Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:51, 27 August 2019

Archives

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
15		High School of American Studies (talk)	Add sources
153		Harmonic number (talk)	Add sources
428		Associative property (talk)	Add sources
62		Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula (talk)	Add sources
23		Discrepancy theory (talk)	Add sources
842		Riemann zeta function (talk)	Add sources
13		Alan Turing Year (talk)	Cleanup
51		Actual infinity (talk)	Cleanup
46		Voting in Guam (talk)	Cleanup
132		Cantor's theorem (talk)	Expand
4		Katalin Marton (talk)	Expand
93		Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory (talk)	Expand
311		Homomorphism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,521		Modulo operation (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
76		Calculator input methods (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
608		Rounding (talk)	Merge
71		Nearest neighbour algorithm (talk)	Merge
217		Source-to-source compiler (talk)	Merge
13		Bowers's operators (talk)	Wikify
19		New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (talk)	Wikify
4		Transverse Mercator: Bowring series (talk)	Wikify
4		Wiener connector (talk)	Orphan
2		Spectrum Academy at MS 118 (talk)	Orphan
3		Chebotarev theorem on roots of unity (talk)	Orphan
17		Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems (talk)	Stub
15		Oren Patashnik (talk)	Stub
41		Switching circuit theory (talk)	Stub
5		Dinitz conjecture (talk)	Stub
4		A Mind at Play (talk)	Stub
6		Communications in Algebra (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

History of combinatorics

I noticed you like Combinatorics. I feel recent changes to History of combinatorics are pretty ridiculous. I thought you might consider working on that article. Thanks, Mhym (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mhym, you mean this edit from a couple days ago? I will try to find time to look it over. All the best, JBL (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See e.g. the last sentence. I seriously doubt that Stanley's impact is in Matroid Theory "and more". Mhym (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Spring break is just starting, I will sit down and take a good hard look. (The diff is too complicated to read at a glance, which is my usual editing approach.) --JBL (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mhym: oh it's really oddly focused on poset theory, isn't it? (Like, I'm happy to see Rota and Stanley get mentnioned, but no graph theory or Erdos? No connections to algebra or other fields? Very odd.) Well, I've started with the ancient stuff, but I'll definitely get to the contemporary section eventually and try to do something more comprehensive with that. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting me

Thank you for providing a source for that definition of a polytope; I have definitely learnt my lesson to not revert just because I found something really hard to believe, and have left the IP editor who added it originally an apology. The world of terminology is wide, indeed! m(_ _)m Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: No harm done, and thanks for the kind message! (I don't know how a person would know to look for this usage without knowing already that it was common; it seems to be standard among people who study the combinatorics of convex polyhedra.) --JBL (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Joel B. Lewis, we may have had some disagreements in the past and i came here to talk to you about it. This time, i'm here to thank you with my own words for your edit at Binomial theorem and Pascal's triangle. Take care.---Wikaviani 19:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani, thanks very much for the kind words. Take care, and happy editing, JBL (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

reverted me at Charlie Wilson talk page

Hi, you used Twinkle to revert me, an Anti-vandalism tool. You don't, shall we say, want blatant POV, but on the other hand, some articles have had POV for years anyway, and I wonder if you have considered the benefit of not being hasty in these matters? Second thoughts may be more valuable than the first. Sure, some edits are just bad, and we don't need them in public view. But I take it to be agreed, that all reverts should be justified and all reverters should be ready to discuss. Furthermore, You're reverting on the talk page, so the issue is not simply that newcomers to the article might be misled by bad edits/POV. Thus, I contemplate, here, that the fact that one person is reverting slightly more (or very much more). I understand that you believe that reversions aren't necessarilly a bad thing. The many people in the community who occasionally revert pages, including myself, agree with you. But I am wondering if feel that you have no need to compromise and attempt to reach consensus?DanLanglois (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you do not understand our very clear and simple policy WP:NOTFORUM is your problem, not my problem. Notice that I did not revert your other recent talk-page edit because it contains a concrete comment about editing the article (even though your poor communication skills mean that probably no one will ever respond to it). You are not welcome to comment here further. --JBL (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Catalan number

