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.

Unfortunately,The article clipping path service has been redirected to clipping path according to the administrative decision. Well, obviously I have respect and honor to the decision. At this situation, can I edit the clipping path article by adding content, Sir? Thanks for your consideration. Md Saiful Alam (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you have already done so and that's fine: as you can see other editors will be along to help if the content needs further work to make it more suitable for Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir for your opinion. Md Saiful Alam (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John: Although our engagement over the article Idée fixe has not been sweetness and light, it has improved the article, which now is quite exemplary, I believe. So my thanks for that outcome.

I'd hope that our future encounters could take a more positive form, as a joint effort to improve WP. Brews ohare (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi John: I wonder if you might have an interest in adding to the article Quadruple product a section on the connection to geometric algebra? I think an article along these lines is what is needed rather than the presently disputed article Vector quadruple product. Brews ohare (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you participated in discussions about Template:zh.

As you probably know, currently if you want traditional characters to display before simplified characters when using this template, you have to write |first=t every time you use the template, which can be a pain in long articles, and which raises complaints about political and practical problems with making simplified characters the "default".

So I am trying to write up a version of the template in which you set a traditional/simplified choice setting just once (specifically, on a subpage of the article where you're using the template), and then every instance of the template on that article uses the ordering you set. Further details about the new setup are here; if you have a moment I would very much appreciate your input, specifically about any potential problems you can imagine or any ways this can be made better.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

...for your contribution to the article pig (disambiguation)! Chrisrus (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You have new message here. ––虞海(Yú Hǎi) 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC) You have new message here. ––虞海(Yú Hǎi) 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC) You have new message here. ––虞海(Yú Hǎi) 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You have new message here again. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but one again you have new message here. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit

I don't know what "consensus" you told me was, but in the current "_talk page_ + clear MOS guidelines", there's no consensus. And since nobody have any opinion of my comment there, they seem to have tacitly agreed. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have posted more detailed reasons on the article talk page where there's already a discussion on this. I suggest you reply there so other editors can more easily participate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have, but nobody replied, and that is a signal of tacitly agreeing until the next reply one made. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New message

You have new message here. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You have new message here again. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but once again you have new message here. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SL2(R). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my accidental deletion of the content in the Project Geology Discussion. My apologies for the screw up, not sure how I managed that one! Rygel, M.C. (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the history we in the past had Tessarines and other hypercomplex numbers in the template. The problem with them was twofold. First they are obscure: compared to Quaternions, Octonions, even Sedenions

How did you compare their 'obscurity'? Sedenions and Octonion have much smaller articles.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

they don't fit into modern algrbraic theory

What? What is 'modern algebraic theory'? This phrase shows you have little understanding of what is modern algebra.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

and are little used.

Again where is the prrof? There are links to applications.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

More often other algebraic structures are used, with more developed mathematical theory, such as ℂ ⊕ ℂ for the tessarines.

This is exactly another name for thessarines.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Second they don't fit into the sequence ℝ ⊂ ℂ ⊂ ℍ ⊂ 𝕆 which is the sequence of division algebras generated by the Cayley–Dickson construction. Also the symbol '𝕋' is not used for the Tessarines anywhere that I can see; certainly not in the article.

I fail to see why they should fit in this sequence to qualify for the navigation template.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tessarines are one of an infinite number of hypercomplex number systems. If they were included there would be a strong case for including many more. But as they are little used in modern maths this would simply confuse readers.

Then nominate the article for deletion, and not disrupt the navigation template.--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Better to include the link to hypercomplex numbers, which covers all of them. Users can still find the article from that page, through the many other links to it, and via the search box.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why a nav template then if you can just give a link to hypercomplex numbers?--178.140.84.25 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, John. I wanted to make you aware of this discussion on my user talk page. Based on a test I did, it seems that a redirect can be created using the NOINDEX magic word to keep it out of the search box prompts. I'm hoping this will allow a redirect to exist at WP:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU (thus preserving existing links) without triggering the concern you expressed in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU about the page showing up in the search box. I'm going to bed now and plan to create the NOINDEXed redirect in the morning, so if you have any major concerns, you are welcome to mention them on my talk page while I sleep. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

John, You removed an edit on the grounds that it was 'confusing'. You then asked me where it said '5' in the source. Here is a copy of the third paragraph from the end in the source,

Thus Newton uses the term “centrifugal force” in the Principia to describe three very distinct concepts. First, he uses it to refer to a hypothetical repulsive force (such as the force between two electrons), which would result in a hyperbolic path, accelerating away from the source of the “central” repulsive force. Second, he uses the term to refer to the outward force exerted by a revolving object on some framework (such as the force exerted by a roulette marble on the housing). Third, he uses the term to refer to the “fictitious” outward force on a revolving object when viewed from a revolving frame of reference. A fourth context in which the concept of “centrifugal force” may arise is when phenomena are described in terms of curved coordinate systems, such as polar coordinates. Such non-linear coordinate systems are not inertial in the spatial sense, even though they may be static (i.e., not accelerating), as discussed in the note on Curved Coordinate Systems and Fictitious Forces. A fifth usage of the term “centrifugal force” occurs when the inertial forces on an object, relative to a momentarily co-moving inertial frame, are de-composed into tangent and normal components (in the osculating plane). The normal component is called centrifugal force. There is no Coriolis force with this convention, because the particle is always at rest with respect to the co-moving inertial coordinates. Needless to say, all these usages are very closely related, and differ only by context and convention.

I don't find anything confusing about this. I will ask at the wiki-physics project if there is anything confusing about this. David Tombe (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have given more detailed reasoning on the article talk page, which is the best place to discuss changes to the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

>November 2010

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Cartesian coordinate system. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert the whole thing? You can just removed the first sentence, and leave the explanation for quadrants on the page. Did you read it at all? Your action is not a kind of collaboration, but a fight with some other people. Don't you know the word "quadrant"? Why do you want to delete my whole editing? Jackzhp (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My reason was an article is not the place to ask questions, even rhetorically, and your question seemed more like one intended for a talk page. You are right that only describes the first sentence but the rest was slight and made sense little without it. If you read the article you will see there is a section, Cartesian coordinate system#Quadrants and octants, which covers this very well, so even without the concerns about how it was expressed the 'explanation for quadrants' is already covered well.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You are good. I didn't see that section at that time. And I felt bad when you delete all of them without mentioned that section. Jackzhp (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

John, your comments would be welcome at Talk:Logarithm#Formula formatting consistency - informal_RFC. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John, I didn't realize I'd copied the whole thing twice. 89.241.226.214 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JohnBlackburne. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 02:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the ((User wikipedia/rollback)) userbox and/or the ((Rollback)) top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle conflict. DVdm (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I defiantly disagree with your deletion of my post on the Infinite Monkey Theorem. You clearly are of the opinion that only certain knowledge and examples are worthy of being preserved on the internet despite their accuracy and creativity. Thank you for propagating the stereotype that Wikipedia's editors are self-righteous, pretentious internet demigods preferential to only one particular viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.79.38 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as edits coincide with the verifiable requirements of Wikipedia, you should not exercise complete and absolute control over the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.79.38 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that they reflect consensus. It is not clear if any statement on straight quotations would reflect consensus (which is why I encourage saying less); but it is perfectly clear that your undiscussed reversions to a warmly disputed prohibition do not. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

response to Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_testD c weber (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
more Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_testD c weber (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
A quick question at Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_test, thnxD c weber (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)