User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Rockall, a small, isolated rocky islet in the North Atlantic Ocean.

Public holidays in China

John, thank you for your note. When I made the change I started to write an explanation on the talk page, then decided I might be able to save a few minutes. Obviously I made a wrong call! I'll continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Matt's talk 04:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Trigonometric Functions

Hi JohnBlackburne, You reverted edits I made earlier today. I do not understand your reasoning for these reversions.... A) I cannot fathom why the opening section of of the page of trigonometric functions should not mention trigonometry at all and B) the very definition of an angle does not include lengths of the sides. Any function on just an angle excludes lengths of sides... So you actually, cannot, apply trigonometric functions on an angle as the rays that make up the angle are, by definition, unbounded by length. As soon as you draw a third line to bound the rays by length, you create a triangle. Hence, you cannot perform trigonometric functions on any thing other than a triangle. To say that you are applying a function to an angle immediately, by the definition of angle, discards the lengths of the sides of the angle because they don't exist: rays don't have a defined length unless you define them by, surprise, turning the angle into a tri-angle. To avoid the appearance of an edit war I would like to ask you to revert your re-visions to my edits. Thank you. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The first change made the first sentence too unwieldy: it's also unnecessary to mention trigonometry which is obvious from the article title, mentioned in the same sentence. In general the topic is mentioned as soon as possible in the first sentence – see WP:BEGIN – but for academic/specialist subjects the discipline is sometimes added first, so "In mathematics...".

As for 'an angle in a triangle' that isn't necessarily true. It's how most people learn them but at a more advanced level they are studied without reference to triangles. For example the definitions in terms of series or of the trigonometric functions of complex numbers, given later in the article, don't depend on triangles and in many cases no triangles can be found related to them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. First in your insistance that 'unwieldy' trumps correctness and secondly in your characterization of terms of series and trigonometric functions of complex numbers do not depend upon triangles. Trigonometric functions are to trigonometry as oxygen is to air and not mentioning so much as the word 'trigonometry' is a clear mistake. Secondly, The unit circle is a method of creating a triangle, by limiting the length of one ray and drawing a line from that limit to the x axis. Series are just sums of multiple triangles on the unit circle. It's basic trigonometry: you cannot use the words "sine', 'cosine', etc... without you are referring to a triangle. It's axiomatic. Series functions use these triangles en masse (sum) and tries to understand separate phenomena like periodicity and oscillation, but that doesn't mean there aren't triangles underneath it all. I repeat, trigonometric functions are not functions on an angle. That is a mistaken, and misleading, characterization. Please either revert to my edits or actually edit it yourself to overcome whatever qualms you have about 'unwieldiness'. But as it stands right now the article is incorrect and misleading. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

babbage @ cambridge

seriously man where is babbage's picture? karl marx was on this guy's nuts. he made the computer. the analytical engine. the politician. the man who did garbage in garbage out. sir charles is not being represented on the cambridge page and this is unacceptable!!! he's the man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I3roly (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne Removing www.four-dimensional-space.com from the Four Dimensional Space Article

Yeah I read all 14 of the rules that relate to Wikipedia's deletion policy, and providing a link to www.four-dimensional-space.com on the Four Dimensional Space would only be a violation or "spam" if it had nothing to do with Four Dimensional Space, but since you're the type of person to read about the Four Dimensional Space, you know that the link I provided was the BEST one to be on that article, because it isn't just ABOUT the fourth dimension, it IS the fourth dimension. So your reason for hindering the 2nd most important piece of information in this day and age wasn't based on anything legitimate. In order to be spam, or a hoax, etc. etc. would require that it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. But if there's a Wikipedia link for Coffee, then putting a link up to Starbucks ain't no problem, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.246.163 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Four-dimensional space is on the mathematical concept. Whatever the link you added is on it's nothing to do with the mathematical topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Numeral System