I have no idea how I removed "ordered"; that was a complete accident. Thanks for double checking me there. I had just meant to add the bit about not necessarily binary, but didn't care about it all that much anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: no worries, these things happen :). About not-necessarily binary, there were two reasons I removed it: first, I thought it was placed too early in the sentence for a reader to appreciate it, and second, I felt like the definition is given in the second parenthetical. I wonder if there's a way to work it into the second parenthetical (to indicate that the vertices can have any number of leaves), because it could be more explicit. I thought about it for a minute before I reverted but didn't come up with a good way to do it. (I also don't feel strongly about this :).) All the best, JBL (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your message

Hello. I have read the message you sent me and I think the answer to your comment is that GNG is a test of the quantity of coverage, and is not interested in whether the coverage received is of a form that is rare. Regards. James500 (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi James500,

For context, I should say that this is not important to me (e.g., I am unlikely to follow up with an AfD, the article is not on my watchlist, etc.). But really you are mistaken. Again to use myself as an example, there are published reviews of more than a dozen of my papers. I am a completely ordinary research mathematician, and there is no question that I am not notable (neither under GNG nor under WP:NPROF). This kind of "coverage" is not a sign of notability, it is just routine for people in this field. It also has no biographical content at all. Under the standard you are suggesting, essentially every American research mathematician would be notable within a handful of years of acquiring a PhD. --JBL (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Depend on context.

You reverted my edits, saying "the information that the different arguments depend on context is crucial" but that is not a neutral point of view. People fall in several groups: "always 1" or "depends on context" or "undefined". Picking the middle option seems reasonable, but that doesn't mean that it is neutral. For those who agree with Knuth, the value is simply 1 in all contexts. Authors can define any expression in any way they want, so rather than saying that the value depends on the context, it is more accurate to say that the value depends on the author. MvH (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@MvH: I disagree and would be happy to explain, but first I would like to propose to move this discussion to the article talk page (so that others are aware of it), if that's all right with you. --JBL (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

OK MvH (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I have copied your comment there and responded. --JBL (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

What “procedural grounds” are you taking about?

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Joel B. Lewis. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Didn't realize the year change was there. Thanks my guy! 7_qz 01:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@7 qz: Happy to help! --JBL (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hey, just to let you know, i watch your talk since i posted here. I just removed this post and warned the IP. Feel free to ask me to remove you from my watchlist and i will do so. Take care.---Wikaviani 22:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- I appreciate your actions and have no objection to you keeping this page on your watchlist. --JBL (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Primes

Hi Joel, 1 is divisible by 1 and by itself, so the correct defnition of a prime is that it has two dividers. Therefore I changed the text in Mersenne prime. WeiaR (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) No, here is the correct definition of a prime number. Please keep in mind that when one says prime numbers are divisible only by 1 and by themselves this means they're different from 1 (the smallest prime number being 2). Regards.---Wikaviani 23:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi WeiaR, the sentence in question is “Since they are prime numbers, Mersenne primes are divisible only by 1 and by themselves.” This is not offered as a definition of prime number, but as a property that primes possess. It is inarguably correct. Since the section goes on to discuss which numbers divide Mersenne numbers, the property is more salient than the alternative you suggest. Finally, the usual word in mathematical English is “divisor”, not "divider". If you'd like to discuss further, I suggest we do it on the talk page, where other editors can weight in (not just my talk-page watcher ;) ). --JBL (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Hi Joel. You reversed my deletion of Ms Omar's "personal" details, saying it was "ridiculous". I think you might have misunderstood my intent. Ms Omar is a wonderfully appealing freshman Congresswoman, and the first Muslim woman elected to Congress. Cedar-Riverside is a very small neighbourhood just off the intersection of two interstates, (see Google Earth). There are two small Masjids, (mosque/cultural centre), on the same small street, one of which Ms Omar is likely to have attended regularly as she grew up. Now considering how enormous her recent National prominence, and given the amount of crazy in the US toward Muslims, particularly one who wears the veil in the House, I thought it best that we not broadcast her neighbourhood, (see church bombing). I have now edited out the neighbourhood and left "Minneapolis". I hope that's a fair compromise.

