a lot of personal interest in the underlying question. Sorry.
All the best,
JBL (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

## Iverson Bracket

Hi. You reverted my changes to the floor and ceiling functions by re-introducting the explicit ranges for the sums (-infinity to infinity), instead of a simple n. However, if you look at Concrete Mathematics and especially Knuth's 1992 paper Two Notes on Notation, he extolls the advantages of NOT specifying explicit ranges. As well, the second example in the "Uses" section follows the convention of NOT specifying the index range. I propose to revert your revert, and using just the simple n as the index.
Roger Hui (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roger Hui,
Knuth is a person with many opinions, and that fact that he asserts X does not necessarily mean that X is or should be so. The Iverson bracket article, not being part of a text written by Knuth, does not generally adhere to Knuthian conventions or guidelines (can you imagine what he would say about the mixing of fonts that goes on in most math articles in Wikipedia?). Readers in general cannot be expected to know that an article is going to follow an un-mentioned and non-standard convention. Meanwhile, including the range of summation gives an unambiguous interpretation for any reader who is familiar with sigma summation notation, regardless of whether they have been exposed to Knuthian conventions. For these reasons, I do not agree that removing the summation range is an improvement. On the other hand, I would not object to including that information in some other form, e.g., in text following the sums rather than in formulas. You are of course welcome to solicit other opinions on the article talk page.
Best, JBL (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I will think about how best to re-introduce the simpler form.
Of course, Knuth is just one person, but his opinion on this matter does carry more weight, I feel: (a) Knuth originated the term "Iverson bracket", and popularized the use of the technique; (b) Concrete Mathematics is co-authored by Ronald Graham, another eminent mathematician; (c) Two Notes on Notation didn't just say by fiat that simpler bounds are better, but presented examples and arguments in favor. Simpler index bounds are one of the things by Iverson Brackets lead to "substantial improvements in exposition and technique". Iverson Brackets themselves are "Knuthian" and "non-standard"; NOT using the simpler index bounds negates much of Iverson Brackets.

${\displaystyle \lfloor x\rfloor =\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }n\cdot [n\leq x   versus   ${\displaystyle \lfloor x\rfloor =\sum _{n}n\cdot [n\leq x

Roger Hui (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Joel B.,

Regarding your question about why I reverted those edits; though Farsi and Western Persian are "the same" it should be mentioned that Western Persian is alternatively used as designation apart from Farsi. The IP removed this alternate designation. Furthermore, it should be stipulated that Dari and Tajiki are viewed as dialects, varieties and/or offshoots, and are not merely "almost the same thing" of one continuum. The same goes for Western Persian. I believe the revision prior to the IP's edits presented these points more appropriately.

Btw, one more thing; there's clearly some socking going on here, given that Sharaqw1 reinstated virtually the exact same edit that was made by the IP some hours later,[2] as well as on the Dari language page.[3]-[4]. Anyway that's all. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious editing for sure. Ogress 23:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi LouisAragon & Ogress, thanks for your comments. I have no substantive position on the questions raised here, and I agree about the dubious behavior of the other editor. However, I can't help but find the construction "The Dari language or Dari" extremely odd -- no one would ever write "the French language or French". And if the odd wording is supposed to be drawing a meaningful distinction then I'm afraid it is not actually clear in the text. The same holds (maybe to a lesser degree) for "the Tajik language or Tajiki." Is there some way to rewrite or clarify that avoids these constructions? (I have no problem with the restored "Western Persian or Farsi."). Thanks, JBL (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We should take this to talk; I commented here. The T.E. messed it up again. I set it as "WP or Farsi ... Dari ... Tajiki", and hopefully that's acceptable. I wanted to comment that Tajik language and Tajiki are actually different names; you can say "Tajiki" but saying "Tajik" alone is like saying "speak Arab", you have to either add the ezafe or a term like "language" after it. Likely Dari was doubled as a parallelism to match the other two dialect names, but I think we should dispense with them except for "WP or 'Farsi'". Ogress 03:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

