User talk:Joseph Lindenberg

Welcome!

Hello, Joseph Lindenberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Tau (2π)

Thanks for your contribution in Tau (2π). Kleuske (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be thanking you for starting the Tau (2π) Wikipedia page. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just quit the mutual admiration club and get on with business. I just saw your sandboxed proposal and it looks excellent to me. Go right ahead, i'm all for it. Kleuske (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tau

Hi there. Thanks for the kind reminder. I am still following the page and would eventually get around to the notification about the changes you made in the talk page. Nevertheless, I just took a look at it right now, but realized it's gonna take me some minutes to wrap my mind about the subject, since the thread's become relatively large by now, so I can't reply immediately. But I will do so as soon as I have the time :) Cheers, Waldir ^talk 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the move situation. I have taken action, see the talk page. By the way: I am aware that I haven't followed up on my promise to collaborate on the article, but the more time passes, the more changes to the article pile up... I will be honest, for the moment I won't be able to take a closer look, but do keep me in the loop; I'll try to offer my two cents every now and then (and some more "change" if time permits). Cheers, Waldir ^talk 04:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I read your message and made a statement here. They're discussing AfD's again or, alternatively, to bury the subject in the Pi-article. It might be helpful if you came to my aid, since i'm not that much of a mathematician. I just like elegant ideas. Kleuske (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the drop doesn't seem mathematically possible to you, it probably is a bug in the rating system rather than malicious voting. Are you able to make some calculations to rule that out? I could contact the developers and inform them of the bug, if there's one. Otherwise, it might be an indication of how useless the page has become now, which hardly surprises me. --Waldir ^talk 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the data is available, but as you said, let's leave that investigation for the unlikely case that an AfD is put forth and this is used as an argument. --Waldir ^talk 06:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, most likely it's due to the recent changes they've been doing in the rating plugin. It's still being developed and recently they launched a new version. --Waldir ^talk 19:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I must say I am getting worn down by all the tau opposition. Nobody seems to have addressed my main arguments; the discussion keeps for some reason ignoring the recent proposals and historical use of 2π as a constant (rather than a multiplier) even though IMO it is much more important (and deserving of an article), than the recent proposal to name the constant tau, or the celebrations of tau day (which doesn't mean the latter shouldn't be mentioned in the article!). I hate to say this but I am considering abandoning my involvement and return to my uncontroversial gnomish contributions which are much less stressful. I wish you the best of luck and patience, and of course, count on me if you need help with any admin-related tasks. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 10:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid my "downer" message could discourage you. I'm glad you're keeping your stubbornness and optimism! Btw, I too believe the topic will eventually be covered in an article, but I'm sad Wikipedia will be silent when people start looking up the topic later this year. The main search results are quite good, but Wikipedia always excelled in providing an overview and selection of the best resources, and folks will be harmed by the absence of such a useful tool. Anyway, as you say, things will be set straight eventually. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 16:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news, but something tells me that they'll argue that, like Palais', that's an opinion article rather than a mathematical text. At least it's a secondary source from a reliable, math-related publication, so that's definitely an improvement. Keep me posted :) --Waldir ^talk 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just in case you're compiling the links (I think I read somewhere that you are), here's one article from 1998 saying "some people even celebrate 2 pi day, June 28 (6/28)": http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/12/local/me-28102. Cheers, --Waldir ^talk 15:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm always glad to have stuff like this brought to my attention, although I'm not compiling a list. I did compile a list of news articles about tau as ammunition in case its notability was challenged in an AfD. It's still in my sandbox. Yeah, I do remember one of the tau stories saying that they had already been doing a low-key celebration of 2Pi on June 28 in recent years at the San Francisco Exploratorium (birthplace of Pi Day). Could be they'd already started doing that way back in 1998, and that's what the article is referring to. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox inspired me to create User:Waldir/Tau to compile relevant material for when the article returns. Feel free to improve it :) --Waldir ^talk 18:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sudo Ghost 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander reply

Hello, Joseph Lindenberg. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for keeping a sense of humor; the "tau ghetto" remark was funny. Noleander (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! See, you might enjoy having me hanging around the Pi article more often. :D Just kidding! Just kidding! --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

"OK, you're right that I wasn't reading what you wrote closely enough. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)"

Thanks for that comment. I think it is better on this case to leave the thanks here. I hope they will start to reread what I said and get more out of it. Maybe, even try to help. I think your comment might lead to that in they will realize that, while I am a tauist, I am not picking sides.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tau version?