Thanks for your time. Mark 14:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi markdask,

Thanks for your message. I understood your intent. Although I no longer live in Minnesota, I was very pleased to vote for Ilhan when she ran for state assembly a few years ago, and I have spent plenty of time in Cedar-Riverside. The idea that naming the neighborhood is either a security or privacy issue is ridiculous. But I am satisfied with the state of the article after your compromise edit; thanks.

Regards,

JBL (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I addressed three Admins with my concerns and left it at that. Since then the page turned into a vicious partizan dogfight with some extreme vandalism, but at least it has since been PCPPed so the trolling has abated. Mark 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversions 2019-01-23

Hi Joel. Cheers for reverting the category edit I made. I hadn't realised it was in a subcategory already. I'll try to find and revert the other redundant edits I made. Jamgoodman (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jamgoodman: Already done, I was about to go explain on your talk page, but I see it's already clear. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Thanks! And sorry about the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamgoodman (talk • contribs)

@Deacon Vorbis and Jamgoodman: Thanks both for sorting this out quickly! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Brooklyn

How have I made the article worse. It is unnecessary to point out where the borough is; it is redundant and obvious. Taking up two lines in that parameter is completely unnecessary and somewhat confusing. IWI (chat) 00:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

copy edit restored

Please be more careful when making complaints about other editors. We are lucky to have such a good copy editor working on that article and I only hope that they don't leave after the way you have treated his recent copy edit. I restored the edit you deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: The edit you've just restored contains one minor copy edit, several substantive changes to the meaning of text that is currently part of an ongoing discussion on the talk page, and an unrelated edit by another user labeled "npov" that replaces sourced text with the unsourced opinion of that editor. You are welcome to restore the small part of that edit that actually constitutes a copy edit, but please don't also restore trash.

Furthermore, the correct place to discuss this is on the article talk page, which AlsoWukai should have done as well. --JBL (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Wukai did not make any substantive changes. You should not be calling the work of other editors "trash" and should strike that. Gandydancer (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You are just wrong. I will fix it myself. You and Wukai are welcome to discuss it on talk. --JBL (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history at Euler's identity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Also, and separately, I happen to agree with the IP. "perhaps a supreme example" is a judgment that should not be expressed in the encyclopedic voice, because it can neither be proven nor disproved (hence is unverifiable). See WP:V and WP:NPOV. Don't reinstate it. The IP will also be warned about WP:3RR. General Ization 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Note to future self: this charming pair of messages was related to the usual WP:LTA nonsense about the superlative on Euler's identity. Maybe one day some non-banned user will begin a discussion on the talk page about it, but apparently today is not that day. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Later addendum: --JBL (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Web Planet

What sources would you like for N being the production code for the 1965 Doctor Who serial The Web Planet? Try the BBC website, or any of these books:

• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 1: The Programmes. London: Target Books. p. 8. ISBN 0-426-20139-6.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 2: What's What and Who's Who. London: Target Books. p. 13. ISBN 0-426-20142-6.
• Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. p. 221. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.
• Saunders, David (1987). Encyclopedia of The Worlds of Doctor Who: A-D. London: Piccadilly Press. Story table. ISBN 0-946826-54-4.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1989). Doctor Who: The Programme Guide. London: Target Books. p. 11. ISBN 0-426-20342-9.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1991). Doctor Who: The Terrestrial Index. London: Target Books. p. 3. ISBN 0-426-20361-5.
• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1992). Doctor Who: The Universal Databank. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 12. ISBN 0-426-20370-4.
• Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James (1994). Doctor Who The Handbook - The First Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 349. ISBN 0-426-20430-1.
• Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1998). Doctor Who: The Television Companion. London: BBC Worldwide. Contents. ISBN 0-563-40588-0.