## Persian language

I reverted your edits only because I wanted to revert the entire mess back to an earlier version, not because I disagreed with you. Edit: Also, I just saw a previous post that sums up my reversion just now: it's tendentious editing for sure. Ogress 23:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

## Regarding John Coleman (news weathercaster)

Hi Joel~

Thanks for the revert -- it was my opinion. How else would you suggest modifying the comment, because as it stands, it appears to unfairly target Coleman. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi DRosenbach, thanks for the message. To be honest, I am pretty comfortable with the sentence as it stands: Coleman's views on this subject are fringe, at odds with the scientific community, and the sentence captures this accurately. If anything, it's a bit soft: we don't, for example, include a (true) statement that Coleman's claims (in the previous sentence) are false, and the criticism is attributed to "critics" rather than in WP's voice. If you want to try other options out, I'd be happy to look at them, of course. Or you could try raising this question on the article talk page to see what other people think. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

## They reported us as sockpuppets

LOL, the UBF self promotion team reported both of us as sockpuppets... lame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bkarcher Bkarcher (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

:) -JBL (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

## Minneapolis

I removed that sentence from the climate section of the article because it constitutes a personal analysis of Minneapolis's climate. I personally disagree that Minneapolis's summers are warm (warm to me begins at 85 °F (29 °C)), and 54 inches (140 cm) of annual snowfall is hardly that snowy, at least in my opinion. Without a source stating that X or Y climatologist considers the climate objectively to be the subjective words currently in the article, it boils down to an opinion and, based on my understanding of Wikipedia's own policy on opinions, it should be removed.

Thank you,

YITYNR My workWhat's wrong? 10:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@YITYNR: Thanks for your message. I don't feel very strongly about this and I think it makes more sense to discuss it on the article talk page, so I put a short note there to see what other people think. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

## Analyzing the multiple choice test

[5]

You kindly provided the formulas

${\displaystyle \sum _{x=0}^{y}2^{x}{\binom {n-x}{n-y}}={\binom {n}{n-y}}{_{2}}F_{1}(1,-y;-n;2)}$
${\displaystyle \sum _{x=0}^{y}x2^{x}{\binom {n-x}{n-y}}=2{\binom {n-1}{n-y}}{_{2}}F_{1}(2,1-y;1-n;2)}$
${\displaystyle \sum _{x=0}^{y}x^{2}2^{x}{\binom {n-x}{n-y}}=2{\binom {n-1}{n-y}}{_{3}}F_{2}(2,2,1-y;1,1-n;2)}$

They are valid for ${\displaystyle 0\leq y but not for ${\displaystyle y=n}$. Can you please help me understand what is going on? Thanks! Bo Jacoby (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC).

Bo Jacoby, I have read your message and will look into it, but it may take a couple of days due to real life busyness. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bo Jacoby, thanks for your patience. Yes, you are right, there is an issue: the hypergeometric expressions are infinite series, but putting the negative integer -y as one of the top indices adds a factor of ${\displaystyle (-y)_{k}=(-y)(1-y)\cdots (k-1-y)}$ and causes the sum to truncate after only finitely many terms. Usually. The problem is that when y = n, there is also a factor of ${\displaystyle (-n)_{k}=(-y)_{k}}$ in the denominator, these two cancel, and so we don't get the needed truncation. For the first two (the 2F1s), we can use a Pfaff transformation to rewrite ${\displaystyle {_{2}}F_{1}(1,-y;-n;2)=(-1)^{y}{_{2}}F_{1}(-n-1,-y;-n;2)}$ and something similar in the other case, and I believe these should behave correctly in the desired parameter range (let me know if this is wrong!). I will have to look around more to find a transformation that will fix the third one. --JBL (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC).

