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.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heeded the point of your comments and created a Mechanical calculator article, and separeted out the information from the Calculator article that pertains to mechanical devices (bar a paragraph in the history section.

Even though our previous discussion didn't work out very well, I'd still value your input.

InternetMeme (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're willing, I would appreciate some feedback and criticism on trimming "bloat", smoothing out the parts where the text was merged, indicating important points that should be included, and whatever else on a draft (User:FyzixFighter/Centrifugal force) for a merged article to replace the Centrifugal force and Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) articles. During the recent merge discussion, which I apologize for somewhat abandoning, someone asked if I had a merge plan and so I've tried to put together what I think a merged article might look like. In writing the draft and in the rationale for a merger, I'm looking at example #3 at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding_to_disambiguate where this would be the primary topic for the most common usage, with a hatnote to the one other usage of the term (the reactive centrifugal force). I realize that it is still a bit of a frankenstein cut-and-paste from the other two pages, but I didn't want to lose some of the good work and wording by other editors. So like I said, any feedback and criticism would appreciated - I'd like to polish the draft a bit more before restarting discussion about merging. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to mahjong, its nice to see people contributing finaly. First, if something is "ungramatical" then is it not better to correct it yourself if you find something wrong with it or want to perfect it rather than delete it? Second, why do you find that paragraph unesesary, I don't see what is so controvertial about it? If you could even give me a slight idea as to how it doesn't inform someone about the differences of mahjong then I will happily let it go. I myself was very surprised to find out that Koreans are unaware that a local variation even exists, and that American mahjong is played outside the country (even though some people realy dislike the variation). Things that people don't often know are just as important as things that most people know. Shabidoo | Talk 01:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's not surprising or notable. Here in the UK people play mahjong, and as far as I know there is no UK mahjong so they play e.g.Hong Kong and Fukien mahjong (that I know of). People here also read Chinese newspapers, watch Chinese TV, listen to Chinese pop music, watch Chinese films. They also listen to US pop music, each Italian food, drink French wine. All of these things: games, music, food, TV, films, are popular in many different countries. Mahjong has spread especially widely, possibly along with the spread of Chinese culture throughout the world. I.e. it is neither surprising nor notable. It is maybe not a point of view but is a personal observation which does not belong in the article, unless sourced from e.g. an article commenting on it's distribution.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you are the most frequent editor of the article "Bivector", I thought I'd let you know that I updated it to B+ in Mathematics and B in Physics (was listed as start-class in both). Great article. Enon (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Maybe you'd like to have a go at totally reworking the Geometric algebra article? If it were as good as the Bivector article, it would be e^π2 times better.Enon (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you reverting my edits just for the sake of it? Of course I know there are different formatting styles whether or not greek letters should be italicized or not, whether imaginary unit should be italic or not, whether differential d should be italic, etc. And of course it is not appropriate to change from one style to another. But if the article mixes up two different notations, then it is totally appropriate (and even necessary) to unify the notation. Right now the article has both π and π, both i and i, both e and e, both φ and φ.  // stpasha »  22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS:MATH#Greek letters says that Greek letters are not normally italicised, and some editors italicise variables, not constants, so φ could be italic but π shouldn't. But I don't see any italic φ in the article, not counting those in <math> tags which are explained at MOS:MATH#Greek letters. The same is true of the imaginary unit and d as in dx. Some uses of 'e' are italic but most aren't, including the most prominent uses: it is more consistent to make them all non-italic which I've just done.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I should add that Logarithm was recently made (so is very close to the version that was made) a good article. Edits to the article are looked at more closely as given its GA state it's unlikely to have major problems which need correcting. In particular the formatting of it was looked at very closely, and the formatting was almost all redone just before the good article review. It's very unlikely significant formatting problems were missed and need correcting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In my edit I was following the recommendation that you linked earlier, MOS:MATH#Choice of type style, which states the preference for e, i, d to be italicized. However if you like them in upright font more --- that is entirely up to you; as long as the use is consistent. In LaTeX roman "e" can be typeset as \mathrm{e}, and same with "i" and "d". I do not know how to typeset non-italicized greek letters in LaTeX, which is why I changed the in-text φ and π to italic versions. I don't think it is appropriate to have italic φ in TeX formulas and non-italic in inline text --- this violates the consistency principle (which takes precedence over the "choose formatting of the first major contributor" principle).  // stpasha »  23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted at MOS:MATH#Greek letters LaTeX does get it wrong, so changing HTML formulae to match the LaTeX rendering does not make sense. It's also I think unnecessary as the two are so different that consistency of such details is unnecessary, unless it's for some other reason such as clarity. So having dx italic in a LaTeX formulae and not outside it is fine, as long as it's clear what's meant. And the last paragraph of MOS:MATH#Choice of type style makes it clear that where one style is already used it should not be changed: again if there were any problems with the formatting they would have been addressed before or during the GA review.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Speed_of_light#Speculative_interpretation_or_a_religious_text.2C_not_a_scientific_result_at_all. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment at Template_talk:Table_Hanzi. I would appreciate your participation in further discussion. Asoer (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is your foundation for changing this again? Perhaps I am missing something here since I am not a member of the Wiki-Gestapo (a notorious band of uber-wiki's who are self-appointed and have no known competition. They Hold the golden key to editing and if they say George Bush was a repressed flaming homosexual with pedofilic tendancies then by George they're right.), nor am I a grand annointed cyclops of the 101st degree Freemasons. Wiki should not be set upon by people like you who thinks it is their duty and honor to sanitize pet sites. You cannot re-write history. By reverted the edit you have sanitized the Shriner's entry by denying that the Ray Stevens song, or even Ray Stevens himself exists. This is a bit like the U.S. deleting all references to Abu Garib from the war in Iraq. Why didn't you just deleate Rays Stevens and the Shriner's Convention Pages while you were at it? Better yet, why don't you please take the time to explain how someone like YOU can suddenly be the Oracle of Wikipedia deciding what truths get added and which ones do not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.1.150 (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you reverted a little change I made to the Cross product page. I disagree with your comment on taking norms:

${\displaystyle |\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}\left(1-\cos ^{2}(\theta )\right)=|\mathbf {a\times b} |^{2))$

${\displaystyle |\mathbf {a} |^{2}|\mathbf {b} |^{2}\sin ^{2}(\theta )=|\mathbf {a\times b} |^{2))$

Both sides of the equation are scalars. Everything is a square, and you can't "take norms", all you can do is take the square root of both sides. So,

${\displaystyle |\mathbf {a} ||\mathbf {b} |\sin(\theta )=\pm |\mathbf {a\times b} |}$

The freedom to choose sign is connected with the fact that definition of cross product depends on handedness. If the sine factor wasn't there, only the positive sign could work, but due to the sine by choosing only positive you're painting an incomplete picture and missing an interesting connection. -Ben pcc (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, I see my mistake. Since ${\displaystyle \theta }$ is by definition the smallest angle between them, the sine factor is never negative. I feel stupid, ignore me :-> -Ben pcc (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is the agreement then that the plus or minus doesn't belong, that it is a function of handedness, or what? Either way, shouldn't this potential source of confusion be addressed in the appropriate section of the page?KlappCK (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, in which way is the definition of the trigonometric functions using the first order functional differential equation ${\displaystyle y'(x)=y(-x)}$ "incorrect in part"? Just curious. It seems obvious to me that ${\displaystyle y(x)=\sin(x)+\cos(x)}$, and that ${\displaystyle \sin(x)=0.5[y(x)-y(-x)]}$ et c. Baxtrom (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My first concern was it was not clear how you got from y´(x) = y(−x) to y(x) = sin(x) + cos(x), as that result was just asserted, with a red link to functional differential equation, and not actually speciafied. As it's not defined it's incorrect to say it's similar to the hyperbolic functions, where e.g. cosh is defined 1⁄2(e^x + e^−x). As far as I can see you've found a differential equation satisfied by a combination of cos and sin, but without an explicit expression for the solution to that differential equation which doesn't involve cos and sin you can't use it to define them, and your definition comes down to sin(x) = 1⁄2 (sin(x) + cos(x) - sin(−x) - cos(−x)) which is rather circular.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. However the fact that a 5th NDA has been ruled out needs to be mentioned and attributed. Since you know the field and I don't (obviously). . .Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's covered at Cayley–Dickson construction which says how to get from one algebra to another and how you can go to 16 (and 32...) but you no longer have a normed algebra. See also the Baez reference in either article (and probably others but Baez is especially straightforward).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

On 12 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chinatown, Newcastle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Chinatown, Newcastle, is on land once part of Blackfriars monastery in Newcastle, England? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The previous Cfm discussion resulted in deletion of this category. This category is, nevertheless, useful to be a ((category redirect)), both for navigation and for preventing recreation. But of course for the latter purpose, a recreation ban could also be in place. But to fulfill both it would be best to create a category redirect, plus a page protection. 203.198.25.249 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You removed my question to Arthur Rubin and then explained to me why you did so. Thanks for explaining. The intention was not attack, however I can see how it could be seen as negative and clearly, insensitive. I tried to modify it to be neutral and still explain this issue of defining living person since this is a real issue damaging a living person but that entry was removed again by Viriditas. I am sincerely puzzled! 123reuss (talk)123reuss123reuss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC).

You said "userpages should never be linked from articles" in an edit summary recently. I agree that it is a bad idea generally. However, should we not make an exception for an article which is a biography of the user in question? I do not see how this is different in principle from linking his home page at a university or his page at some social networking site. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:UP#Userspace and mainspace: "...encyclopedia articles should never link to any userspace pages." and "In the rare case that you or something closely connected to you may have an article in the encyclopedia, that is always treated as completely separate from you as an editor.". In general articles should not link to project pages (talk, project etc.) outside of maintenance templates, and this is especially so of links to user pages.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not him and have no connection to him.