Please pick one or more of those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Material in Misplaced Pages is supposed to be verifiable in reliable sources. Whoever added the production code to the Dr. Who article should also have added a reliable source for that information. If one of the things you just listed is a reliable source and contains that information, then you would make Misplaced Pages better (albeit very very slightly) by adding a citation. —JBL (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The verifiability policy requires that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. This is not a quotation, and it has not previously been challenged. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

And now it has been challenged (albeit not on the relevant article, just in the context of a deeply implausible disambiguation). But what's the point of this? --JBL (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Virchow

Thanks a lot for wasting time and putting back the bad grammar and layout. Great job (not)--Stephencdickson (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edits on net did not improve the grammar or the layout, as I described on the article talk page, which is where discussion of the article belongs. —JBL (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:Quantifiers

User_talk:Reddwarf2956#Quantifiers

Machine-generated "TeX"

In this edit you call the "LaTeX" (a misnomer, of course) "painful". It's not just painful; it affects the ultimate visual appearance:

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&x-k\\&x{-}k\end{aligned}}}$

Donald Knuth had good reasons for intending TeX to work that way, and the difference in visual appearance is perfectly predictable to those who know about those reasons, but I have noticed that some people don't.

Some of the horribly painful MathJax and TeX code that was generated by software packages a couple of years ago seems to have subsided, but still some bad things happen.

BTW I saw you speak at the combinatorics seminar in Minneapolis on a Friday in February and I wondered if you were still around the following Monday, since that's when your remark about cold weather might have been justified. (It's actually been over a quarter of a century since the sort of weather happened that got Minnesota that reputation, but the Monday after you spoke was a lot colder than the more typical February day of your talk.) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michael Hardy, thanks for your message. Interestingly, after making my edit, I looked over the article history and discovered that the formatting was done intentionally (!!), I believe with the explicit desire of changing the spacing in the way you mention: see this edit.

Yes, I saw you in the audience at my talk. In some perverse way I was disappointed that the weather was so mild when I visited -- nothing to brag about afterwards, I guess? (I lived in Minneapolis for five winters; the first two, 2012-3 and 2013-4, were really different in character from the subsequent three; my impression is that this year was more like those two, perhaps even colder, just not for the days I was in town.)

All the best, JBL (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Excedance vs. exceedance

hello joel I wonder why did you undo my last revision because on Misplaced Pages and other sites I found that excedance is misspelling of exceedance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universe song (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Universe song,

In the context of the combinatorics of permutations, the relevant word is "excedance". As you note, this is a bit puzzling, since that spelling doesn't appear to exist as a word in any other context, and I have no idea what the history is that led to this usage. But it's easy to find examples of it being used in the mathematics research literature: for example, , , , , or the standard graduate textbook . (Stanley's notes say that the study of excedances dates back to Percy MacMahon, in the early 20th century, but that MacMahon did not name them. Unfortunately, he doesn't say who did name them!)

I hope this helps!

JBL (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at James Joseph Sylvester

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. 2600:1003:B857:EA83:BC46:44E6:D7AB:F708 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about revert on Abby Johnson (activist)

You recently reverted my addition to Abby Johnson (activist) with the message "zero reliable sources in this addition". Could you please clarify your reasoning for that so that I can do better? I added two sentences: the first stated that the case was ongoing (used two primary sources and one news source) and the second stated that it had been settled (used one primary source). My intended use for these sources was to cite that the case existed, and I'm confused as to how these are not reliable. Could you please clarify what you consider to be "reliable sources" so that I can properly add this information to the article? -Thunderforge (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Since this is about a single article, the right place to discuss it is on the article talk page -- do you mind if I move it there to respond? --JBL (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine. -Thunderforge (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert at Irreducible polynomial

The edit summary of your revert was "I do not understand why the more-complicated-to-edit-and-understand inclusion of a template would be better than the easy-to-edit-and-understand inclusion of a single space". The reason is the following: I did know that a sequence of consecutive spaces is rendered as a single space, but I did not understand that this applies to "{{math|xxx     }}    yyy", which is rendered exactly as "{{math|xxx}} yyy", that is as "xxx yyy". Thanks for this information. D.Lazard (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: Thanks, that explains it! (I did not realize it either, but I experimented a bit before committing my edit to make sure I wasn't making anything look terrible :).) All the best, JBL (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! --JBL (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of collapse

A goat for you!

Hello Joel B ! What that you say "This doesn't seem to be a real thing." Have you plotted it yet? or you just want a research paper link?

Vistics (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vistics: Thanks for the goat. your edit (that I reverted) had several features:

1. an approximation to the factorial;
2. a name for this approximation, with an internal link; and
3. a sentence making some statement about the validity of the approximation.