here's the last one. Probably we don't need to go to higher hypergeometric functions if we're willing to take sums. In this case, we can write ${\displaystyle x^{2}=(x+2)(x+1)-3(x+1)+1}$ to write your series as
{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\sum _{x=0}^{y}x^{2}2^{x}{\binom {n-x}{n-y}}&={\binom {n}{n-y}}\sum _{x}{\frac {(-y)_{x}\cdot ((x+2)!-3(x+1)!+x!)}{(-n)_{x}\cdot x!}}2^{x}\\&={\binom {n}{n-y}}\sum _{x}{\frac {(-y)_{x}\cdot (2\cdot (3)_{x}-3\cdot (2)_{x}+(1)_{x})}{(-n)_{x}\cdot x!}}2^{x}\\&={\binom {n}{n-y}}\cdot \left(2\cdot {_{2}}F_{1}(3,-y;-n;2)-3\cdot {_{2}}F_{1}(2,-y;-n;2)+{_{2}}F_{1}(1,-y;-n;2)\right)\end{aligned}}}
and then we can use the Pfaff transformation to write each of the three things on the right side as terminating series. (I don't know of a way to do it as a single series, but I'm not particularly expert in hypergeometric manipulations.) --JBL (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

### Thanks again! Bo Jacoby (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\sum _{x=0}^{y}x^{2}2^{x}{\binom {n-x}{n-y}}&=\sum _{x}{\frac {(x+2)!-3(x+1)!+x!}{x!}}2^{x}{\binom {n}{n-y}}{\frac {(-y)_{x}}{(-n)_{x}}}\\&={\binom {n}{n-y}}\sum _{x}(2(3)_{x}-3(2)_{x}+(1)_{x}){\frac {(-y)_{x}}{(-n)_{x}}}{\frac {2^{x}}{x!}}\\&={\binom {n}{y}}\left(2\sum _{x}{\frac {(3)_{x}(-y)_{x}}{(-n)_{x}}}{\frac {2^{x}}{x!}}-3\sum _{x}{\frac {(2)_{x}(-y)_{x}}{(-n)_{x}}}{\frac {2^{x}}{x!}}+\sum _{x}{\frac {(1)_{x}(-y)_{x}}{(-n)_{x}}}{\frac {2^{x}}{x!}}\right)\\&={\binom {n}{y}}\left(2F(3,-y;-n;2)-3F(2,-y;-n;2)+F(1,-y;-n;2)\right)\end{aligned}}}

Bo Jacoby (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC).

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}M_{Q}&=\sum _{x=0}^{y}{\binom {x+Q}{Q}}2^{x}{\binom {n-x}{n-y}}\\&=\sum _{x}{\frac {(x+Q)!}{x!Q!}}2^{x}{\binom {n}{n-y}}{\frac {(-y)_{x}}{(-n)_{x}}}\\&={\binom {n}{y}}\sum _{x}{\frac {(Q+1)_{x}(-y)_{x}}{(-n)_{x}}}{\frac {2^{x}}{x!}}\\&={\binom {n}{y}}F(Q+1,-y;-n;2)\end{aligned}}}

for Q=0,1,2. Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC).

Yes, that looks right to me. --JBL (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Brute force calculation of MQ for Q=0,1,2 and y= 1,2,...,10 and n=10:

  +/"2 Q+ .*(2^i)*|:(!/~)|.i[Q=.Q!(Q=.i.3)+/i=.i.1+n=.10
1 12  67 232  562 1024  1486  1816  1981  2036   2047
1 14  93 392 1186 2772  5282  8584 12381 16398  20481
1 16 123 608 2186 6144 14198 28064 49029 77808 114687


Hypergeometric, for Q=1,2,3 and y=9 and n=10.

  (9!10)*(1 _9 H. _10)2
2036
(9!10)*(2 _9 H. _10)2
16398
(9!10)*(3 _9 H. _10)2
77808


These results are correct. But the formula doesn't work for y=n. A work-around is n=10.000001, for Q=1,2,3 and y=10.

