This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Blackburne, you wanted me to refer to Wikipedia:TW --> which is about Twinkle? Mistakefinder (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle, WP:Twinkle, is a gadget, an optional tool that makes many tasks easier. It's especially useful for doing deletions as it does all the steps of a deletion process. The link in the edit summary is there to show when it's used, both as a help to other editors to find it and so it's possible to see how it's used, within one editor's contributions or among a larger number. It is not related to the reason for the change, and does not refer to e.g. Taiwan, which is coincidentally sometimes referred to by the same two letters.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Blackburne, you reverted me again! Could you stop? Or at least give sufficient evidence and discuss first? You did not provide any citation on why you "think" the ROC (1912-1949) "was" a different state from ROC in Taiwan now. I was from the ROC myself and I researched these issues extensively and have never seen any evidence of what you claim. Also, note that since this is not true that there is no separate article on this in the Chinese version of Wikipedia. Mistakefinder (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My edit was neither necessary nor out of place: The section in reference was about whether 0⁰ was 1 or undefined and contained many explanations of why it might be considered 1 but none of how it might be considered undefined. As such the section was unfairly weighted so I added an example of how 0⁰ would be seen as undefined to balance this out. My addition might not have been in the most appropriate subsection but it did not disrupt the flow of the article and was not out of place (plus it could merely have been moved to a different subsection as opposed to being reverted), nor was the addition false and given its nature it needed no source as the maths explained itself with good mathematics explained in its entirety needing no citations. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

It was out of place; that is a well laid out and sourced history section and does not benefit from an unsourced digression like that. Other than that it was so badly written that it made no sense as an example. For questions such as what is 0⁰ clarity is important, as the answer is by its nature unclear and ill-defined. You are wrong to write it needed no source: any mathematics beyond simple arithmetic needs sourcing, otherwise it is original research and as in this case that often means it is unclear and confusing. If it can't be found in sources then chances are it's not a good example.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I say, it might have been in the wrong subsection but it was not out of place to be in that overall section. My edit was not badly written either; it is clear when stated, that 0⁰ can be expressed as (0^x)/(0^x) for x ≠ 0 as by the laws of powers (a^x)/(a^x) = a^(x-x) = a⁰ this shows that 0⁰ can be expressed as 0/0 as 0^x for x ≠ 0 is also 0 and ∴ 0⁰ can be described as undefined just like all numbers divided by 0 are by the nature of a gradient on a cartesian graph showing to been vertical and therefore both ±∞ This is not beyond simple arithmetic either, infact in England, UK it is taught to all children at age 12 and usually fully understood by at most age 14 depending on the intelligence of the child with many understanding it at an earlier age. By extension it is also non-confusing as long as you have a basic grasp of the concept of numbers so I fail to see how you found my edit confusing. Furthermore, maths beyond simple arithmetic is not original research, that is an invalid assumption. In addition, all maths is either true or false and is the only subject where this applies and as such as long as an explanation is given in its entirety then no source is needed. Also even if a source was needed, it is clear that it is correct and as such such just be marked as needing citation as opposed to being removed. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Please elaborate on how my edit was erroneous, my edit in and of itself shows have it is true via way of my own explanation. If you feel it not fit to continue this here I have already created a new section on the de Moivre's formula about this topic which I expected you to reply to in explaining my supposed errors and how adding correct notation makes the page confusing (as I assume that is how you deem me to have made the page more confusing) Though I know that my edit was not erroneous and any further mathematician specialising in complex numbers would know that. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Hi John: I'm so sorry to inform you that your recent nomination of Chester Burn viaduct is not going to pass. It was originally created on December 20, which means it would have to be expanded 5-fold in order to qualify now. It's a crazy rule, but one that they (at DYK) are not willing to bend. Let me know if you have any questions! MeegsC (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See my reply at the nomination page (I noticed it before noticing your post here).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that — somehow I missed the article move! Anyway, it's approved now. It would be good if you could add page numbers to your book references; it's hard to track things down without them. And there are a number of things which are included in the article that aren't in the source (Cong Burn as an alternate name, for example, and the info about Tesco's parking lot). MeegsC (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure I agree with the procedural close, but OK. Now that it's no longer on the front page, I assume you have no objections to my re-proposing it for deletion? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no objection as I noted on the talk page. You might also review the other comments there as they seem relevant.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was not previously aware of the policy on nominating articles linked from the front page. So, I withdraw that comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi JohnBlackburne, the introduction on Republic of China (1912–49) was recently changed in a big way, but I changed it back. I thought the way the user/Philipxd rewrote the intro entirely changed the tone of the article, and what it was trying to say.--Thomasettaei (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I was trying to think of something to do other than reverting his POV and unclear changes, and having another editor support helps a lot. You might also look at the talk page where we've been discussing it but without reaching any sort of resolution.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, these tags were added ([1]) to Republic of China (1912–49). Do you think they are necessary or needed?--Thomasettaei (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On 30 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chester Burn viaduct, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the building of the Chester Burn viaduct (pictured) was delayed for twenty years by the downfall of railway financier George Hudson? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chester Burn viaduct. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the ((prod)) tag from MKVToolNix, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the ((prod)) template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! . There is now a section with five "google scholar/patents" references and two Softpedia reviews as eplained on the talk page. I'll add another reference for the "portable" edition in the lede, it's relevant for Windows users. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --117.6.86.31 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