Hey JohnBlackburne,

The article regarding Numeral System was really informative but I found a minor mistake and hence had made the correction. You have mentioned it as Arabic Numerals or Hindu-Arabic Numerals. I am providing you proof that it is commonly know in the west as Hindu-Arabic Numerals but in actual it is Hindu Numerals and called as the Indian Numeral, the origin was in India and you too have agreed upon the same by providing proof. Hence I removed the word " Arabic Numerals " as the arabic numerals were evolved later from the hindu numerals and also the way the numerals are written are quite different. I have attached a video link below, please have a look at that and it shall explain. I am from India and hence I knew the basic history regarding it. Also their are many photos which explain the same on Google and I am more than willing to share the information if you want it. The video is from a credible source "BBC" , I hope this would be fine. I am new to WIKI and I didnt not write a summary for my change made and I shall do the same from now on. I have read your articles, they are good, keep writing and help the society.

Regards --Vishnu

The video link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtAGTFCcbTo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu.makam (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

They are commonly called Arabic Numerals, as for much of history that's where people thought they came from. As we know now the history is somewhat different but that does not change the common name. And Youtube is not a reliable source, especially not when it's copyright infringing content like that which there's a broad prohibition on linking to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Dijkstra, Prim, etc.

John, while it may have seemed like spamming (or otherwise abusive) to add my link to four separate pages, the content of the page I linked to serves to illustrate the algorithms described on those pages in (I think) a valuable way. In looking through the "Links normally to be avoided" material on the guidelines page, I don't think any of those descriptions apply to my page. (Did you even look at my page? Or did you just remove it because I posted it on four different pages?)

Furthermore, several of the existing links on those pages are to Java applets or pages requiring Flash -- which seem to run counter to item #8 under "links normally to be avoided" (unless I am misinterpreting that item). My demo is in JavaScript, which makes it more widely viewable. DarrylNester (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked, yes, after seeing it added to two pages on my watchlist. I saw no explanation of what was going on or would happen and did not think it a valuable link. But even if were a valuable link you have it wrong. If you find a link you should not come to Wikipedia and add it to multiple articles. That's spamming. It's even more frowned upon if it's your own link, as you are the last person able to evaluate the link. Instead you should create your site and if it's good enough then an editor will find it and add it to an article they're working on, or use it as a reference. That's how sites like BBC News, Wolfram get mentioned and used. They are very good sites. As for other links, see WP:OTHERSPAM – just because there are poor quality links doesn't mean more should be added.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image that should have been replaced.

The bot just deleted links to File:Rocket mass ratio versus delta-v.png, but it was deleted as there's an SVG version, File:Rocket mass ratio versus delta-v.svg. I've been though and replaced the images (only 6 occurrences); is there some way this could have been done automatically, if not by this bot by some other as I'm sure I've seen a bot doing this before?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that AutoWikiBrowser can do image replacement if you run it before the image is deleted. You might also ask at Bot Requests to see if someone's got a bot that can do it. --Carnildo (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm coming to this after the image was deleted, so it's too late for me to do that. It's certainly not worth getting a bot to do it specially for so few instances. But I thought there would be some process anyway: where an image is being deleted to be replaced get a bot to replace it instead. It's not so much the work, but that if I hadn't both noticed the deletions in my watchlist and checked the deletion discussion I would not have known to do it and the images would not have been replaced, at least not by me.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Big Data

I noticed you reverted edits I made earlier to the Big Data definition. I do not understand your reasoning here, the definitions given are only by Gartner, this is a one sided view, controlled by one company. The survey I have posted a link too (I'm a CS academic but not the author of the link) is merely a meta-survey and points to the definitions of big data that many organisations have derived. I've removed the definition I posted earlier. Please justify? (Scottishweather (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC))

The problem is WP articles don't include mentions of sources in the body of the text like that. A reference can be added to support the article content but that's not being done here: it's being added to support the mention of the reference itself. Normally references are not described: readers can read them to find out what they are about. So the content added, "Undefined By Data: A Survey of Big Data Definitions is a 2013 arXiv paper covered by the MIT Technology Review, which has surveyed the diverse range of definitions that have gained some degree of traction in the community." does not belong anywhere in the article. If the references were being used to support the article they could be added as such, but that's not being done here, so I was removing them at the same time.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok understood thanks. I'll take a look at using some references I have researched to support the body of the article instead. (Scottishweather (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC))