  (1 _10 H. _10.000001)2
2047
(2 _10 H. _10.000001)2
20481
(3 _10 H. _10.000001)2
114687


Bo Jacoby (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

it's the same issue as before: use Pfaff to change parameters and I think it should be ok. --JBL (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The transformation

${\displaystyle {}_{2}F_{1}(a,b;c;z)=(1-z)^{c-a-b}{}_{2}F_{1}(c-a,c-b;c;z).}$

gives

${\displaystyle {}_{2}F_{1}(1,-10;-10;2)=-{}_{2}F_{1}(-11,0;-10;2)=-1}$

which is not 2047.

The number of knowns answers is estimated by

${\displaystyle x\approx {\frac {M_{1}}{M_{0}}}-1\pm {\sqrt {{\frac {M_{1}}{M_{0}}}(2{\frac {M_{2}}{M_{1}}}-{\frac {M_{1}}{M_{0}}}-1)}}}$
  H2=.4 :'x H.y 2'
ms=.[:(([:<:{.),:[:%:{.*([:+:{:)-[:>:{.)2%~/\(1 2 3,&>/[:-[)H2"1[:-1e_7+]
3":(i.11) ([,ms) 10
0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10
0  0  0  1  1  2  3  4  5  7  9
0  0  1  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  1



If you answered 8 out of 10 questions correctly then you knew 5±2 of the answers, the others being lucky guesses.

Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC).

## Parity of a permutation

Please carefully read the section that you are changing again. The "size" of a n-cycle is clearly defined as n-1, not n. If you think this is awkward terminology, I agree, but I didn't write this part. Someone else did. The only reason I altered it is because the variables r, s, t were not defined in the original version. All I did was to rename them to ${\displaystyle k_{i}}$ and define them rigorously.

You can check this yourself by comparing my latest revision to the latest revision before I edited the article.

Secondly, the reason I removed the part about computing the parity of a permutation via the determinant of a permutation matrix is that matrix determinants are ***defined*** using the concept of permutation parity so there is a problem of circularity in using the determinant of a matrix to compute the parity of a permutation. Anyway, the most important point is that I don't think anyone would compute the parity of a permutation by working out the determinant of a permutation matrix, since there are far easier methods. ALongDream (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi ALongDream, thanks for your message. First, yes, you are absolutely right about "size", my apologies. (Though, frankly, I think it would be better not to include this non-standard name.) You are wrong, however, about the variables r, s, etc. -- they are (implicitly) defined in the first equation in which they appear. Also, you are wrong about the determinant: there are many very good ways to define the determinant that do not use the sign of a permutation, such as the expansion along the first row. For any such definition, the Leibniz formula is a theorem, and not necessarily an obvious one. That this is not a sensible computational strategy does not mean it is not an important or interesting fact! In any case, I think the current state of these sentences is basically fine. All the best, JBL (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
P.S. For future reference, discussions like this are best on the article talk pages (so other editors can see them, weigh in, etc.).

## Predary journals and lack of peer review

Joel -- I don't feel strongly about your revert on Predatory open access publishing, but if people criticize non-peer-reviewed information they should not do this on a non-peer-reviewed blog. That's hypocritical and I think it should be pointed out. In fact, that kind of source should probably not be used on a Wikipedia page at all. Cheers, Peteruetz (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peteruetz, thanks for your message. The problem is that you have put your own personal feeling (that something is hypocritical) into Wikipedia's voice (maybe implicitly). Frankly I think the complaint of hypocrisy is not very convincing (it is completely not hypocritical to believe that peer review is important for some things and not for other things), but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, it is possible you could drum up support for removing criticisms sourced only to blogs by using the talk page. Best, JBL (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Not really. The cited blogs are non-peer-reviewed (like almost all blogs). That's a fact. Period. There is nothing emotional about this -- although it may seem so. (It's like criticizing the biblical Genesis for being wrong scientifically -- which an atheist may do out of emotion -- but that doesn't change the fact that the Genesis is wrong scientifically.). In any case, I won't insist on the hypocrisy. Just ignore that part. But I would still argue that blogs are no reliable source of information and are similar to "original research" in Wikipedia's definition, given that anybody can post anything on a blog. Howeve,r it's not important enough for me to rally for it. Peteruetz (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

