User talk:JohnBlackburne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rockall, a small, isolated rocky islet in the North Atlantic Ocean.


Happy New Year, John![edit]

Charles R. Knight New Years's Card.jpg
Godt Nytaar! 1916.jpg
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Request for comment[edit]

Your attention is called to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead section#Request_for_comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for deletion[edit]

Dear John, could you please read the article "The R Journal" which you have suggested be deleted, and comment in the talk about why you think the citations, links, and commentary do not make abundantly clear that this is suitable object for entry in wikipedia?. Or perhaps (assuming you are a statistician or computer scientist with expertise to judge?) understanding that the journal is major reservour of open-srouce computing knowledge, add the extra refs that you think are needed to improve the article and make this clear to less astute readers? Tim bates (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this now is the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The R Journal. You should post your reasons for opposing its deletion there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mahusha[edit]

That is more clear proof and not similar to similar triangle proof. Please again insert my edit. Mahusha (talk) 18:41 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Mahusha, it is the same underlying proof. It uses different notation, a different diagram and a different explanation but all of these are clearer in the proof that is already there. It is also not clear whether this is an independent discovery, as proofs of the theorem were known throughout the ancient world, including India, over a thousand years before. It is hard to know with any certainly who actually first discovered the proofs – there is doubt over even Pythagoras’s involvement.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your repeated attempts to delete the cis article[edit]

John, this ([1]) is now the third time that you tried to delete the cis article. We had that discussion before and there was clearly no consensus for this. While the topics are related and there is some unavoidable redundancy (which is normal), the content of the article does not belong into the Euler's formula article, as most of it would be out of scope there. cis is clearly a topic by itself, and has its own history to be told. You are entitled to your opinion that you do not like the function, but this is not a reason to delete the information and in particular not against consensus. You cannot ignore the fact that the function exists (and for about 150 years!) and that other people actually use it when they find it convenient. It is also taught in engineering courses at university. So we need an article about it. It was bad style that you nominated the article for deletion ([2]) immediately after your PRODing attempt ([3]) failed, but it is even more so, that you continue as if this hadn't been discussed already and now changed the article into a redirect against consensus. I consider such editing behaviour as borderline-disruptive and find it very impolite and seriously annoying. You are thereby wasting the time and energy of other editors who are trying hard to increase the coverage and quality of Wikipedia topics in order to achieve our project's goal. I therefore firmly ask you to stop it. Thank you. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Map error[edit]

Interesting - I didn't realize that map even existed. Thanks for the alert - I'll work on a fix as soon as I can, which should be this afternoon. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll work out a fix shortly. Shouldn't be too difficult, now I'm aware of the issue. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that's it - my checks have discovered no others. Please let me know if you find any more, but I think it's all taken care of. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see above of Dao's theorem[edit]

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/234053/daos-theorem-on-six-circumcenters-associated-with-a-cyclic-hexagon

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201424.pdf

http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart3.html#X3649

http://www.journal-1.eu/2016-2/Ngo-Quang-Duong-Dao-theorem-pp.40-47.pdf

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201429.pdf

Edit less, John Blackburne, and much more carefully[edit]

Dear John: You have unwisely interfered with my careful edits, based on several week research. I stand with every single word I wrote, so before improving upon my formulations think some more, or better refrain. You simplification has vulgarized an amazing formula and the credit, including its exact date, must be fully given to its author, so please do something nearly as interesting and I'll be glad to credit you, as well. In other words, keep your own personal issues to yourself and do not make them public, as Anits Rivas, once did in the same article. You might find the message that I wrote to her as relevant to you. So please be as kind to read it and spare me from explaining more.PseudoScientist (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In articles we do not credit sources in the body of an article, unless it is especially notable, such as a famous discovery (Einstein discovering relativity for example), or when the topic is named after the discoverer, such as Newton’s laws. It is not “suprisingly simple and exact”. In reverse it is not exact as it an iterative formula and cannot be exactly evaluated. It is therefore not simple - it may look simple but calculating it is non-trivial. And “surprising“ is a form of editorial comment that should never appear in an article. It may be surprising to you. It may be obvious to another editor. Nor is it “amazing”, it is just another iterative formula.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry to tell you, John, that none of your arguments stand. You merely demonstrated your utter ignorance. I can tell that science was never you major and, perhaps, not even your minor. The formula is amazing but you do not have to get it. Perhaps, it is as amazing as the formula discovered by Gauss on May 30, 1799, which was discussed in the article (which you most certainly did not read even carelessly). And, believe it or not, this discovery is comparable to "Einstein discovering relativity", although no one can tell what on earth you mean. What relativity did Einstein discover? Tell me or keep silent, so you would not further exhibit your severe lack of education. And, by the way, the formula is highly surprising since it never appeared before 2011, yet and again it would not surprise editors like you. Ignorance is a bliss but do not brag about it and do not tell more competent editors what to do. Get a life!PseudoScientist (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Not to comment on the content/style dispute, which seems only marginal anyhow, but if you're not adopting a less confrontational and less insulting discussion style, you will most likely find yourself blocked at some point. Having a difference of opinion is no justification for getting personal, being rude or disparaging even if you're correct on the issue. In addition you get more corporation from other editors if you approach them less confrontational (see WP:CIV, WP:PA). As far as the style/content dispute is concerned, settle that by requesting input/feedback from other editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help on the Ellipse article[edit]