Here are some comments about each of these:

1. Since the symbol "≈" has no concrete meaning, it is not always clear what it means to say an approximation is "correct". But certainly it is true that for large n, the approximation you give is close (in some sense) to the factorial.
2. I searched for the name "Vatcharit's approximation" -- as far as I can tell, it is not used anywhere else. This is what I meant by "doesn't seem to be a thing." The internal link was a redlink, i.e., there is no Misplaced Pages article with that title, so that was not helpful in finding anything.
3. The final sentence was grammatically muddled to the point of incomprehensibility.

Finally, one thing your edit did not include was any kind of source for the approximation, or for the name. Misplaced Pages is not a suitable venue for publishing original research (you can read our policy about it here), so in order to include this, you would some published source that supports the validity and name of the approximation. (You can see our guidelines for what kinds of sources are valid here.)

I hope this is helpful, JBL (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@JBL: OK! Thxz. JBL sound is good.

Harmonic number

Regarding your edit comment "I don't think it is true" – if you have the time and could come up with a counterexample that disproves my language, that would be great! From my perspective, I made the change without adding a citation because I thought it was obviously true. I guess that means my task is to persuade you that it is obvious or to dig up a citation. 165.225.38.131 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi 165.225.38.131,

As I understand it, you assert that the third bullet point ${\displaystyle \lim _{m\rightarrow \infty }\left=0}$ implies ${\displaystyle H_{0}=0}$; is that correct? If so, I do not see how the one thing implies the other. In particular, it seems to me that for any function H that satisfies the second and third bullet points, the function ${\displaystyle J(x):=17+H(x)}$ does as well. If I have misunderstood you, I invite you to clarify.

All the best, JBL (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. In my edit I had changed the third bullet to

lim_m→+∞ (H_m+x − ∑ m
k=1 ⁠1/k⁠) = 0 for all complex values x

Thus, the trick of adding 17 no longer applies. Thanks! 165.225.38.131 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. I am just running out to lunch now, I will write a proper response some time this evening. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is my analysis of the situation:

I agree that your version is equivalent to the previous version; in particular, that it is correct. (Thank you for pointing out my error.) Your version comes without a citation, but that is also true of the original version, so that's a wash. The advantage of your version over the original version is that there is one fewer condition. There are at least two disadvantages of your version over the original version: the variable m in the limit must be restricted to integers in your version, which is artificial; and the statement with the "usual" harmonic numbers is considerably less natural-seeming than the version that makes reference only to the function H.

Overall, I probably prefer the original version to yours on aesthetic grounds, but don't feel strongly about it. What really would be good is (1) a proper reference and (2) trimming the OR enthusiasm on display down to something more reasonable. Your change doesn't help with this, but it doesn't hurt, either. Anyhow, I leave it to you to decide what to do next.

Also, if you agree, I'd like to copy this over to the article talk page, since that's where other editors of that article might be expected to find it. All the best, JBL (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to copy or move this discussion. Yes, I agree that some citations would make this much better. Mathematically, I find it nice when the necessary assumptions are as week as possible, and lim_m→+∞ (H_m+x − ∑ m
k=1 ⁠1/k⁠) = 0 is weaker than lim_m→+∞ (H_m+x − H_m) = 0. On the other hand, once the harmonic number function is extended then it turns out that the latter is true. That is, the latter is a stronger result. At some point I may take a stab at achieving the high points and avoiding the low points. 165.225.38.131 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done so. All the best, JBL (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Busy Beaver game

Hi, you undid the IP edit of 11 June on Busy Beaver game. Imo, it was not a bad edit. While I consider its changes to the lead as neutral (neiter improvement nor disimprovement), removing overly used boldface in the body appears an improvement to me. - How can you be sure that the IP is subject to WP:BMB? Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw that this very IP is already blocked; this answers my above question. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

However, reading through the contributions of the IP (Special:Contributions/51.7.23.7), I wonder why it has been blocked (by Favonian) in the first place. I'd consider the IP's all edits as between good and neutral, most of them removing (close-to-)unencyclopedic phrases. For example, at Jeffrey Beall, the IP's edits give more focus on the person himself, rather than the world's reception of him. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