## Katie Wheeler

I have created a perfunctory article on Shaheen's NHSen successor that was previously redlinked as per your recommendation. You are welcome to have a look over at Katie Wheeler.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! --JBL (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

## SEIU and AFSCME

You have some valid thoughts. I did not say this occurred in August. Merely indicated the date of the article. IMO, your deletion because of the format mistake (which was there) is not how I would have handled it. But make changes and make it better. I don't purport to owh any of this. Cheers. 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes all the things that the article says are important so important?

I believe that positive loading and negative loading and editorializers and other statements should only be mentioned if reliable sources mention those words.

I removed recent from recent readings because it is not specified in the article when the readings were conducted.

It may be considered recent a while back, but later on that will be outdated. The word however would question the previous statement.

We should not use the word conclude since that gives the assumption that such statement cannot be debunked. Use stated instead, it's more neutral and accurate.

We should only use words like that mentioned in WP:W2W if reliable sources describe the subjects as such and be in quotations so as to avoid being mistaken for ruining the accuracy/neutrality of the article.

We should be aware that the advice in the WP:W2W guidelines shouldn't be applied rigidly, but that is no excuse to say that someone is a radical leader without citing any sources that refer to them as such.

--Turkeybutt (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkeybutt JC, here is a sentence that you changed:

The Italian Giacomo Leopardi, one of the most radical and challenging thinkers of the 19th century.[1]

If you click on the link in the reference, here are the first two sentences:

Giacomo Leopardi is widely recognized as Italy’s finest modern lyric poet, for many the greatest after Dante. He was also one of the most radical and challenging of nineteenth-century thinkers, acknowledged as such by readers from Nietzsche to Benjamin and Beckett.

1. ^ The Zibaldone project, University of Birmingham
I stand corrected. But I think this positive loading could've just been quoted like this:

The Italian Giacomo Leopardi, is "acknowledged as [one of the most radical and challenging [19]th century thinkers] by readers from Nietsche to Benjamin and Beckett" according to the University of Birmingham.[1]