* First reason the old article and this article are different: The old article write sum theorems of Dao Thanh Oai with common title is: Dao's theorem, The old article have some subsections: Dao's theorem on concurrent of three Euler lines, Dao six point circle, Dao six circumcenters theorem and Dao eight circles problem. So the old article and this article are different. And the old article Dao Thanh Oai is not enough english language to chat with You. He did not understand what you said that. And he didn't known wiki.

* Second reason reliable sources: The old article write some subsections, but one subsection had only reliable source. But now this article has engough reliable sources: It has two papers in Forum Goemetricorum, one entry in Kimberling center, and two reviews in Zentralblatt MATH, one topic in Cut the Knot and some communiation of geometers in: Advanced Plane Geometry

* Third reseon, not soon: The theorem appear since 2013,

* Fourth reseon: The theorem nice as:

• Seven circles theorem
• Six circles theorem
• Five circles theorem

Dao Thanh Oai is an amateur geometer, but I think he is not trivial why? Could You see somes his results:

• His generalization of the Napoleon theorem: http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m660461

• His generalization of the Gossard perspector theorem: http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m645553

• His generalization of the Simson line theorem: http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m527653

He has many another results. Publish in 2014 in somes Journals--117.6.86.37 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've declined your speedy request as the page isn't nonsense. It's a log of some sort. If this had been a new user, I'd have retagged U5, but he/she's been here since 2010 without any trouble (no-one's even created a talk page for them yet, but it's a bit late to welcome them...). Peridon (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange - it works perfectly on my system. Thanks. Chienlit (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The second one showed a missing image for me. It maybe hadn't generated the thumbnail or it was still doing so. Thumbnails don't work always for animated gifs; you may get the thumbnail but not the animation. More generally animated gifs often work better normal sized, rather than as thumbnails; they are often meant to be viewed at that size and often are not too large at that size. The two here are are compact enough they sit side by side and don’t take up too much space vertically either.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

( Ok. I was just trying to help, but I guess that didn't work. I won't edit or fix 0.999... anymore. The f18hornet (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the correct template to use – the one you came across (((Philippine census reference))) was a do-gooder's attempt at setting things straight, i.e. screwed them up. I've asked for that to be deleted. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 21:06, wikitime= 13:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

All I did was replace an invisible script error which was adding it to Category:Pages with script errors, as the error was otherwise invisible and raw HTML has the same effect. Looking at the deletion request it does not seem a correct one to use; it’s not a user page. Probably it needs discussion to resolve the existence of two templates.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion request, as it was clearly incorrect – that is not a user page. I don’t see that any speedy criteria would apply so as noted above it probably needs discussing to determine if both are needed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was a lua error. Which means that the ((invoke:wikidata)) inside the template doesn't work properly. Nothing I can do about that, so I suppose your fix is best. Note that ((Philippine census reference)) is more or less an orphan (whereas the real template ((PH census)) is currently used on 160+ pages and potentially around 2000 Philippine settlements) – and should be got rid of to avoid confusion. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 15:17, wikitime= 07:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

I am calling about your revision #656161352 in Template:Done/See also. I am afraid I fail to divine its purpose. Specifically, I am thinking that whatever result you expected to get, you might not have, because you have not blocked out the rendering of ((Agree)), which has gone to the very same TfD as ((Disagree)). So... what am I missing?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

((Agree)) has 'noinclude' tags around its deletion notice, so the deletion notice is not being transcluded with the template. If you look at the version before my change you will see a deletion template above ((disagree)) but not ((agree)). And that was putting every one of the templates transcluding the documentation into the TfD category.