In reference to the above section, as well as in general: Since you previously reverted an edit which I also did, could you please weigh in on the talk page for Ellipse. There are two "signed" editors as well as an anonymous editor who I think are the same person, and it is getting a little frustrating that we are not converging. Thanks. LaurentianShield (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

0.999... = 1 page.[edit]

Hi John,

I'm concerned by your negative assessment (of the citation I provided) that the person cited "does not understand limits". My reading of his proof of the article topic is that Limits are not part of it, they are simply a personal opinion leading up to the proof.

If you look at the proof itself, its, well, pretty water-tight to say the least. If this entry is rejected, then I would have to complain that the article is so biased toward the correctness of "0.999... = 1" that it is propagandist. You have dismissed this entry on the basis of a complete irrelevance.

I hasten to add that I am of the opinion that this is a formidable proof. Is that what is offending you? The possibility that someone has proved that "0.999... < 1" in complete contradiction of the page's bias toward the exact opposite? How infantile.

If not, then you need to be more specific and substantiate your position. What, in particular, makes you think that this blog poster "does not understand limits", and why does that irrelevant statement invalidate the veracity of the proof that "0.999... < 1" ? If you cant explain yourself, then allow this entry, but if you do neither then I will need to take steps to mark the article as lacking objectivity.

Tnx in advance. Alexander Bunyip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abunyip (talkcontribs) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Abunyip, it would be better to address this on the talk page of the article, rather than multiple editors’ talk pages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Bunyip (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Well I'll have to take that as a "no" you are not going to allow my entry. You must think I have endless amounts of free time to waste on this. I have no idea what you are talking about ..."multiple editors page"... and who would it be better for... you ? The bias on this page is noted and I'll report it as best I can upwards. I'm not going to start playing mind games with you.

Sparse[edit]

I answered to your proposal for deletion of an article I wrote, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sparse_representation_of_a_number Could you please answer my question, in order to help me to improve this article. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking to IPA help pages[edit]

Hi, I was under the impression that it was standard practice to link to IPA help pages from phonology articles. It's done in French phonology, Standard German phonology, Arabic phonology, Russian phonology, Japanese phonology, and so on; though admittedly not in others, such as English phonology and Persian phonology. Is there a policy page that says not to link to help pages from mainspace? Why hasn't it been followed up to this point? — Eru·tuon 18:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SELFREF: "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places: do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website. Articles may refer to themselves, but they shouldn't refer to Wikipedia in a non-neutral fashion except under special circumstances.". It seems particularly unnecessary in a phonology article which is meant to cover the topic well enough on its own. Also the hatnote is usually reserved for a few narrow purposes, such as disambiguation. Related articles, links to other projects etc. normally go at the end. But even there a help page would seem out of place.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Lower down on the page, it says this: "The self-reference template, {{Selfref}}, is used to mark pieces of text and links that wouldn't make sense on copies of Wikipedia. ... This template is most often used as a hatnote template to help guide editors from an article to a related Wikipedia policy or guideline page in the Wikipedia project namespace." The phonology articles certainly should be complete, but they do not provide guidance on which set of IPA symbols editors should use when transcribing pronunciations in Wikipedia articles, when there are several options. (For instance, see English phonology § Transcription variants.) That's the purpose of the IPA help page. And hatnotes are not just used for disambiguation; they are also used to link to policy or guideline pages related to the topic of an article. — Eru·tuon 20:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Technical Designing[edit]

I request you to move the page to Technical Designing from Technical Drawing please. As Technical Design is the more common and recent term instead of a drawing or drafting.

Thanks. ~SB~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talkcontribs) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct Name Editing[edit]

I have done provided the correct title including only first letter capital. I hope now you don't worry at all. OR still any queries? Feel free to talk on my page please.

Thanks.

~~SB~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talkcontribs) 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK![edit]

Okay Pal, you just please get the article read and then told me please. That is this too good or too bad still.

Thanks. ~~SB~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talkcontribs) 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Template edit[edit]

Hi, what errors did it cause? I checked quickly and could see none. The years need to be not linked. Tony (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Tony1, it added at least two of the three articles it’s used in to Category:Pages with script errors, with on expanding it lots of Lua error: Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "�".. errors. Faisalabad was where I saw this, and I can still see it using Template preview with that version.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it a second time I can see what happened. The year change was fine but AWB also changed a number of hyphens to en dashes, which broke the formulae used to calculate the percentages. I have manually redone the year delinking so it does not cause problems.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
John, thank you very much! Tony (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You're Wrong[edit]

You claimed that the former Republic of China didn't have parts of various neighbour countries, but you're wrong, I even made a map, China formerly had small parts of Russia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bhutan and Burma, you won't see it if you don't look at the map closely, but try zooming in on the map and see. File:Former-Republic of China with modern borders.png

--Veteran Geezer (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)