1. or whoever may be meant by phrases like "is known", which, in their turn, might deserve the {{by whom}} tag

Hi Jochen Burghardt, thanks for your message. This editor (WP:LTA/BKFIP) has an extremely distinctive style -- with a bit of experience, it's easy to pick up on after only one or two edits. And it is indeed true that many of their edits can be classified as mild improvements. (Not all: they are not thoughtful in their approach and it leads to clear disimprovements like this or the ones discussed here.) Their flaws as an editor (and the reason they are banned) have more to do with an extreme unwillingness to engage constructively with other editors, and frequent edit-warring and personal attacks when challenged. If you think there is a legitimate edit that can be made to some article they have edited, you should go ahead and make it (perhaps not just by reverting). --JBL (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see. The P vs. NP discussion is really annoying. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is going on

I've added an entirely new formula for HN, and your envious ego couldn't let it stick, could it? Now, seeing your talk page, I see you're quite the troublemaker. I'm still new to this, so I don't know how to engage or discuss this with you directly, but I'm willing to give in, if you tell me what my options are. I know some math people like you are nasty, but am willing to listen. Please let me know how to go about it. I already know. Unlike you, who've never created anything worthy, I have, I learn fast lol.

Jrsousa2 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Jrsousa2

Hi @Jrsousa2:,

Thanks for your message. Misplaced Pages is edited by consensus, which means that neither of us is the final arbiter of anything. Per the guideline WP:BRD, the correct thing to do when trying to build consensus for a change is to begin a discussion on the article talk page; in this case, that's here. I've already briefly explained my objection to your edit, namely, that Misplaced Pages is not a venue for publishing or promoting new results, but perhaps you will find other editors are more convinced than I am. (Probably, you will have more luck if you adopt a less aggressive approach.) But, as I said, the right venue is the article's talk-page.

--JBL (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All right, I was a total noob and didn't know much about the process on how things are done, now I know. I'm a bit tired of it, so I will not proceed with this further at this point, maybe in the future. That said, I wish wikipedia had a more efficient way for people to get together and decide, consensually. It never occurred to me, but after this experience, I imagine the nightmare it must've been for each one of these millionsof pages to have been created with so many hands involved, and so many heads talking. Now I'm thinking each one of these pages is probably not the best that they could be, if editing them didn't take too much fighting and friction, if the process were more streamlined. It's no wonder 2% of the users are responsible for 66% of the pages, if each new user is given a hard time when they try to contribute. I wash my hands for now, perhaps in the future, I will try and talk with the previous users, to propose changes.

Jrsousa2 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Jrsousa2

Thanks for your message. Editing Misplaced Pages is definitely opaque and takes getting used to. If you do decide to try again later, I definitely recommend using the talk page to discuss changes, particularly when the edits in question concern your own research. All the best, JBL (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent news in the Oberlin College article

In cases like this, I find it's often necessary to back away to let editors work on the issue for a month or two. Then I can come back to see how much material is in the article and make suitable adjustments. That's usually after editors who are only interested in ensuring that we have covered this breaking news have moved on so those of us invested in the entire encyclopedia article can work on the article without stepping on their toes. It also gives us the benefit of allowing the news to break and further develop so we have a better sense of what is noteworthy in the long term and what was just flash-in-the-pan. ElKevbo (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, thanks for your message, and for the very sensible suggestion. I will stick a note in my calendar to revisit it in a few weeks. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ron Paul comments cited in United States Electoral College article

This edit caught my eye. I'm not a WP RS maven and have not refreshed my understanding about that prior to this question re your edit, however I'm wondering what your concern is. Are you concerned that this is not a reliable source for an assertion that the comment there attributed to Ron Paul actually came from him? If not, are you concerned that the comment from Ron Paul there is not sufficient to support an assertion in the article that "Proponents of the Electoral College claim that it prevents a candidate from winning the presidency by " (which does seem a bit thin to me), or is it something else? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell,