I had thought that possibly someone might object to the link as an invasion of privacy, but apparently that is not your concern. It is not spam or self-advertisement, it is right on the topic of the article which is the personality of that user.

As for letting casual readers into non-encyclopedic parts of Wikipedia, they can get to user pages from just about anywhere with two or fewer mouse clicks — (1) click on the "discussion" or "history" tab, (2) click on a user's ID.

So what is your real reason for not wanting the link? JRSpriggs (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not implying you are him or are connected to him, I was just quoting verbatim. The way the second quote is phrased is probably as editors who are also notable enough to have their own article might think the two should be connected, but that doesn't apply here as he stopped editing before the article was created.

The real, or main, reason is it's a very clear policy, but one I agree with. There's a clear separation between article space and the other pages of the encyclopaedia. Links on article pages are generally either to other articles, to lists of articles (dab pages, categories) or to related pages and sites off en.wikipedia such links to other languages or other projects and relevant external sites. The only links to non-article pages are usually maintenance templates, such as AfD ones, which are only there while there is a problem with the page or discussion over it.

As an external link it is indeed similar to a link to some social networking site, but that should also not be included: I think if someone adds a link to e.g. a Facebook page it is speedily removed by a bot. Nor is someone's user page a reliable source. Links to university pages are different: they are the closest most academics have to an official site, so as per WP:ELOFFICIAL can be included provided there's no other reason to exclude it. But there should usually be only one of those to e.g. their current institution.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So your last point is that it is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia and/or that the source is primary rather than secondary and thus not subject to the screening process that reliable secondary sources are supposed to undergo, right? JRSpriggs (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP pages are not reliable secondary sources. In this case his user page is blank so not a useful source of any sort. I was considering the policies for sources and official sites as they give reasons for including or not including such links in the 'References' and 'External links' sections.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was replied. 218.250.143.16 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just told this editor I will block him if he moves any more pages. I can't decide what is going on here - sheer incompetence or what. Any ideas? Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he means harm; he's just dived into categories, disambiguation and page titles far too early for his level of experience. If he stuck to just editing articles and talk pages for a while his edits would be a lot less problematic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you are right, but we'll see. I'm uhhappy he ignored my request he not move articles without discussion. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

sir actually tamils are not the one who bring buddhism to thailand.before to that hindu kings whose main language is sanskrit, which also loaned some words from tamil.for e.g vattaram =vatta +aaram vatta or vattam means a circle and aaram means radius. together they will give a circular space surrounding a point.in our case [angkor wat] both nagar and vattarm has its root words from tamil.Simultaneously nagara vattaram is a generic word in normal usage in tamilnadu to mean a whole city place.But you cant find any proof of sanskrit root words for the word vattaram.If you show any i want to know it. nagaram,nagaratthar are the words to mean a city and its people used over 2000 years by tamils who trade to ancient rome.at those time tamil language is in its pure form(meaning without much sanskritization) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoshiva (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would still say it seems implausible: Sanskrit is an old language which has influenced many others and is likely to have originated such terms itself. To include that it also or instead comes from Tamil you would need a source, giving Tamil as the source of 'Wat' as used in Cambodia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

since i want to know from which source you refer vattaram as a sanskrit word.

though its accepted sanskrit is a old language.at the same time we cant say that sanskrit is elder to tamil.since such things even today remain unanswerable.we cant disprove that sanskrit not getting loan words from tamil. though during the period after birth of christ tamil slowly hetting sanskritised and increasingly getting changed. but tamil before the christian era is in its own pure form. at those days inorder to create a new word like the word vattaram it is customary to put two or more tamil source words and join together to give a new word like vattaram.

vattam=a circle & aaram =radius both are pure tamil words.

That is why i want to particularly note you that even those two words also not derived from sanskrit. but from tamil. hereby i am trying to say if vattaram is the origin of wat then it is from a tamil source word traveled through sanskrit. the two languages both loan simulataneously what they lack. [for your kind attention:even just a google search could result vattaram as a tamil word(not a sanskrit word).Also a tamil film also come in that name(vattaram).] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoshiva (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with DigiTech. I noticed this as a trend within Category:Guitar_effects_manufacturing_companies, such as Akai and List of Boss Corporation products. Do you agree the list should be deleted from the first, and the latter entire page deleted? Kilmer-san (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at those other two articles before but looking at them they are different, so not really comparable - both companies I think are much better known. If you feel they do not belong then raise it at their talk pages or using the deletion process, whichever you think best.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But as an experienced editor, would you agree in general that all three share the common attribute of a rather long list of manufactured products which themselves are not notable without some sourcing for notability? Not trying to be a pain, just trying to save time in prod if I'm off base in general with this. Thanks for the help. Kilmer-san (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would wait and see what happens to DigiTech – if the PROD contested I suspect it will end up at AfD, and discussions there might highlight what the general view on such product lists is.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)