Can you make a tau version of N_SpheresVolumeAndSurfaceArea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I was thinking of showing the formulas factored out somehow, to really emphasize that all these seemingly strange formulas have a simple pattern involving tau.
So instead of ⁠32/945⁠ $π$ ⁴ R⁹ or the almost-as-strange-looking ⁠2/945⁠ $τ$ ⁴ R⁹, it would say something like 2·⁠ $τ$ /3⁠·⁠ $τ$ /5⁠·⁠ $τ$ /7⁠·⁠ $τ$ /9⁠ R⁹ or 2R·⁠ $τ$ R²/3⁠·⁠ $τR 2$ /5⁠·⁠ $τ$ R²/7⁠·⁠ $τ$ R²/9⁠
--Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I would use section 5 of the Tau Man. The function with it looks cleaner. But, I think you can illustrate it. --John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free gift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Tau

Someone already made it, you should use it. John W. Nicholson (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Thanks for pointing it out. I'm torn though over whether it's smart for me to really flaunt my pro-tau leanings in that way on Wikipedia right now. It might cause some people not to actually consider what I have to say and just dismiss me as a tau partisan. Eventually though, I'm sure I'll add it to my user page. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree. So, I made a different one (partly, because of the redirected link in it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Tau-2

(-;

John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still LOL

I have been going back and looking for who to contact to get more help with tau. I still get a laugh at this on the pi talk page "But as one of my favorite silly analogies goes, even though many people choose to buy dill pickle halves, cucumbers don't naturally grow that way." John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Please any time you see that I need spelling corrected do it. I have a learning disability with English and lexical skills. I have to cheat a lot and use the computer spell checker. For example, "disablity" is how I first spell the word above.

Also, I did not know I missed the signing. I tried to make sure that I did not do that, but some how I missed it.

Thanks again.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this in mind.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35x6rp/

John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Support in programming languages: Yeah, buddy!"?

I guess I need some ref as to what happen. John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://code.google.com/p/processing/source/browse/trunk/processing/core/src/processing/core/PConstants.java --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool as pi

http://io9.com/7-numbers-that-are-just-as-cool-as-pi-5986650 John W. Nicholson (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC) See also the current version of http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto John W. Nicholson (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there was quite a bit of mention of tau on Pi Day, but nothing with enough weight to change things here. It's certainly good to see that lots of people are aware of it and talking about it. No sign it's dying out, and it seems (at least to me) that it got mentioned more this year than last. MIT did the "Tau Time" thing again and said they will do it again next year. Even if tau never gets any more popular than it is now, it'll show up in more solid sources. Nothing to do but watch for those sources and wait. Having a tau article has gotten a lot more support here this time around, so at least there's progress. But enough of them have dug in their heels that we're gonna need another big thing to finally break their resistance. It could easily appear tomorrow. At absolute worst, we'll have to wait for the next person to write a book on Pi. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pi edit

What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pi&diff=553869252&oldid=553610571 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Net somewhat worse than before the two changes, but I'm not going to try to clean it up right now. More interested in what happens with the reincarnated tau article at the moment. It's probably best if we stay away from the Pi article for the time being, since that's what they've been wanting. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you spoke to soon about the tau article now all heck is breaking lose. They really do not like that result. It was to honest. What if we boldly do the following: Change the name to "Tau: Circumference to Radius Ratio". Redirect things to it. And then work to get the name change to what ever is agreed upon by the A. Editors. ???

As for the pi changes, I would do the revert, because I see that they are using no difference as to the removal reasons. But, there have been multiple edits which caused me issues (I don't know the best way to do this revert). John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem at Tau (2pi)

To quote my userpage:

Tau

The discussion closed about two weeks ago. If you keep badgering on about the Tau article I will ask for a topic ban from that article page. You know the consensus is against it, you know it's not going to be restored. It is purely disruptive, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding his deletions and hiding of what people state very disruptive. What can be done? John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted something over there that I hope will convince him to knock it off. But if IRWolfie is really looking for a fight, you might ask Waldir for advice on Wikipedia administrative measures. I got the impression he was familiar with such things. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://6-28318.wikidot.com/

This wiki is brand new http://6-28318.wikidot.com/ . Feel free to start new pages and edit. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]