The other fix would be to wrap the notice on ((disagree)) in 'noinclude' tags but I am reluctant to do that unless it’s absolutely necessary, as I think it's the best way to notify most editors (the ones who don't edit templates and put them on their watchlists) about deletion discussions that may interest them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Wiki rule WP:Biased says: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. German scholar Thomas Schirrmacher is a spokesperson on human rights for the World Evangelical Alliance, as well as chair of its theological commission. He's also a longtime observer of religious freedom issues. He is a world-famous authority on religious freedom & is widely cited in the scholarly literature. His book is a RS--It gives factual reports on attacks on religious freedom. Indeed it is negative about those attacks and does not celebrate them-- so that is the "bias" we are talking about. . The World Evangelical Alliance founded 1842 is a major international organization based in 100+ countries. Its publications and editorial boards, do fact checking, and are widely cited in the scholarly literature. Attacks on religious freedom are common across the world and When they happen they deserve to be reported in Wikipedia and not suppressed. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have raised it at WP:RSN#Gebet für die Welt to get some feedback on it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That’s now WP:RSN#"Prayer for the World" published by a Evangelical Christian media foundation - is this RS? after merging two threads on the subject.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello JohnBlackburne, for some reason your edit [2] doesn't show on the talkpage for copyright violations. Just notifying, as I don't want to mess with other peoples' posts too much :). GermanJoe (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. I left a note on their talk page anyway, in case they did not read that page again which was not an obvious venue for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry John, I thought I had put it in the wrong place. But I do sincerely thank you for all the hard work you do, at least one other editor appreciates it. I thought I had it in the wrong place, I hope this is the right place.

Thank you once again, for all your hard work at WP:RFD and elsewhere. Si Trew (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I failed to see your intervening edits. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Argentinian and I wasn't being very successful anyway about stating that the Malvinas Islands are a contested territory, which they are, probably more than you think. And by what I've read, Argentina has very good arguments about the sovereignty over Malvinas, since it was already a contry (for a quite long time) when the Brits took over it, the 19th century international law gave Argentina the right to rule in the Malvinas and there was an actual Argentinian population in the Malvinas before the English invasion, and it belongs to the Argentinian tectonic platform. Anyway, I'll let that issue to Argentinians! I'm tired of anglo-saxoninic supremacit views! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We are already discussing it on the article talk page, which would be a better place to continue.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, stop editing your message on my page, it's really damn annoying. 115.64.79.207 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Troll has been blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) can you stop to editing this page.

Thanks - I tried to follow the instructions to the letter, but was thwarted (I thought 'afd2' was just an example, referring to the deletion number). Peter Damian (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

... for correcting the Commonscat location of Ardoileán, I didn't know that rule, so I corrected it also in other articles I created.--Pampuco (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on subject-object. I still don't understand what a "!vote" is. How does this differ from an ordinary "vote"? Peter Damian (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Damian:, the idea is that we don’t just "vote", like an election. Instead we are supposed to be discussing, so making arguments in favour of keeping or deleting, or even in favour of some other outcome, as well as replying to each other's posts to try and reach agreement. But to as a shorthand for whether your argument for or against deletion you can add a delete, keep, support, oppose, or other bolded position. It’s especially useful when an editor uses less than clear reasoning: perhaps their first language is not English, or perhaps they are being ironic or sarcastic. This is a '!vote', and using one is to '!vote'. It is not a 'vote' on its own and often is disregarded, or given less weight, if it does not have at least some reasoning with it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) Peter Damian (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please can you reopen the == Suitable article title == thread on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown that you collapsed here. Thank-you. GregKaye 14:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No. There is an already open move discussion, discussion should continue there.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your action is in violation of talk page guidelines and infringes censorship. A large content of what I have presented is direct quotation from the subject. As you want the other discussion can continue. GregKaye 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I just learned that GregKaye closed his own proposal in good faith realizing that it did not have consensus support several days ago. But you reopened it[3], causing the pointless discussion to continue. That seems disruptive to me. Why did you dishonor his close like that? I see your edit summary and comment previous to the reopening, but it seems snarky and contrary to collaborative cooperation. --В²C ☎ 22:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussions should be allowed to run their course, so the full seven days, except in exceptional cases. An editor should normally only withdraw a nomination if it clearly going to fail, if e.g. there is 100% opposition and no support. Further if an editor is withdrawing a nomination it normally means they accept the consensus is against them. Starting another discussion immediately could be seen as disruptive, as trying to prolong the discussion beyond seven days, as trying to change the terms of it as you don't like the way its going. If other editors or the same editor keep doing it the discussion might never end. So let it run for seven days and see what the outcome is, before making any alternative proposals. It may be alternatives will arise out of the discussion naturally as often happens.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

By your own criteria ("if it clearly going to fail, if e.g. there is 100% opposition and no support") his close was justified[4]. The one "support" was for a different title from the one being proposed. Next time please be more careful. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 23:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello JohnBlackburne, do you want to meet me ? Could you give me an address ? I hope to see you, by --79.13.174.157 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science--Scanner74 (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)