Thanks for your message. No claim to expertise or maven-ness here, either. I have no problem with the referenced article being used to support a statement like, "Ron Paul has argued ..." or "Ron Paul believes ..." or whatever. (Though such a statement isn't appropriate in that section.) But the referenced sentence asserts something broadly about proponents of the electoral college. To support a statement like that, one would expect a secondary source that reports on the views of proponents of the electoral college broadly, not a piece from a single proponent, and particularly not from a proponent who is notable for having views outside the mainstream. In retrospect, it might have been better to remove the Ron Paul article entirely and leave a citation needed tag in its place. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Harmonic series

Dear Joel B.Lewis, I'm sorry that I restored again the edit of mine you recently reverted: the reason is that I think it is not so bad after all, and may have its little place. But please let's talk constructively. I have no strong feelings about it, and in case I could even delete it. Cheers!, pma 13:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear PMajer,

Thank you for responding, and for beginning a discussion on the article talk-page. I will add my thoughts there later.

All the best,

JBL (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Abortion pro-life pro-choice

Hi Joel, Can please restore my changes at Abortion in Canada and Abortion-rights_movements. The politically correct terms pro-life and pro-choice do not adhere to the wikipedia standards. Their meaning is due to change after some decades (within 100 years). See the decision reached at Terminology and their talk page. I am aware of what you said about political English <smile> Thanks for your work here. --Ferdilouw (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ferdilouw, I will not restore your edits, because part of what you did was to replace a somewhat dodgy term ("pro-choice") with a completely unacceptable term ("pro-abortion"). If you instead replace somewhat dodgy terms with neutral terms, I will have no objection. (With "pro-life" this is a completely straightforward issue of substituting one adjective for another; with "pro-choice" it is a bit more awkward because of the various grammatical forms of "support for abortion rights" and its variants.) --JBL (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Joel_B._Lewis, please read again the decision reached at Terminology and their talk page. I did initially, like you, preferred the terms pro-choice and pro-life, but then was convinced that it won't work in the broader picture. It has already come to my attention that many pro-life organizations includes a fight against euthanasia in their agendas. Also most pro-choice organizations includes a lot of emphasis on feminism and women's rights not related to abortion only. So these terms are now politically popular with those who has abortion high on their agendas, but it is changing what they mean. In wikipedia we need to get the facts straight and communicate in non-confusing ways. Thanks. Ferdilouw (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The picture becomes more muddy as time goes on. NARAL is planning to embrace the term "reproductive freedom" since "pro-choice" lost its appeal. A cycle that seems it can continue for ever to replace aging terms as they get negative connections. On the other hand, many pro-life organizations are going wider than just anti-abortion by also fighting against people being killed by euthanasia and death-penalty. So "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" are not always synonyms. Language is never perfect! :-( Ferdilouw (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am completely uninterested in having a broader discussion about this, sorry. You made two bad edits earlier that I reverted; more recently, you made two similar edits that were not bad, and I did not revert them. Presumably you won't repeat the bad ones. I am satisfied with this situation. --JBL (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops...

... I had overlooked the typo with my revert. <Blush>. - DVdm (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@DVdm: Haha, no worries -- it was quite subtle! All the best, JBL (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Improve understanding

Hi Joel, thanks for being willing to talk to me.

1. Just btw: Is this the proper way I'm using to start a conversation in WP?
2. I would like to understand what is the argument about quoting a person (in general and in this case and why you have removed it)
3. Why does it seem to me as if a newspaper's second hand quote of a person/party/institution/company is more reliable than a first hand quote from the original source? I've seen the following been criticized as not a reliable source: "XYZ said bla bla bla" \< ref XYZ's own official site \>

Thanks for your wisdom Ferdilouw (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ferdilouw,

This is definitely an appropriate way to start a conversation. However, since the discussion pertains to a particular pair of edits on a particular article, I want to suggest that a better venue would be the article talk-page (rather than my personal talk-page). Would you mind if I copy your comment over there to respond?

Best, JBL (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(Note to future self: this concerns . --JBL (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

Please do. Ferdilouw (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; done and responded there. --JBL (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool verbal communication

Hello.
You mined a half of my phrase which was stupid, devised a subtle trap (which I barely evaded), but anyway pushed me onto defensive. Indeed, I found the word “genus”, but (initially) ignored the context of infinite fundamental groups of surfaces (whose genus is discussed). Are such games your preferred alternative to my usual “anal” style? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)