Oh dear

Just because something has obscene google hits, that actually denies the historical and etymological essence of the word? sigh, mos dab and a few other primacy ideas on wp stink imho, have a nice day etc satusuro 08:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

MOS:DAB etc. are the rules here, so they're what we have to follow. If you're unhappy with the page names such as what is at anchorage then the proper approach is to initiate a page move discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your newcastle railway station shot - did it have more than 10 roads/tracks in the past and what we see is a reduced version from 80 years ago? satusuro 08:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

For that see the article, e.g. Newcastle railway station. I don't know if it has that information but that would be the place to look.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your first suggestion - nah - after the shenanigans of a word used for a city in Australia I have a very very deep distrust of the process and remain unconvinced that it is worth the effort or the being beaten relentlessly and mercilessly into a pulp on the ground by the primacy cabal, anyone would have to be nuts to want to do that one.. thanks for the tip on the second - I am sure I have a book from the 1930s with a shot with more tracks. cheers satusuro 08:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot more images on commons: see [1].--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I now realise I passed through on a trip in 2009, the larger number of tracks were still in place in 1962 [2] and somewhere in the archive that I volunteer in we have a postcard looking away from the keep, amazing set of metalwork, all things considered... satusuro 08:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

bob is sorry

I did not know what the sand box was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.244.106 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The word 'country'

Hello John I noted that you have commented on the meaning of this word at the talk page of the list of tallest buildings. Would you be interested to take a look at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems and Talk:List of metro systems too, as well as the recent edit history of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Before you do, however, you may find this discussion illuminating... --IJBall (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello John is there anything that we can do? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elements (Princeton restaurant)

Removed template, article is meets WP standard for non-speedy, this would be an AfD if you disagree. Valoem ^talk 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this article does pass WP:AUD. NYT is regional, not local. Wine Spectator on the other hand is national. An AfD is not warranted in this case. Please advise. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 16:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Further clarifications to prevent such improper PRODs in the future, a bit of due diligence is necessary. Editor history is important, I have been editing twice as long as you have, suggesting that I created an article that does not pass WP:GNG requires discussion especially when the article is wikified and covered by multiple citations. In the future you will run into poorly written articles, created by less experienced editors, that are notable. This does not mean you cannot find additional sources and personally add them. Doing research by searching for reliable sources is the duty of every editor not just the creator.

In this case, that did not even apply and all citations are there. The chef was award the James Beard Foundation Award which is a national award, it was covered by NJ Monthly, which is a regional publication per WP:AUD, so is NYT, in fact if you clicked on the link provided it say "N.Y. / Region", and Wine Spectator is national which I mentioned earlier. Please be more careful next time. Thanks! Valoem ^talk 17:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a speedy nomination, it was a prod. NYT is used in it's role as a local newspaper - the references are from the local news section. As for Wine Spectator WP:AUD says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". As for the chef he is nominated for a regional award: from the web site he's one of hundreds of semi finalists and hasn't won anything yet. Once a prod is contested it can't be re-added so an AfD the only option.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

New York Times has always been considered regional unless you can find a source that suggests otherwise. The article refers to the New York region, this restaurant is in Princeton NJ which is not local, in this instance your opinion appears to be the minority. The restaurant was not mentioned in passing within the articles either. The articles directly reference the notability and culinary prestige of the restaurant. Regardless, I did some correction on errors you pointed out, per citation. Valoem ^talk 19:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AlabamaInTibet.png

Thanks for uploading File:AlabamaInTibet.png, which you've attributed to Google Earth. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Brews and Philosophy

I don't know if you are still monitoring the ANI case. However I have just posted a [edia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Moving_forward link to a suggested way forward] on one article in the hope of breaking what is an entrained pattern that is getting stressful for all involved. I admit to loosing my cool a few times in the last few months. If you have the time/energy your comments would be appreciated. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:IE6 screenshot of location map tests.png

Thanks for uploading File:IE6 screenshot of location map tests.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki

Don't know if you actively watch replies there. I know I don't. So just a note that I responded at [3]. Thanks for the reply, by the way, it brought up aspects that had not been, but should have been, addressed there. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 14:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cita web redirect not working right

The changes you have made to {{cita web}} are preventing it from working properly. Please see this article for an example. I will fix that article, but can you please fix what you did to the redirect so that it actually works while a discussion is in progress? I would prefer that new editors, even those who aren't doing exactly the right thing, be presented with something that mostly works while experienced editors continue to discuss changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved the RfD notice thinking that was causing a problem but then looking at the article I don't think that's what you mean. It's a redirect as that's the outcome of the previous discussion, linked in the current discussion. As for whether that should change that's what the current discussion is for. I'd disagree that leaving in the translating version is better: as I explained in my contributions to the RfD and on the template talk page it's better to have it redirect to {{cite web}} so editors making changes are encouraged to fix errors while they can (presumably the editor adding Italian content to an English article speaks both languages, which is more than the vast majority of editors do). Also restoring the translating version wouldn't work in this case as it translated Spanish, not Italian parameters.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You fixed it. The RfD notice needed to go below the REDIRECT statement for the template redirect to be transcluded properly in the article. Thanks.

Maybe a note about RfD notice placement on Template redirects should be in the RfD instructions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so my fix was right after all. I'd previously added noinclude to stop it erroneously including the few pages it's used on in the category. I didn't think of placing the template after the redirect until your message. Yes, it would be good if this were made clear, and added to the tools - I use Twinkle so trust it to do the right thing, with notice placement. It has a 'noinclude' check box for template nominations, so you don't mess up a heavily transcluded one. I don't know if a 'add after redirect' could be added for template redirects.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Taiwan (country) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:Taiwan (country). Since you had some involvement with the Talk:Taiwan (country) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 05:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:2nd IE6 screenshot of location map tests.png.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2nd IE6 screenshot of location map tests.png.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Polynomial transformations

Sorry, I removed your prod. This needs more attention. Please send to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now at AfD.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Template editor

Have you considered requesting the template editor bit? You meet all of the requirements, and I think you'd do a good job. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a short time ago but didn't have the required experience (pts 5 + 6) then. I'll get round to it again sometime; I find working within the limits of having to edit-reqest changes works quite well for {{zh}} and related templates as changes can be very contentious. Having to write down and explain everything often results in changes better than I'd come up with on my own just programming.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Solar Energy

You reverted my edits and I disagree. SolarEnergy.com is a good resource for wiki users interested in Solar Energy. ChristianJorn (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at it and strongly disagree. It's a commercial site with adverts and links to its own services all over the page. It's a US-centric site but Wikipedia is global; events in just one country are of no interest to the vast majority of readers. And you were adding it to multiple articles, not just that on solar energy, which is spamming: see WP:LINKSPAM. When an editor is simply adding links to multiple articles, especially ones they have not edited before, the presumption is the editor is only interested in promoting that site, not improving the articles, and the links can be quickly removed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

strange title

Do you know that in this move the title to which you moved the page is not identical to the original one? It's off by one letter. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I take that back: It differs by far more than one letter! Michael Hardy (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are the three titles the article has had so far, from earliest to latest. NONE of them is "Dao six point circle (triangle)":

Center of the Dao six points circle(triangle)

Center of the Dao six points circle (triangle))

Dao six-point circle

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know. I made a mess of it so have put in a technical move request at WP:TMR. You moved it to yet another name and the bot noticed both your moves so has (re) listed it twice at the wrong date. This is why moving such pages is a bad idea, it's confusing and breaks stuff. There's no deadline so page moves can be postponed until after the deletion discussion. If there is reason to consider it before (such as the new name is much clearer and helps with the discussion) then raise it in the discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If I see people proposing to delete a page because they are confused by an imbecilic name and I disbelieve their tacit suggestions that they've read it beyond the title of the article, then I will move it so that the discussion can get on track. Obviously people like that will not understand a proposal to change the name that's posted within the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

New River

There is a discussion regarding the related AfD you participated in, with additional Chinese-language sources. Your input would be appreciated. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 25 --j⚛e decker^talk 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC).