User talk:Johnuniq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Index of stuff[edit]

Module:Year in other calendars[edit]

Hi, John. I recently copied Module:Year in other calendars to bn.wiki. it works pretty much as expected. But have problem with following line & need to localized.

       -- Converts strings of the format "n BC" to their corresponding
	-- numerical values.
	if type( s ) ~= 'string' then
		return nil
	end
	s = mw.ustring.match( mw.ustring.upper( s ), '^([1-9]%d*)%s*BC$' )
	if not s then
		return nil

It Converts strings into "n BC" (1st year then BC) but it should be "খ্রিস্টপূর্ব n" (BC=খ্রিস্টপূর্ব) 1st BC then year. How can i localized it? Please help. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the bnwiki module is bn:মডিউল:অন্যান্য পঞ্জিকায় বছর.
All the above code is doing is to extract the year (given in English digits) from something like "15 BC" (with zero or more spaces before "BC"). If a number followed by BC is found, the result is 0 for "1 BC", or a negative number for other BC values: "2 BC" gives −1, "234 BC" gives −233, etc. What inputs might occur at bnwiki? Is "15 BC" valid? Is "খ্রিস্টপূর্ব 15" valid? How about using bnwiki digits, I think "খ্রিস্টপূর্ব ১৫"?
If English digits are all that is required, you could replace the line starting "s =" above with:
s = s:match('^([1-9]%d*)%s*[Bb][Cc]$') or s:match('^খ্রিস্টপূর্ব%s*([1-9]%d*)$')
To make it display the bnwiki name, you would need to change function numToBC by replacing the first of the following lines with the second (the format stuff is not needed):
return string.format( '%d BC', 1 - num )
return 'খ্রিস্টপূর্ব ' .. (1 - num)
Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It works perfectly. Thank you :) And if possible, could you please fix this also. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Good. I added a reply to point out a workaround. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Platonic solid - Classification[edit]

Dear John,

I'm afraid that you've revoked my recent modification in error. I restored only an erroneous modification made in revision 567073300 by Duxwing.

The original sentence (that was restored by me) is:

That all five actually exist is a separate question – one that can be answered easily by an explicit construction.

Duxwing's sentence (that was restored by you) is:

positively demonstrating the existence of any given solid is a separate question – one that an explicit construction cannot easily answer.


Your justification :

I think the point is that a construction can only be show n to be *approximately* correct

This isn't true. For example, a cube is the \{(x,y,z):0 \le x,y,z\le 1\} set. This is absolutely exact. There is no approximation. So please reconsider this.

Thanks, 89.135.19.75 (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. A better approach would be to post this at the article talk page so other editors can join in, or can find the outcome of a discussion later. If you want to be sure that I have seen the post at the talk page, you could add {{ping|Johnuniq}} to your message (see WP:ECHO—pings only work if they are included in a new message which is signed). Please see Talk:Platonic solid#Explicit construction. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)