I don't think that Wikipedia articles should read like whatever sources it cites, especially sources with a bunch of positive/negative loading and editorial opinions. Although Wikipedia encourages undue weight, Wikipedia articles should not directly highlight, honor, harass, emphasize, praise, demean or discriminate on anything. Wikipedia articles should have an impartial tone on all things and read from a neutral perspective on all things. Any and all non-neutral loadings and statements should only be reserved for quotation or stating that a particular source says that. --Turkeybutt (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Turkeybutt JC, I do not have grand theories of editing, and I have no interest in debating the details of yours. I primarily edit in the following way: something (an article, a typo, an edit on my watch list) causes me to notice something that can be easily improved, and then I make a small change. Right now, many of your edits have the property that pressing the "undo" button on them will improve things. The examples I've focused on here and on your talk page are incredibly clear-cut. I would like you to stop making edits that have the same problems. (Otherwise, I'm sure we will eventually find ourselves in the various drama boards.) And yet this morning I see already that you have been changing the meaning on sourced statements and deleting words in ways that destroys meaning. Your edit on judicial restraint was particularly notable ( ;) ) because your usual theories don't even make sense here (nothing was labeled "obvious" in the WP voice). This is why you need to stop mechanically mass editing, slow down, and think more about each edit you make. You obviously ( ;) ) have the capacity to be a good editor, but you have to cut the BS. --JBL (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I am more than happy to engage in constructive discussion with you about any one or two particular edits at a time. I'm just not down for philosophizing about universal rules.
P.P.S. "the radio home of [a sports event or team]" is a common US expression for "the radio station with the rights to broadcast that [event or team's games]." One usually hears it in station self-promotion.
But Wikipedia needs to read like regular speech or that of college textbooks, and writing that someone argued seems inaccurate. Why isn't Wikipedia allowed to be in an impartial tone?
Minimalists argue that judges should make only minor, incremental changes to constitutional law to maintain that stability. I don't agree with this statement because no sources are cited to support it.
--Turkeybutt (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Your first paragraph looks like general philosophizing, and I have nothing to say in response. Your second paragraph is about a particular edit, and I have two responses. The first is nonconstructive and pedantic and you may want to ignore it, the second is actually about editing Wikipedia.
1. I find it very difficult to believe your statement at face-value. It might be true that you don't believe that sentence (I don't know), but almost every sentence you have ever believed in your entire life has not been accompanied by a citation, so I rather doubt that it is true that the lack of citation is the reason you don't believe it.
2. The article judicial restraint has a few sources listed at the end, but not many inline citations. This is an indication that it could be improved by finding sources and adding citations (and also by adding new material).. If one is not able or willing to do that, tagging can be one step in the process of improving things. I think your individual taggings in that edit are defensible, that the collection of all of them is excessive, and that if all you had done was tag one or two sentences then I wouldn't have reverted. Separately, most of the wording changes you made seem harmless; none of them struck me as a clear improvement, but most of them are also not disimprovement. Finally, the very topmost changes you made, involving the word "obvious," clearly make the text worse, and absolutely needed to be reversed.
I understand that it's irritating to make many changes and get reverted because of just a few of them, and you have my partial apology for that. But, there are reasons that other editors keep asking you to break your edits into little bits! (In my case, I often edit on a tablet, with limited ability to use tabs, find-replace, copy-paste, etc., and therefore limited ability to do reliable partial reversion.) --JBL (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

## Hmm... I think I'll just put a tag telling readers that it needs citation so the "well-known" doesn't ruin the neutrality of the section.

Apparently you seem to be of the opinion that the little-rock river crossing is well-known, but we can't verify for sure. So I put a [citation needed] tag there. --Turkeybutt (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

## Journal h-index

Please note that SCImago Journal Rank uses an h-index (or H index ?) in their journal ranking: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?order=sjr&ord=desc

I therefore reverted back the list of 5 best ranked journals on Hindawi Publishing Corporation.

Maybe the h-index article should be updated accordingly. (Simiprof (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Simiprof, thanks for leaving a comment here. I have never heard of a journal version of the h-index, but it seems that you are right that it exists. To be frank, I think there are several issues with your addition -- as you can see, another user has tagged it for failing verification, and also the particular choices (why precisely five journals? why h-index and not more common journal metrics?) seem worthy of discussion. At the moment I am overwhelmed in real life and not ready to tackle improvements, so please treat these comments as constructive criticism/something to think about. --JBL (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

## Ordered pairs

Hi Joel, I wanted to thank you for your response on the ordered pair talk page. I'm not sure that the disclaimer was absolutely necessary as there are aspects of this that are helping me frame how I would like the lead section to look. With Ladislav's agreement to drop the mathematical term in the first sentence most of my response has become moot and would not now be appropriate for the talk page. However, I did want to say that I understand your position (feeling?) on the matter and appreciate your willingness to express it. My own position would be that if you take "set" as being a primitive notion (as I do) you forfeit the right to say anything about the elements of the set and must focus instead on the criteria for set membership (I probably have the jargon all wrong but I hope my meaning is clear). In any event, I am a bit amazed that the first sentence of a rather prosaic concept has led to these philosophical nuances. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thanks for your comments. Yes, your meaning is clear (and your position seems perfectly sensible). Actually I am quite pleased with how the discussion has gone so far (though real life is overwhelming me at the moment and I may not participate further); it has been my experience that sometimes these niggling little philosophical questions can end up in very long arguments here. All the best, JBL (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)